1 A Tragedy of Failures and False Expectations, Report on the Events Surrounding the Three-month Sit-in and Forced Removal of Sudanese Refugees in Cairo, September–December 2005 (Azzam Fateh (ed), 2006), available at: http://www.aucegypt.edu/ResearchatAUC/rc/fmrs/reports/Pages/default.aspx.Google Scholar

2 See Armin von Bogdandy, Philipp Dann & Matthias Goldmann, Developing the Publicness of Public International Law: Towards a Legal Framework for Global Governance Activities, in this issue.Google Scholar

3 For a comprehensive historical recapitulation of the international refugee Regime, see Barnett, Laura, Global Governance and the Evolution of the International Refugee Regime, 14 International Journal of Refugee Law (INTJREFL) 238 (2002); Guy S. Goodwin-Gil, The Language of Protection, 1 INTJREFL 6 (1989); Wailtrud von Glahn, Der Kompetenzwandel internationaler Flüchtlingsorganisation: von Völkerbund bis zu den Vereinten Nationen (1992); Grahl-Madsen, Atle, The European Tradition of Asylum and the Development of Refugee Law, in The Land Beyond: Collected Essays on Refugee Law and Policy 34 (Peter Macalister-Smith & Gudmundur Alfredsson eds., 2001).Google Scholar

4 Goodwin-Gil (note 3), at 8.Google Scholar

5 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (CSR51), Geneva, 28 July 1951, UNTS, Vol. 189, 150.Google Scholar

6 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (CSRP67), New York, 31 January 1967, UNTS, Vol. 606, 267.Google Scholar

7 Von Bogdandy, Dann & Goldmann, (note 2). See Benedict Kingsbury, Nico Krisch & Stewart, Richard, Introduction: Global Governance and Global Administrative Law in the International Legal Order, 17 European Journal of International Law (EJIL) 1 (2006); Eberhard Schmidt-Aßmann, Die Herausforderung der Verwaltungsrechtswissenschaft durch die Internationalisierung der Verwaltungsbeziehungen, 45 Der Staat 315 (2006).Google Scholar

8 UNHCR, Global Report 2007, 16, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/publ/PUBL/484807202.pdf. For five elements of refugee definition James C. Hathaway, The Law of Refugee Status (1991).Google Scholar

9 See UNHCR, Note on Determination of Refugee Status under International Instruments, EC/SCP/5 (24 August, 1977), available at: http://www.unhcr.org/excom/EXCOM/3ae68cc04.html.Google Scholar

10 About 95 per cent of these adjudications were concentrated in Cameroon, Egypt, Hong Kong SAR (China), Jordan, Kenya, India, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Lebanon, Malaysia, Morocco, Pakistan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Turkey and Yemen. UNHCR, Global Report 2006, 26–27, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/publ/PUBL/4666d25b0.pdf.Google Scholar

11 RSDWatch.org, UNHCR RSD continues to grow in 2006, while government RSD declines again (August 2007), available at: http://www.rsdwatch.org/index_files/Page1747.htm.Google Scholar

12 Statement available at: http://www.unhcr.org/doclist/admin/42a409182.html.Google Scholar

13 Kagan, Micael, The Beleaguered Gatekeeper: Protection Challenges Posed by UNHCR Refugee Status Determination, 18 INTJREFL 2 (2005).Google Scholar

14 For explicit criticism, see Alexander, Michael, Refugee Status Determination Conducted by UNHCR, 11 INTJREFL 251 (1999); Kagan, Michael, Frontier Justice: Legal Aid and UNHCR Refugee Status Determination in Egypt, 19 Journal of Refugee Studies 45 (2006); Id. (note 13); Pallis, Mark, The Operation of UNHCR's Accountability Mechanisms, 37 New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 869 (2005); Chimni, B.S., Co-Option and Resistance: Two Faces of Global Administrative Law, 37 N.Y.U. Journal of International Law and Politics 799 (2005); RSDWatch.org, No Margin for Error: Implementation of UNHCR's Procedural Standards for refugee status determination at selected UNHCR field offices in 2006 (September 2006), available at: http://www.rsdwatch.org/index_files/Page397.htm.Google Scholar

15 Eur. Court H.R., D. et autres c. Turquie, Judgment of 22 June 2006, App. no. 24245/03.Google Scholar

16 UNHCR, Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination under UNHCR's Mandate (September 2005), 1–2, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/publ/PUBL/4316f0c02.html.Google Scholar

17 This aspect is critically reflected also in the recent article by James C. Hathaway, Why Refugee Law Still Matters, 8 (1) Melbourne Journal of International Law 89–103 (2007).Google Scholar

18 Klabbers, Jan, The Changing Image of International Organizations, in The legitimacy of international organizations 221, 222 (Jean-Marc Coicaud & Veijo Heiskanen eds., 2001); José E. Alvarez, International Organizations: Then and Now, 100 American Journal of International Law 324 (2006), Chimni, B. S., International Institutions Today: An Imperial Global State in the Making, 15 European Journal of International Law 1 (2004).Google Scholar

19 See also Clemens Feinaeugle, in this issue.Google Scholar

20 See Schmidt-Aßmann (note 7), at 322–323.Google Scholar

21 See Grahl-Madsen (note 3), at 129.Google Scholar

22 UN GA Res. 428 (V) of 14 December 1950, Annex.Google Scholar

23 Kälin, Walter, Supervising the 1951 Covention Relating to the Status of Refugees: Article 35 and beyond, in Refugee Protection in International Law: UNHCR's Global Consultations on International Law 619 (Erika Feller, Volker Türk & Frances Nicholson eds., 2003).Google Scholar

24 These are: (a) Promoting the conclusion and ratification of international conventions for the protection of refugees, supervising their application and proposing amendments thereto; (b) Promoting through special agreements with Governments the execution of any measures calculated to improve the situation of refugees and to reduce the number requiring protection; (c) Assisting governmental and private efforts to promote voluntary repatriation or assimilation within new national communities; (d) Promoting the admission of refugees, not excluding those in the most destitute categories, to the territories of States; (e) Endeavouring to obtain permission for refugees to transfer their assets and especially those necessary for their resettlement; (f) Obtaining from Governments information concerning the number and conditions of refugees in their territories and the laws and regulations concerning them; (g) Keeping in close touch with the Governments and inter-governmental organizations concerned; (h) Establishing contact in such manner as he may think best with private organizations dealing with refugee questions; (i) Facilitating the co-ordination of the efforts of private organizations concerned with the welfare of refugees.Google Scholar

25 Kälin (note 23), at 623. For questions of general competence growth of UNHCR, see Gilbert, Geoff, Rights, Legitimate Expectations, Needs and Responsibilities: UNHCR and the New World Order, 10 INTJREFL 349 (1998).Google Scholar

26 Kälin (note 23), at 623. For the Lebanon example of opposing and disrespecting UNHCR's RSD, see Kagan (note 13), at 14. In 2003 however, UNHCR and the Lebanese General Security Office signed a Memorandum of Understanding providing for rights to one-year residence, freedom of movement and identity cards for registered refugees, thus affording UNHCR one year to organize resettlement possibilities for each refugee. UNCHR, Global Report 2003, at 301, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/publ/PUBL/40c6d75e0.pdf.Google Scholar

27 Kagan, (note 13), at 16. See also UNHCR, Note on Determination of Refugee Status under International Instruments (note 9).Google Scholar

28 For a Model Cooperation Agreement: Marjoleine Zieck, UNHCR's worldwide presence in the field: A legal analysis of UNHCR's cooperation agreements 335 (2006).Google Scholar

29 Among such countries are also Belgium, Greece, Netherlands, Turkey, UK, Australia, Canada and US. Id. at 294.Google Scholar

30 Zieck (note 28), at 294. For an example of national legislation see Article 7 (Institutions with which cooperation is to be carried out) of the Regulation No. 1994/6169, Turkey, Official Gazette, 30 November 1994 (English translation available at: http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refworld/rwmain. This article is the only legislative norm that refers to UNHCR although in practice it is UNHCR that conducts RSD for non-European asylum seekers.Google Scholar

31 Kagan (note 14), at 46.Google Scholar

32 RSDWatch.org (note 14); Pallis (note 14); Kagan (note 13); Alexander (note 14); Verdirame Guglielmo & Barbara E Harrell-Bond, Rights in Exile: Janus-Faced Humanitarianism 78 (2005); Abuya, Edwin Odhiambo & Wachira, George Mukundi, Assesing Asylum Claims in Africa: Missing or Meeting Standards?, 53 Netherlands International Law Review 171 (2006).Google Scholar

33 For standard Refugee Certificate and Notification of Negative RSD Decision cf. UNHCR, Standards (note 16), at Annex 6–1, 8–1.Google Scholar

34 See ExCom's conclusions regarding states. Here, it considered that the „very purpose of the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol implies that refugee status determined by one Contracting State will be recognized also by the other Contracting States.“ UN GA ExCom, Extraterritorial Effect of the Determination of Refugee Status, GA Document No. 12 A (A/33/12/Add.1) (October 1978).Google Scholar

35 Supra, note 26.Google Scholar

36 Kagan (note 13), at 14–15.Google Scholar

37 Supra, note 26.Google Scholar

38 Supra, note 30.Google Scholar

39 In the process of EU accession the country however has obliged itself to lift this limitation. UNHCR, Global Report 2006 (note 10), 446.Google Scholar

40 Eur. Court H.R., D. et autres (note 15).Google Scholar

41 Elizabeth Frantz, Report on the Situation of Refugees in Turkey: Findings of a Five-week Exploratory Study December 2002-January 2003, 16 (2003), available at: http://www.aucegypt.edu/ResearchatAUC/rc/fmrs/reports/Pages/default.aspx.Google Scholar

42 Id. at 18.Google Scholar

43 Michael Kagan, Assessment of Refugee Status Determination Procedure at UNHCR's Cairo Office 2001–2002, Forced Migration and Refugee Studies Working Paper No. 1, 7 (2002), available at: http://www.aucegypt.edu/ResearchatAUC/rc/fmrs/reports/Pages/default.aspx; Katarzyna Grabska, Who Asked Them Anyway? Rights, Policies and Wellbeing of Refugees in Egypt 13, 25 (2006), available at: http://www.aucegypt.edu/ResearchatAUC/rc/fmrs/reports/Pages/default.aspx.Google Scholar

44 Kagan (note 43), at 7; Emily E. Arnold-Fernandez & Kagan, Michael, UN Decision-Making for Refugee Status: Implications for American Asylum Policy, 8 ABA Section of International Law Immigration and Naturalization Committee Newsletter 5 (2005).Google Scholar

45 P.L. 109–13.Google Scholar

46 Arnold-Fernandez & Kagan (note 44), at 6.Google Scholar

47 VG Freiburg, 07.05.2002, Decision Nr. 7 K 10114/00 (cf. also the opinion of UNHCR of 10.08.2000); OVG Lüneburg, 07.12.2005, Decision Nr. 11 LB 193/04; OVG Münster, 27.09.2006, Decision Nr. 8 A 1363/05. The cited decisions also summarize opinions issued by UNHCR on enquiries of the court. According to these opinions, Mandate refugees should enjoy international protection, however, recognition as Mandate refugee does not have any direct binding effect on German Asylum procedure, but it does have strong indicative character.Google Scholar

48 Schmidt-Aßmann (note 7), at 322–323.Google Scholar

49 UNHCR, Helping Refugees: An Introduction into UNHCR (2006 Edition), available at: http://www.unhcr.org/basics/BASICS/420cc0432.html#emergency.Google Scholar

50 UN GA Res. 428 (V) of 14 December 1950.Google Scholar

51 UN GA Res. 58/153 of 24 February 2004.Google Scholar

52 For assessment of the scholarly opinions, see Völker Türk, Der Flüchtlingshochkommisariat der Vereinten Nationen (UNHCR) 115, 118 (1992); Zieck (note 28), at 100.Google Scholar

53 UN GA Res. 428 (V) of 14 December 1950, Annex.Google Scholar

54 Türk (note 52), at 118. Such treaty power can also be found in OUA Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa, 10 September 1969, Art. VIII, UNTS, Vol. 1001, 45.Google Scholar

55 UN GA Res. 1166 (XII) of 26 November 1957.Google Scholar

56 UN ECOSOC Res. 672 (XXV) of 30 April 1958.Google Scholar

57 Türk (note 52), at 105.Google Scholar

58 Feller, Erika & Klug, Anja, Refugees, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), in Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Rüdiger Wolfrum ed., 2008), available at: www.mpepil.com.Google Scholar

59 UNHCR, UNHCR 2007 Financial Overview, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/partners/PARTNERS/45f027512.pdf.Google Scholar

60 See Hathaway (note 11).Google Scholar

61 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/Eng/REV.1, 4 (Reedited, January 1992), available at: http://www.unhcr.org/publ/PUBL/3d58e13b4.pdf. Italics added by the author.Google Scholar

62 UNHCR, A Thematic Compilation of Executive Committee Conclusions (2nd Edition, June 2005), available at: http://www.unhcr.org/excom/3bb1cb676.html.Google Scholar

63 Pallis (note 14), at 873; Chimni (note 14), at 820.Google Scholar

64 Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/doclist/publ/3bc17bbc4.html.Google Scholar

65 UNHCR, Standards (note 16), further resources listed in Annex 1–1.Google Scholar

66 Pallis (note 14), at 874.Google Scholar

67 Pallis (note 14), at 872, 880, 881. On the concrete procedural standards Alexander (note 14), at 251. However, it must be noted that the authoritative ICCPR commentary does not answer the question whether asylum procedures ultimately fall under the scope of article 14 (1). But it does note that „most decisions of administrative authorities, which determine individual rights, need to be subject to full judicial review by an independent and impartial tribunal.“ Manfred Nowak, U.N. Convenant on Civil and Political Rights: CCPR Commentary 317, marg. 20 (2nd revised edition, 2005). More positive, see Persaud, Santhosh, Protecting refugees and asylum seekers under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, New Issues in Refugee Research, Research Paper No. 132, 15 (2006), available at: http://www.unhcr.org/doclist/research/3b8a11284.html. The recent Human Rights Committee General Comment further lists asylum seekers and refugees explicitly among the groups to which the right of access to courts and tribunals and equality before them according to article 14 CCPR must be available. Human Rights Committee, Ninetieth Session. General Comment No. 32. Article 14: Right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, CCPR/c/GC/32, 3 (21 August 2007). On the applicability of article 14 CCPR for administrative procedures see Jochen von Bernstorff, in this issue.Google Scholar

68 The latest report: ILC, Fifty-ninth session, Fifth report on responsibility of international organizations, A/CN.4/583 (2007).Google Scholar

69 UNGA, Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixtieth session Supplement No. 10, A/60/10, 87 (2005).Google Scholar

70 Pallis (note 14), at 872, 880.Google Scholar

71 Id. at 873.Google Scholar

72 Andrew Clapham, Human Rights Obligations of Non-State Actors 137 (2006).Google Scholar

73 Id. at 109; Wilde, Ralph, Quis Custodiet Ipso Custodes?: Why and How UNHCR Governance of ‚Development’ Refugee Camps Should Be Subject to International Human Rights Law, 1 Yale Human Rights and Development Law Journal 107 (1998).Google Scholar

74 For a summary of the conceptions see Mégret, Frederic & Hoffmann, Florian, The UN as a Human Rights Violator? Some Reflections on the United Nations Changing Human Rights Responsibilities, 25 Human Rights Quarterly 314, 316 (2003).Google Scholar

75 See Erika De Wet, The Chapter VII Powers of the United Nations Security Council 200 (2004).Google Scholar

76 UNHCR, Standards (note 16), 1–2.Google Scholar

77 Id. at 1–2.Google Scholar

78 Id. at 1–4.Google Scholar

79 Id. at 12–1 – 12–5.Google Scholar

80 Chimni (note 14), at 825.Google Scholar

81 UNHCR, Standards (note 16), at 9–1.Google Scholar

82 Id. at 10–1.Google Scholar

83 Id. at 11–1.Google Scholar

84 Id. at 3–1.Google Scholar

85 Id. at 3–11.Google Scholar

86 Id. at Annex 3–3.Google Scholar

87 Id. at 4–1.Google Scholar

88 Critically on this issue in practice Kagan (note 14), at 45.Google Scholar

89 Id. at 6–2.Google Scholar

90 Id. at Annex 6–1.Google Scholar

91 Id. at 7–1 et seq. Google Scholar

92 Id. at Annex 7–1.Google Scholar

93 UNHCR, Standards (note 16) 7–5.Google Scholar

94 Supra, note 14.Google Scholar

95 RSDWatch.org (note 14).Google Scholar

96 See Erika Feller, Judicial or Administrative Protection – Legal Systems Within the Asylum Procedures, in The Asylum Process and the Rule of Law (International Association of Refugee Law Judges) 39 (2006). See also UN GA ExCom, Determination of Refugee Status GA Document No. 12 A (A/32/12/Add.1) (October 1977).Google Scholar

97 On Accountability of international institutions, see Erika De Wet, Holding International Institutions Accountable: The Complementary Role of Non-Judicial Oversight Mechanisms and Judicial Review, in this issue.Google Scholar

98 UNHCR, Standards (note 16), at 1–7, 4–5.Google Scholar

99 Id. at 4–16.Google Scholar

100 Id. at 4–18.Google Scholar

101 Id. at 4–18.Google Scholar

102 Id. at 4–18.Google Scholar

103 For more comprehensive analysis of all three mechanisms, see Pallis (note 14), at 887.Google Scholar

104 UNHCR EPAU, UNHCR evaluation policy 3,4 (September 2002), available at: http://www.unhcr.org/research/RESEARCH/3d99a0f74.pdf.Google Scholar

105 UNHCR, Global Appeal 2007, 308, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/static/publ/ga2007/ga2007toc.htm.Google Scholar

106 Id. at 307.Google Scholar

107 Pallis (note 14), at 902.Google Scholar

108 UNHCR, Global Appeal 2007 (note 105), at 307.Google Scholar

109 In the yearly reports to the ExCom IGO in the last years has not even included the statistical information on refugee complaints. In its 2004 Report it only stated: ‘The majority of complaints were received from UNHCR staff members. However, many of them were based on complaints made by refugees and asylum seekers.’ UNGA ExCom, Report on UNHCR's inspection and investigation activities A/AC.96/993, note 28, (July 2004). Pallis refers in his article to 1% (2003) −7% (2004) of all complaints. Pallis (note 14), at 897.Google Scholar

110 See UN GA, ExCom, Report on UNHCR's inspection and investigation activities, A/AC.96/993 (July 2004), UN GA, ExCom, Report on activities of the Inspector General's Office, A/AC.96/1028 (July 2006), UN GA, ExCom, Report on activities of the Inspector General's Office, A/AC.96/1042 (July 2007).Google Scholar

111 Pallis (note 14), at 897.Google Scholar

112 Executive Office, Enhancing Independence of the Office of the Inspector General, Note for Informal Consultative Meeting, note 6, (21 July 2005), available at: http://www.unhcr.org/excom/EXCOM/42de51282.pdf.Google Scholar

113 Id. at note 3; UNHCR ExCom, Oversight: Report of the Joint Inspection Unit with Annexes, EC/54/SC/CRP.21, (23 August 2004), available at: http://www.unhcr.org/excom/EXCOM/41348eff4.pdf.Google Scholar

114 UN GA Res. 48/218 B of 12 August 1994.Google Scholar

115 Yearly reports available at: http://www.un.org/Depts/oios/annual_reports.htm.Google Scholar

116 Alexander (note 14), at 287.Google Scholar

117 Kagan (note 13), at 27. For comments, see B.S. Chimni, Global Administrative Law: Winners and Loosers 23 (2005), available at: http://www.iilj.org/GAL/documents/ChimniPaper.pdf. Pallis on the other hand also appraises the potential of IGO for individual complaints by placing its permanent representative in every office. Pallis (note 14), at 915.Google Scholar

118 Metaphor used in Catherine Brölmann, The Institutional Veil in Public International Law: International Organizations and the Law of Treaties (2005).Google Scholar

119 Eur. Court H.R., Matthews v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of 18 February 1999, App. no. 24833/94, para 34.Google Scholar

120 For a similar approach, see Jean d'Aspremont, Abuse of the Legal Personality of International Organisations and the Responsibility of Member States, 4 (1) International Organizations Law Review 91–119 (2007).Google Scholar