ii. Well-founded Fear

  Main Debates The Well-founded Fear Requirement: Demonstration of Objective v. Subjective Fears   Main Points Subjective v. Objective Fear Interpretation by State Parties Major Focus in Refugee Determinations is on the Risk of Future Persecution Assessing the Risk of Persecution in the Future Cannot be Done in the Abstract   Soft Law UNHCR, 'Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees', HCR/IP/4/Rev.1, 1979, paras. 37-47.   Cases R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Sivakumaran (1988) 1 All ER 193 (HL) (UK judicial decision analysing objective element) INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca 480 US 421 (1987) (US judicial decision stating that one in ten probability of harm can constitute well-founded fear)   Readings Core J. Hathaway, The Law of Refugee Status (Toronto: Butterworths, 1991), 69-97.  'The Michigan Guidelines on Well-Founded Fear’, March 2004.   Readings Extended J. Hathaway and W. Hicks, ’Is There a Subjective Element in the Refugee Convention’s Requirement of Well-Founded Fear?’ (2005) 26 Michigan Journal of International Law 505.

About the Reader

Section I Introduction to International Refugee Law: Background and Context


Section II International Framework for Refugee Protection


Section III European Framework for Refugee Protection


Section IV UNHCR and Other Actors Relevant to International Asylum Law

ii. Well-founded Fear

 

Main Debates

The Well-founded Fear Requirement:

Demonstration of Objective v. Subjective Fears

 

Main Points

Subjective v. Objective Fear

Interpretation by State Parties

Major Focus in Refugee Determinations is on the Risk of Future Persecution

Assessing the Risk of Persecution in the Future Cannot be Done in the Abstract

 

Soft Law

UNHCR, 'Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees', HCR/IP/4/Rev.1, 1979, paras. 37-47.

 

Cases

R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Sivakumaran (1988) 1 All ER 193 (HL) (UK judicial decision analysing objective element)

INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca 480 US 421 (1987) (US judicial decision stating that one in ten probability of harm can constitute well-founded fear)

 

Readings

Core

J. Hathaway, The Law of Refugee Status (Toronto: Butterworths, 1991), 69-97. 

'The Michigan Guidelines on Well-Founded Fear’, March 2004.

 

Readings

Extended

J. Hathaway and W. Hicks, ’Is There a Subjective Element in the Refugee Convention’s Requirement of Well-Founded Fear?’ (2005) 26 Michigan Journal of International Law 505.



Soft Law

Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status

UNHCR, 'Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees', HCR/IP/4/Rev.1, 1979, paras. 37-47.

Cases

R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Sivakumaran

R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Sivakumaran (1988) 1 All ER 193 (HL) (UK judicial decision analysing objective element)

INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca

INS v. Cardoza - Fonseca 480 US 421 (1987). (US judicial decision stating that one in ten probability of harm can constitute well-founded fear)

Readings

Core

The Law of Refugee Status

J. Hathaway, The Law of Refugee Status (Toronto: Butterworths, 1991), 69-97.

The Michigan Guidelines on Well-Founded Fear

'The Michigan Guidelines on Well-Founded Fear’, March 2004.

Extended

Is There a Subjective Element in the Refugee Convention’s Requirement of Well-Founded Fear?

J. Hathaway and W. Hicks, ’Is There a Subjective Element in the Refugee Convention’s Requirement of Well-Founded Fear?’ (2005) 26 Michigan Journal of International Law 505.