Cookies Policy
X

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Full Access Age Determination of Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Minors in the European Union: A Health Law Perspective

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Age Determination of Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Minors in the European Union: A Health Law Perspective

  • PDF
  • HTML
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

In the European Union, unaccompanied asylum seekers below 18 years of age are entitled to specific treatment. Age assessment practices to verify the age-statement by the asylum seeker differ between EU Member States. Medical methods in use raise questions about accuracy, reliability and safety. The medical, legal and ethical acceptability of invasive methods (notably X-rays) in particular is controversial. Human rights are at stake. The lack of common practices results in different levels of protection (discrimination). The absence of standardisation is an obstacle for the functioning of the Common European Asylum System. EU Best Practice Guidelines should remedy the situation; such guidelines should reflect the best interest of the child.

Affiliations: 1: Amsterdam Netherlands

In the European Union, unaccompanied asylum seekers below 18 years of age are entitled to specific treatment. Age assessment practices to verify the age-statement by the asylum seeker differ between EU Member States. Medical methods in use raise questions about accuracy, reliability and safety. The medical, legal and ethical acceptability of invasive methods (notably X-rays) in particular is controversial. Human rights are at stake. The lack of common practices results in different levels of protection (discrimination). The absence of standardisation is an obstacle for the functioning of the Common European Asylum System. EU Best Practice Guidelines should remedy the situation; such guidelines should reflect the best interest of the child.

Loading

Full text loading...

/deliver/09290273/v18n1_s3.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1163/157180911x546101&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah
/content/journals/10.1163/157180911x546101
Loading

Data & Media loading...

http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1163/157180911x546101
Loading
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/157180911x546101
2011-01-01
2017-12-14

Sign-in

Can't access your account?
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation