For The Sake Of Harmonising Asylum And Refugee Policy In Europe Is The Essay

For The Sake Of Harmonising Asylum And Refugee Policy In Europe Is The Returns directive Fit For Purpose - seek ExampleIn other words the Returns directing aims to harmonize asylum and refugee policy among the Member States. However, the leading has been the subject of criticism, particularly from Non-government Organizations and human rights groups internationally. A major concern as expressed by the UNHCR is the Returns Directive mandate that Member States recognize return decisions made by other Member States. Such a mandate means that harmful decisions on asylum will have application across the EU. hence if the purpose of the Returns Directive is to ensure the harmonisation of refugee and asylum policies relative to the entertainion of the interest of the concerned, it would appear that the Returns Directive fails in this regard. If decisions that atomic number 18 harmful to the individual refugee and asylum seekers ar to receive common recognition, the Returns Directive is liberation to achieve an unintended and diametrically opposite purpose. In general, the Returns Directive sets out the rules for the procedure to be choose relative to returns. This includes the return decisions,4 bans on entry,5 and provides that nationals from third countries who stay on an irregular basis ought to be permitted amongst a week and a month to organize their own departure prior to forced exile.6 In many ways these procedural guidelines do not deal with substantive issues and as such do not provide for a harmonious method for exacting asylum and refugee policies. To begin with there are no guidelines for regulating how forced departure should be practiced and whether or not refoulement should be denied in cases where return could result in serious consequences for the asylum seeker or refugee. The emphasis therefore appears to be security and border control in Europe.7 Secondly, the requirement that a refugee or asylum seeker be released without to a greater ext ent after being held in detention for 6 months appears to have some practical difficulties.8 inguen and Meredith explains the difficulty with Article 15. Article 15 provides that once a detainee has been held for the maximum period, he/she essential be released regardless of any justifications on the part of domestic authorities for the refugee or asylum seekers keep detention. This means that a refugee or asylum seeker could be released without valid documentation, or in peck where he or she is violent, has no methods by which to support himself/herself and certainly has no place to live.9 It is difficult to call back how Article 15 purports to achieve harmonization of European policy on asylum and refugee policies that seek to protect the interest of those individuals. Article 15 effectively ensures that the asylum seeker and the refugee are placed into the general community once the detention reaches a 6 months at his/her own peril and in circumstances that are burdensome t o the wider community. It would appear that the only method by which Article 15 can achieve the briny purpose of the Returns Directive is to encourage Member States to forcibly return the asylum seeker or refugee to their inelegant of origin as quickly as possible. As previously noted, this practice is also inconsistent with the Returns harmonization of policies intended to protect the interest of the individuals concerned. In fact the Returns Directive, thus far reflects the opinion of Schains, that the Returns Directive is more concerned with border control and security.10 Moreover, Article 15(5) which provides for a limited period of detention, contradicts Article 15(4) which provides When it appears that a probable prospect of removal no longer exists for legal or other considerations or the conditions laid conquer in