 |
Discussion Area 
|
This part of the site is for discussion, questions and answers, and the exchange of ideas about refugee law.
Enter Discussion
| Read More
|
|
Nearly 150 countries have agreed to apply the same legal definition of a "refugee" to decide who is entitled to their protection. This site is designed to assist judges, advocates, and policymakers around the world to access leading court decisions that interpret the refugee definition set by the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol.
Our Current Collection
Our core collection contains cases from the highest national courts of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. These cases have been selected and summarized by the Director of the Refugee Caselaw Site, Professor James C. Hathaway, the James E. and Sarah A. Degan Professor of Law at the University of Michigan, and Professorial Fellow at the University of Melbourne.
The collection is managed by the Assistant Director of the Refugee Caselaw Site at the University of Michigan Law School.
Since 2004, the collection has been incrementally expanded to include decisions from 28 other asylum countries, as well as the most important decisions of lower courts and tribunals in the core collection states. These cases are selected and indexed by teams of leading experts and members of the International Association of Refugee Law Judges from around the world.
Cases are included in this database only because of their topical relevance. Users should not rely on any case as a current, correct, or complete statement of the law without further research into its subsequent history and treatment.
The University of Michigan gratefully acknowledges LEXIS -NEXIS for the use of caselaw materials, reproduced here with permission. Copyright LEXIS NEXIS, a division of Reed Elsevier, Inc. No copyright is claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a government officer or employee as part of that person's official duties.
|
