Cookies Policy

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

Drøftelse vedrørende anerkendelsesproceduren

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.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of Nordic Journal of International Law

The extra territorial effect of the recognition as a refugee was discussed at length. On the one hand it was pointed out that the UNHCR Executive Committee had decided that other countries should recognize a refugee status which has been awarded once. As a consequence, states would be more restrictive to grant A status than B status. On the other hand, it was stressed that the refugee is primarily interested in receiving protection from one country, and the extra territorial effect is of relatively minor importance. Actual difference in the recognition practice of different countries also works against attaching too much importance to the extra territorial effect. It was suggested that the extra territorial effect could work by way of a rule of presumption so that a refugee status awarded in one country implies a presumption (which can be broken) that other countries will recognize this status. The closer resemblance between the national and the international definition of refugees, the greater the extra territorial effect. It was said that a number of the problems in Swedish refugee law which Nobel had pointed out would be solved by the new aliens bill. It was mentioned and criticized that the refugee definition contained in the bill is much more limited than the existing legislation and falls back on the level of the 1951 Concention. Particularly concerning the legal position in Denmark it was pointed out that pre-screening at the border is a serious problem which needs research. Another problem is the lack of explicit grounds for rejection, in particular in doubtful cases. Legal counsel might help to solve this problem to some extent. The most serious problem is, however, the lack of the possibility of appeal. It was suggested to establish a tribunal to decide problems of asylum in a Nordic context inter alia to deal with problems of the first country of asylum rule. It was also suggested to establish a European tribunal to decide problems of asylum resembling the European Commission on Human Rights. Arguments in favour of and against establishing independent national tribunals to decide asylum questions were put forward. It was suggested that the present Danish arrangement whereby the Danish refugee Council is heard in all doubtful or negative cases affords a much better possibility for a humanitarian input into the decision.


Full text loading...


Data & Media loading...

Article metrics loading...



Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
    Nordic Journal of International Law — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation