Utkast upplägg konferens 7-8 maj 2015 (tor

Nordic Asylum Law Seminar: Workshop schedule
Workshops Thursday 7 May, 2-4.30 pm
Discrimination in the asylum procedure
Chair: Stephen Meili (room 11:128)
Deniz Akin: What can we learn from queer asylum seekers? Negotiating sexuality to be
legible in Norway
Hanna Wikström: Genuineness assessment: Parameters and Logics in Asylum Cases
Concerning Religious Faith and Sexual Orientation
Magdalena Smieszek: Reception vs. Rights: Conflicts and convergences in European and
international jurisprudence concerning asylum-seekers’ economic and social rights
Aleksandra Popovic: (Un)equal and (Ir)regular
Maria Bexelius: Refugee law and the production of (in)equality
Applicants with special needs
Chair: Elina Pirjatanniemi (room 11:129)
Vladislava Stoyanova: ‘Vulnerable persons’ in the second phase of Common European
Asylum System: Definition, Identification and Protection
Andrew Molloy: Effective access to justice under the Refugee Convention in light of the
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Thoughts from a decision maker.
Lisa Hallstedt: How can vulnerable groups meet the criteria in the asylum procedure?
Erna Kristín Blöndal: Discrimination in the asylum system – multiple vulnerabilities
Anna Bruce: The implications of the CRPD for the asylum procedure: Tightly
circumscribed group based procedural accommodations for some or the seeds for general
Intolerable Differences? Dublin and Beyond
Chair: Jens Vedsted-Hansen (room 11:130)
Constantin Hruschka: The Dublin Dilemma – The principle of non-refoulement as a
barrier of the EU accession to the ECHR
Eleni Karageorgiou: Solidarity and sharing in the Common European Asylum System in
light of the European Courts case law
Roberta Mungianu: The EU’s refugee burden sharing: the potential of the Dublin system’s
‘sovereignty clause’
David Loveday: A tale of two systems – fundamental rights, mutual recognition and the
Dublin question
Discrimination and grounds for protection
Chair: Michelle Foster (room 12:010)
Heaven Crawley: (En)gendering international protection: are we there yet?
Niels Erik Hansen: Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against
Women (CEDAW) and the principle of Non-refoulement
Janna Weßels: Discrimination or Discretion? The assessment of sexuality-based asylum
claims in Germany, France and Spain
Nora Honkala: (Mis)understanding Forced Marriage: the Domestic Application of the
Refugee Convention in Asylum Seeker Women’s Claims in the UK
Workshops Friday 8 May, 10.20-12.15 pm
Violent conflict and grounds for protection
Chair: Gregor Noll (room 11:128)
Rebecca Thorburn Stern: Children fleeing from armed conflict and generalized violence:
Exploring the added value of the Convention on the Rights of the Child in the context of
complementary protection in Europe
Jesper Lindholm: ‘Individualisation’ and the protection needs of Syrian refugees:
developments in Danish law and practice
Karolina Lindholm-Billing (invited paper on behalf of UNHCR): The International
protection of persons fleeing situations of conflict and violence
Normative conflict between IL, EU law and domestic law
Chair: Vladislava Stoyanova (room 11:129)
Stephen Meili: Human Rights Norms and the Protection of Displaced Persons in
Colombia and Ecuador: A Comparative Analysis
Jens Vedsted-Hansen: Reception Conditions as Human Rights: pan-European Standard or
Systemic Deficiencies?
Matthew Scott: Natural hazards, human actors, serious harm: Bridging protection gaps
through understanding the social construction of disasters
Methods of decision-making in domestic procedures
Chair: Mona Aldestam (room 11:130)
Blair Peruniak: Against Psychologism in Refugee Status Determination
Alice Edwards (invited paper on behalf of UNHCR): The applicability of Article 1D of
the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees to Palestinian Refugees
Mary Lynn De Silva: Stigma, Securitisation and Parliamentary Sovereignty in Australia
and Sweden
Livia Johannesson: Interpretations of Judicial Independence at the Swedish Migration
Linna Martén: Political Bias in Court? Lay Judges and Asylum Appeals