What is it about?
Drawing on data from the United Kingdom, Sweden, Germany, and Switzerland, Palacios-Arapiles shows in this article that during the process of interpreting the refugee definition and applying it to the context of the Eritrean Military/National Service Programme (MNSP), the definition is subject to various interpretations and applications. As a result, the treatment of similarly situated Eritrean asylum applications differs from one country to another. The article illustrates that asylum courts from the selected jurisdictions sideline relevant factors that classify the MNSP as slavery by failing to engage normatively with the international law definition of slavery. The findings suggest that a defective incorporation of international legal instruments in the assessment of protection claims based on slavery contributes to conflicting interpretations and applications of the refugee definition and can unduly de-legitimise Eritrean applications for refugee status as ‘unwanted migrants’.
Featured Image
Photo by Roger Bradshaw on Unsplash
Why is it important?
In the absence of supranational supervision and scholarly attention, the emerging jurisprudence concerning protection claims based on the MNSP/slavery remains largely confined in the shadows, away from scrutiny or critics. This article seeks to fill the existing gap in the scholarship.
Perspectives
The results of this study show that the Mediterranean Sea should not be a place of death but of freedom, and Europe, a place of refuge for Eritreans fleeing the Eritrean Military/National Service Programme.
Sara Palacios Arapiles
University of Nottingham
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: European Divergent Approaches to Protection Claims Based on the Eritrean Military/National Service Programme, International Community Law Review, August 2022, Brill,
DOI: 10.1163/18719732-bja10089.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
