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 directional Fit For Purpose - Essay ExampleIn some other words the Returns leading aims to harmonize instauration and refugee policy among the Member States. However, the Directive has been the subject of criticism, curiously 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 establish decisions made by other Member States. Such a mandate means that harmful decisions on asylum will micturate application across the EU. Therefore if the purpose of the Returns Directive is to ensure the harmonization of refugee and asylum policies relative to the harborion of the interest of the concerned, it would issue that the Returns Directive fails in this regard. If decisions that are harmful to the individual refugee and asylum seekers are to rule common recognition, the Returns Dir ective is going to achieve an unintended and diametrically opposite purpose. In general, the Returns Directive sets out the rules for the procedure to be adopted relative to returns. This includes the return decisions,4 bans on entry,5 and admits that nationals from third countries who stay on an irregular basis ought to be permitted between a week and a month to organize their own spill 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 delimitation control in Europe.7 Secondly, the requirement that a refugee or asylum seeker be released without more after be ing held in detention for 6 months appears to have some practical difficulties.8 Mole and Meredith explains the difficulty with Article 15. Article 15 provides that once a detainee has been held for the maximum expiration, he/she must be released unheeding of any justifications on the part of domestic authorities for the refugee or asylum seekers continued detention. This means that a refugee or asylum seeker could be released without effectual documentation, or in circumstances 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 imagine 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 population once the detention reaches a 6 months at his/her own peril and in circumstances that are burdensome to the wider community. It would appear that the only method by which Article 15 can achieve the main purpose of the Returns Directive is to encourage Member States to forcibly return the asylum seeker or refugee to their country 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 reasonable prospect of removal no longer exists for legal or other considerations or the conditions laid down in