Christel Querton’s research while affiliated with University of the West of England, Bristol and other places

Based on a systematic and empirical comparative study of six European Union countries, Christel Querton explores judicial decision-making in the context of persons fleeing armed conflicts in the EU. Addressing and redressing misconceptions about the relevance of the Refugee Convention, this book demonstrates how appellate authorities across the EU approach situations of armed conflict predominantly through outdated understandings of warfare and territoriality. Thus, they apply a higher standard of proof than is warranted by international refugee law. Adopting a gender perspective, Querton also shows how appellate authorities fail to acknowledge the gender-differentiated impact of armed conflicts. Drawing from gender and security studies, this book proposes an original conceptual framework which, supported by existing international legal standards, reframes the definition of 'refugee' and better reflects the reality of violence in modern-day conflicts. In doing so, it re-asserts the Refugee Convention as the cornerstone of international protection.

The article explores whether the European Union Agency for Asylum’s country guidance (CG) reflects the international protection needs of persons fleeing armed conflicts. It uses the Agency’s guidance on Iraq as a case study through the lens of objectivity and relevance. The article highlights the disproportionate reliance on military and State-centric sources which adopt a traditional and narrow concept of security grounded in quantitative approaches. The article argues that the main sources of Country of Origin Information used in CG are inadequate to capture the present-day nature of violence in situations of armed conflict. The article makes the case for a re-balancing of sources to be included in CG that reflects wider security studies perspectives and approaches. The article also suggests that the indicators of indiscriminate violence used by the Agency are grounded in international humanitarian law norms and therefore fail to reflect international protection standards, whilst also being inadequate to capture the nature of violence in situations of contemporary armed conflict. The use of sources of information adopting wider security perspectives and qualitative approaches are encouraged and other factors, such as spheres of control by actors to the conflict, are proposed for inclusion into international protection assessments.

As co-founders and conveners of the Women in Refugee Law (WiRL) network, we are delighted to introduce this Special Issue. The contributors are WiRL members who take forward the network’s objectives of recentring the study of refugee women by reviewing the state of protection in domestic jurisdictions and internationally, identifying setbacks to adequate protection for women at risk of persecution, and proposing inclusive ways forward.

The article argues that although the gradual recognition of non-State actors as agents of persecution was hailed as a success in ensuring better protection for refugee women at risk of harm from their community or family, the associated development of non-state actors as agents of protection has had a detrimental impact on the protection of refugee women in Europe and more globally. More specifically, the article identifies various everyday practices of reliance on male family members and undefined social networks as actors of protection. These co-constructing practices are exercised by different entities involved in refugee status determination processes, including governments, national and regional courts, and regional and international asylum agencies. Although the trend has gone largely unnoticed, it has resulted in a sliding scale of protection for refugee women. The article argues that endorsing non-State actors of protection, such as male family members and undefined social networks, amounts to a requirement that women seeking asylum take action to avoid being persecuted by placing themselves under the protection of those private actors. This is contrary to international refugee law doctrine, fails to consider the possibility of new forms of harm and is, in itself, a breach of women’s human rights.

Human rights have been increasingly recognized irrespective of one's sexual orientation of gender identity (SOGI) at international, regional and domestic levels; however, legal frameworks do not yet tackle violations of such rights effectively. As a result, members of SOGI minorities may be forced to flee their countries of origin to protect themselves, often making SOGI-based asylum claims in host countries. There are no reliable statistics on the global number of SOGI claimants, but based on media and NGO reports and estimates, thousands of SOGI claimants seek international protection every year. SOGI asylum claims raise particular issues in the context of any legal system, including the role of private actors and widespread social stigma, the role of legislation criminalizing same-sex conduct in the country of origin, the assessment of credibility, and the assessment of internal relocation alternatives. In recent years there has been increasing research interest on SOGI asylum in Europe and beyond, and scholars from various disciplines have explored how SOGI claims are often treated in an inappropriate and stereotyped way in several jurisdictions, at legal, cultural and social levels, with particular repercussions in relation to claimants' proof of membership of a particular social group (PSG), risk of persecution and credibility. There has also been increasing interest in the social experiences of SOGI claimants and refugees, and their physical and mental health needs in their host countries. Despite this growing body of literature on the topic of SOGI asylum, it is clear that many theoretical, geographical and practical challenges and gaps remain. This Research Topic aims to address some of those by addressing a range of aspects that have been offered insufficient attention. It does so by bringing together interdisciplinary and original contributions that push the boundaries of our knowledge and understanding of SOGI asylum.

The article tests the claim of feminist scholars that concerns about gender have been marginalised in refugee law, by exploring the interpretation given to the concept of a ‘Particular Social Group’ set out in the 1951 Refugee Convention. It is argued that recent practice at the supranational level in the European Union has contributed to the deterioration of refugee protection standards for women seeking asylum from gender-based violence. However, the article demonstrates that a human rights-based approach to the interpretation of ‘Particular Social Group’, which is supported by extensive examples of good practice in individual Member States, has the potential to redress this.

The UK Government has remained silent regarding the envisaged system of international protection for refugees in the UK after the UK leaves the European Union (EU). In this context, this chapter contributes to knowledge by examining the likely impact of Brexit on refugee recognition in the UK from a gender perspective. A gender lens is applied to a historical analysis of the impact of the Qualification Directive 2004, part of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), on asylum practice in the UK. It is suggested that historic practice and existing international and regional refugee and human rights obligations means leaving the EU is unlikely to immediately and significantly impact decision-making in gender-related asylum claims. However, this chapter highlights the risks associated with the loss of a legal framework underpinned by fundamental rights and effective remedies.