Veronika Flegar

The term vulnerability is often used in law and policy to refer to disadvantaged, marginalized or excluded human beings. This book explores how a vulnerability focus in basic assistance policies can contribute to substantive equality and therefore to the realization of universal human rights in the migration context. It concentrates on the potential that such a vulnerability focus can have to mitigate stigmatization and stereotyping and to facilitate socio-economic participation.

This article analyzes unhcr’s understanding of disabled refugees during the 1959–1960 World Refugee Year (wry) and the 1981 International Year of Disabled Persons (iydp) and, specifically, how this understanding is intertwined with the international-protection activities that were undertaken on their behalf during both years. This analysis is based on archival material on the two years from the unhcr archives in Geneva. The article finds that unhcr’s engagement with disabled refugees during the two UN observances is characterized by the economic rationale of self-sufficiency and the humanitarian rationale of vulnerability – depending on what was perceived as the best-selling frame in light of the political climate at the time. Both cases therefore highlight the political nature of classifications and frames for the international protection of disabled refugees and expose how the international protection of disabled refugees is not static but, instead, remains repeatedly reconstructed.

This article sheds light on the explicit identification and labelling of forced migrant women and girls as vulnerable and the effect this seems to have on their human rights protection under the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). The article focuses on the principal international body directly concerned with the human rights of women and girls, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW Committee) and combines legal doctrinal analysis with a critical reflection in light of the normative-theoretical notion of universal vulnerability. The notion of universal vulnerability has been suggested to close protection gaps and contribute to a more inclusive human rights framework; yet, the vulnerability label has been criticized as potentially stigmatizing and paternalizing. The article therefore critically assesses whether and to what extent explicit vulnerability references by the cedaw Committee contribute to the protection and/or stigmatization of forced migrant women and girls. The analysis reveals that the vulnerability label adopted by the cedaw Committee is not (yet) entirely in line with the universal vulnerability notion's potential for the protection of human rights. Yet, the article suggests that vulnerability references can nevertheless contribute to human rights protection since they help to identify protection priorities and clarify state obligations towards those identified as vulnerable. This positive effect for the protection of Downloaded from Brill.

The legal and policy discourse on migration seems to increasingly rely upon the labelling of particularly vulnerable persons or groups – often seemingly without critical reflection upon the stereotypes and biases potentially involved in such labelling. This article examines the content and meaning of such vulnerability references in the policy documents of UNHCR and IOM. Their policy categories are often consciously or unconsciously reproduced in discussions on the governance of migration. Although this reproduction necessarily means that alternative interpretations are being silenced, the discursive authority of both organizations seems to only rarely be questioned. In focusing on the meaning(s) implied by the vulnerability label employed by both organizations, this article seeks to increase awareness for this process of meaning-making and hopes to contribute to a nuanced and inclusive dialogue in the international governance of migration.

The report titled “Quickscan Gezondheidszorg asielzoekerskinderen in Nederland” was commissioned and published by the UNICEF-led Working Group on Children in Asylum Seeker Centres (Werkgroep Kind in azc). The central question of this research is how the access to and quality of health care and youth care for asylum-seeking children is organized and functions in the Netherlands. The report is based on desk research and qualitative semi-structured interviews with persons involved in the provision of health care to asylum-seeking children at the policy and practical level. The report highlights central aspects of the legal framework, the responsibilities of different organizations and the financing of health care, relevant supervision and monitoring mechanisms as well as the implementation of health policies and the collaboration of health care providers and other organizations concerned with asylum-seeking children in the Netherlands. The research points to the crucial importance of timely information provision, clear standards and a systematic process of transferal and relocation as well as to the role of schools in the prevention of health issues, to the necessity of preventive health care for the mental health of asylum-seeking children and to the importance of a constructive relationship between the parents of asylum-seeking children and health care providers. It ends with recommendations for improving the current situation and questions for future research on this issue.

" Economic refugees " largely remain outside the international protection regimes of refugee and human rights law. 1 Nevertheless, recent case law of the Euro-pean Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) opens up limited possibilities for economic refugees to rely on Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The present paper asks: can, and if so, under what circumstances does, the deportation to situations of economic, social and cultural rights (ESCR) violations caused by conditions of extreme poverty form a violation of the non-refoulement principle? The present study conducts a doctrinal legal analysis of the most remarkable cases of the ECtHR in that respect. The delimitation and use of the concepts of exceptional circumstances and vulnerability are especially intriguing in this regard and are the main focus of this paper. Most groundbreaking was the case of MSS v Belgium and Greece in which the ECtHR recognized the living conditions of " most extreme poverty " of the applicant in Greece as falling within the scope of Article 3 ECHR. With the subsequent cases of Sufi and Elmi v UK, SHH v UK and Tarakhel v Switzerland, the innovative character of MSS v Belgium and Greece has been challenged, redefined and put into perspective. It can be concluded that the ECtHR has increasingly recognized vulnerability as a relevant criterion to be applied in addition to, or possibly even as a substitute for, the previously applied exceptional circumstances standard. The burden of proof for vulnerability seems to be lower than for the exceptional circumstances threshold and more attention seems to be paid to the general environment and situation in the country of origin rather than only to the individual circumstances of the applicant.

The principle of non-discrimination in Article 2 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) holds that its rights are equally applicable to ‘everyone’. Nevertheless, evidence from the national context suggests that access to health care for asylum seekers and undocumented migrants depends on their legal status and in particular, preventive health care is often inaccessible to them. This has led to several hitherto under-investigated questions concerning the right to health in this context: Does a right to preventive health care exist at the international level? If so, what individual rights and State obligations are involved in this right? How does the principle of non-discrimination relate to this right? Does this principle offer (additional) protection to asylum seekers and undocumented migrants in terms of a possible right to preventive health care? Method: The main issue is what the principle of non-discrimination has to offer for the preventive health care of persons without a regular residence status. Based on an analysis of the non-binding, but authoritative, General Comments of the United Nations (UN) Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), the paper takes an exploratory style that goes beyond traditional legal analysis and investigates how the law should be interpreted in order to enhance its effectiveness and relevance. Results and Discussion: Strictly speaking, there is no explicit, binding right to preventive health care for asylum seekers or undocumented migrants in the ICESCR itself.2 Nevertheless, implications can be found in the CESCR General Comments Number 14 and 20.3 Particularly, if one takes into account how the law should be interpreted according to CESCR General Comment 14 (CESCR GC 14), there should be a right to preventive health care for asylum seekers and undocumented migrants. The exact content of such a right, however, is less clearly defined. Further, the principle of non-discrimination is not conclusive as to whether the right to health would apply equally to asylum seekers and/or undocumented migrants as it would to nationals. Conclusion: For non-discrimination to be truly unambiguous with regard to the preventive health care of asylum seekers and undocumented migrants, it would be necessary to strike out the ‘general welfare’ provision of CESCR General Comment 20 (CESCR GC 20) and to clearly state that the ‘other status’ criterion also entails ‘residence status’. In that sense, the principle of non-discrimination is, indeed, an empty promise and the right to preventive health care for asylum seekers and undocumented migrants seems to be much better protected under the CESCR GC 14’s non-discriminatory interpretation of the right to health itself.

With the high number of asylum seekers arriving in Europe, states increasingly struggle to simultaneously accommodate the interests of their citizens and abide by their human rights obligations. Particularly in light of the increasing fear of terrorism in Europe tensions may arise between security concerns and human rights. I suggest that anyone interested in human rights should think about these developments as the current number of people requesting asylum in Europe is not only a test case for the integration capacity of Germany or for the functioning of the European Union, but also for the perseverance and strength of human rights. The goal of this post is not to provide a legal analysis of the issue but rather to raise awareness for the role of human rights in this context.

Newspaper article on the 'bed, bath and bread' debate about minimum rights of reception for undocumented migrants in the Netherlands following the case of CEC v the Netherlands (European Committee of Social Rights). According to European human rights law, the Netherlands is not legally obliged to grant undocumented migrants access to food and housing; nonetheless they are not entirely deprived of any rights.

Article in the Dutch newspapers 'Leeuwarder Courant' and 'Dagblad van het Noorden' (publication date: 23 April 2015).

Deportation of persons with a medical condition: the Dutch National ombudsman criticizes the immigration authorities of the Netherlands for an insufficiently clear evaluation of the medical resources available in the country of origin. At the same time, Judge Pinto de Albuquerque points to the meager guidance of the European Court of Human Rights in that respect in his dissenting opinion to the recent case of S. J. v Belgium.

Contribution on the Global Health Law Groningen blog.

Presentation at the Conference 'Whose Welfare' at Leiden University, 19 - 20 January 2017. More information: http://www.hsozkult.de/conferencereport/id/tagungsberichte-7080?title=whose-welfare-fresh-perspectives-on-the-post-war-welfare-state-and-its-global-entanglements

Analysis of the right to preventive health care under the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). The study found that while asylum-seeking children enjoy extensive rights to preventive health care under the CRC, the protection of undocumented migrant children is much less explicit but may implicitly be derived from terms such as 'all children' or 'all children on [the states'] territory' (CRC Article 24 and CRC General Comment 15). Regardless of any such limitations in the personal scope, preventive health care for children should include at least immunization, education and information, screening programmes and attention for the social determinants to health (CRC General Comments 6, 9 and 15).

Presented on 15 September 2015 in Berlin at the EFI Conference The Right to Health - An Empty Promise? organized by the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg

Discussion of the relevance and development of the criteria of 'exceptional circumstances' and 'vulnerability' in the determination of non-refoulement violations under Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

Presentation at the Human Rights Law Centre Annual Student Conference "Migration and Human Rights: Perception v Reality", 07 March 2015, University of Nottingham

Discussion of the recent cases Dano v Jobcenter Leipzig (Court of Justice of the European Union) and CEC/Feantsa v the Netherlands (European Committee of Social Rights) and the question of whether some sort of basic social protection is emerging for vulnerable persons in extreme need.

PROVIR Closing Conference "Exceptional welfare: Dilemmas in/of irregular migration", 19 - 21 November 2014, University of Bergen