English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Under international law refugee status is granted to those who fall within the definition of a refugee under the Refugee Convention 1951.¹ The Convention, however, does not implement any mechanisms which directly implement its principles. It is therefore up to the State to ensure that refugee rights are implemented directly. James Hathaway suggests two mechanisms to implement the Convention, namely solution-oriented temporary protection and shared responsibility among states, in order to safeguard practical access to meaningful asylum, but acknowledging that any system must take into account the self-interests of states and so must establish effective control systems and to minimize risks.² Although discussion on such proposals is beyond the ambit of this work, it is important as it shows that in the absence of any implementing or remedial mechanisms under the Convention, it is important to have a system which effectively balances the access to asylum with the interests of the State in keeping the risks and numbers of asylum seekers low.

Comparing European Union and Dutch asylum law procedures: Balancing efficiency and substantive examination in asylum applications