Search

Este artículo estudia tres episodios de movilización en los que indígenas, feministas y víctimas de crímenes de Estado presentaron litigios ante la Corte Constitucional. Luego de mostrar cuáles son los efectos de estas movilizaciones, empleando una perspectiva que se centra en el estudio de las decisiones judiciales, proponemos un enfoque más amplio que concibe las movilizaciones legales constitucionales como verdaderas acciones colectivas. El artículo sostiene que partiendo de este enfoque es posible identificar cambios generados en las condiciones de interacción entre el Estado y estos tres grupos/actores sociales, así como sus transformaciones internas, para constatar el lugar que ocupa la movilización ante la Corte dentro de la lucha social. This paper studies three mobilization episodes in which indigenous, feminists and state crimes victims litigated before the Constitutional Court. After showing which effects can be founded using a perspective focused on the study of judicial decisions, we propose a broader approach to their study that conceives the constitutional legal mobilizations as truly collective actions. The paper states that, from that standpoint, it is possible to identify how the interaction between the State and these three movements has change, as well as their internal transformations.

Resumo No caso das ocupações no Centro de Vitória, os defensores públicos do Nudam e da DRDH/ES, exerceram uma atuação considerada não tradicional, interagindo com diversos atores e promovendo a mobilização do direito tanto dentro quanto fora das esferas judiciais. No sentido de se compreender como se deu essa atuação, analisa-se os elementos institucionais que a possibilitaram, bem como a agência dos defensores no caso concreto. Abstract In the case of occupations in downtown Vitória, the public defenders of Nudam and DRDH/ES, exercised a performance considered non-traditional, interacting with different actors and promoting the legal mobilization both inside and outside the judicial spheres. In order to understand how this performance took place, the institutional elements that made it possible are analyzed, as well as the agency of the defenders in the specific case.

International audience; This article aims to explain the differential use of litigation by social movements pursuing social change. While previous studies have sought to compare non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that turn to litigation with those that do not, we study organizations that have all resorted at least once to legal action. Taking Belgium and the field of antidiscrimination as a case study, our research confirms the findings of previous literature that the characteristics of the legal environment do impact on the choice of organizations whether or not to go to court. But we also find that legal action is used differentially by NGOs depending on two factors in particular: their position as an insider or outsider in the political realm and their possession of legal resources. Based on a quantitative measure of legal actions initiated by NGOs and interviews with activists, we propose a typology of civil society organizations—which we label “experienced litigants,” “occasional litigants,” and “litigants by necessity”—that could be transposed to other contexts and other types of interest groups.

Strateško pravdanje je način uporabe sodnega postopka, pri katerem glavni cilj ni zaščititi pravic in interesov posameznika, ki nastopa kot pravdna stranka, ampak je v ospredju želja po doseganju širših družbenih sprememb. Gre torej za politično orodje, ki pa pride v poštev predvsem v primerih, ko širša javnost skupaj z zakonodajno in izvršilno vejo oblasti nima posluha za težave in potrebe določene skupnosti. Strateško pravdanje namreč ni brez tveganj in slednje velja pred začetkom pravdanja preučiti in ustrezno upoštevati. Izvor strateškega pravdanja umeščamo v petdeseta leta prejšnjega stoletja v ZDA, tj. v čas gibanja za civilne pravice. Čeprav gre za relativno mlad pravni pojav, se je z vse širšo uporabo v praksi zanj začelo zanimati precejšnje število akademikov in drugih raziskovalcev. Med številnimi sociološkimi in pravnimi deli na temo strateškega pravdanja prevladujeta predvsem dve temi, ki sta v tej diplomski nalogi tudi nekoliko podrobneje predstavljeni. Prva obravnava vprašanje, kdaj (v kakšnih okoliščinah oziroma pod katerimi pogoji) se aktivisti poslužujejo strateškega pravdanja kot orodja za doseganje sprememb v družbi. Pri drugi pa gre za obravnavo učinkovitosti strateškega pravdanja, ki je močno povezana z izhodiščno normativno kritiko, da ni prav, da sodišča posegajo v pristojnosti in delovanje drugih dveh vej oblasti. To diplomsko delo je umeščeno v kontekst boja proti diskriminaciji v Sloveniji. Po bližje obravnava strateško pravdanje, s katerim so se aktivisti zoperstavili diskriminaciji na podlagi državljanstva oziroma narodnosti, spolne usmerjenosti in etnične pripadnosti. Na podlagi analiziranih primerov magistrsko delo ponudi nekaj opažanj in predvidevanj o razvoju strateškega pravdanja v slovenskem prostoru v prihodnosti. Strategic litigation refers to the use of legal action, whereby the goals pursued reach beyond the protection of the rights of immediate parties to the legal proceedings and instead centre around the interests of entire communities. As a tool, strategic litigation proves to be particularly useful to those who are marginalized or otherwise disregarded by a particular society. While potentially a promising tool for driving change, strategic litigation comes with its own set of risks and disadvantages that should not be disregarded and should instead be properly taken into account by legal practitioners. Strategic litigation was first noticeably used as part of the fight against racism by the civil rights movement in the United States of America. Since then, the field of legal practice expanded and with it so did the overall interest of the academia. The following thesis focuses on two major themes of the existing research today. Firstly, the thesis addresses the question of why certain individuals or groups turn to the courts as part of their quest for systemic change while others do not. Secondly, it deals with the question of effectiveness of strategic litigation which is closely linked with the critique levied against strategic litigation for being anti-democratic and elitist in nature. The thesis places its analysis in the context of the anti-discrimination efforts in Slovenia. Case studies include examples of strategic litigation, whereby the activists faced discrimination based on nationality, sexual orientation and ethnicity.

Over the years, many theories have tried to explain the puzzle of cross-national variation in preliminary reference rates before the ECJ. Most of the contributions focused on the role of national judges, examining their legal education, policy preferences, workload, and attitude towards higher courts. This article adopts, instead, a legal mobilization perspective that decentralizes the role of courts and redirects the focus to the litigants and their political context. Relying on empirical research and on a comparison of three country case studies in the field of migration, the article argues that national patterns of mobilization influence the emergence of preliminary references. Moreover, it identifies three factors at the national level that help understand when legal mobilization occurs via preliminary reference: altruism, Euro-expertise, and EU legal opportunity structure. The article makes both an empirical and a theoretical contribution by bridging the scholarship on legal mobilization and EU judicial politics.

Workers with temporary immigration status have become the economic reality in several countries, as these workers provide a temporally mobile, cheap workforce that is responsive to economic vicissitudes and anti-immigration sentiment. Temporary foreign workers (TFWs) in low-wage sectors such as agriculture are tied to a single employer, have no access to their family and to permanent residence, and face overwhelming barriers in accessing justice. TFWs spend years residing and working outside of their country of nationality and are unable to be self-sovereign agents either in their countries of origin (because of lack of residence) or in their countries of sojourn (because of lack of nationality). While there have been instances where TFWs were able to make individual legal claims for labor violations in the country of sojourn, collective mobilization against the TFW program itself is exceptional. Collective mobilization represents acting as (partial) citizens, as the claims resemble self-determination claims on behalf of the entire TFW collectivity. How do TFWs and their allies, against all odds, mobilize the law to make collective claims and produce citizenship from below?In this research, I critically examine Israel and Canada, countries that have very similar TFW programs in agriculture but represent two contrasting types of legal mobilization against these programs. Israel is a case of “top-down” constitutional litigation where the results were court-ordered changes to the TFW program. Canada represents a case of legal mobilization “from below” where law is used subversively as a tool for larger political action. What explains the different pathways to legal mobilization in Israel and Canada?In addition to contributing new empirical data and theoretical conceptualizations of the different ways in which the law can be mobilized, my dissertation combines legal mobilization and social movement theories to offer an analytical framework to understand what affects the type of legal mobilization. TFW mobilization is situated in two broad social movements, labor movements and migrant rights/citizenship movements. I frame legal mobilization in the TFW context as a form of anti-hegemonic, contentious collective action and show the complex interactions between the political and discursive environment (political opportunity structure), the legal environment, and the support structure for mobilization (resource organizations).I show that despite barriers to access and courts' unwillingness to overturn immigration law, the law can be collectively mobilized on behalf of TFWs. The pathways to legal mobilization depend on legal opportunities and type of resource support. Constitutional litigation is initiated by cause-driven lawyers or legal organizations, but their framing of issues is constrained. Grassroots, solidarity organizations, in contrast, use the law as a tool for the broader goals of worker mobilization and social change. With the support of such organizations, TFWs are able to articulate their demands collectively, engage in direct action and political mobilization, and demand changes to the TFW program. My comparative historical analysis of Israel and Canada shows that legal and discursive strategies, however, depend on the historical political legacies and current political and economic environments. Elite power and ideological discourses are entrenched and distributed in the context of TFW programs. Political contestation impacts constitutional challenges as well as grassroots mobilization. My dissertation further adds to citizenship theory in three ways. First, it disrupts prevalent myths about the agency of TFWs and their lack of rights consciousness. Second, it offers the possibilities for meaningful change to TFW programs and advances an agentic theory on access to citizenship. Lastly, it adds grist to the conception of “citizenship from below” through the evidence of jurisgenerative practices of TFWs.

Orientador: Frederico Normanha Ribeiro de Almeida Tese (doutorado) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Instituto de Filosofia e Ciências Humanas Resumo: O objeto desta tese é a reconstrução histórica, a partir da atuação do Ministério Público (MP), da trajetória da mobilização do direito, englobando Estado e Sociedade, nos confrontos envolvendo transgênicos e agrotóxicos do Brasil. Entendo a formalização de um GT no interior da instituição como um momento de um processo de mobilização do direito que evidencia ganhos institucionais de promotores e procuradores organizados, visto que parte desses membros já atuavam no tema. O recorte temporal de 1997 a 2013, com recuos e avanços temporais para situar origens, causas e efeitos, não só envolvem mudanças macropolíticas relevantes com a chegada e o último mandato da esquerda na presidência, como também as principais decisões judiciais em última instância de litígios estratégicos em torno dos transgênicos e momentos de pausa e mudança do Grupo de Trabalho dos membros do MP. Para desenvolver a tese, utilizei um conjunto de abordagens e conceitos para orientar a investigação empírica: (1) perspectiva teórica-analítica básica, situada no diálogo entre os estudos sobre mobilização do direito e conceitos oriundos das teorias do processo político; (2) meta-análise sobre evolução institucional do MP no Brasil e identificação dos principais argumentos e posições, tais como leituras institucionalistas, argumento sobre independência funcional, elevada discricionariedade e autonomia. A metodologia predominante foi a qualitativa com uso de múltiplos métodos, desde a busca de fontes documentais oficiais às entrevistas semiestruturadas. Os documentos coletados foram analisados via análise do conteúdo. No caso dos litígios, foram considerados detalhes específicos, como réus, autores, acórdãos e outros dados. Parte dos arquivos são analisados via scripts para análises estatísticas e/ou de frequência. Os resultados demonstram que os membros do MP modificam seus repertórios, ainda que existam aprendizados e oportunidades legadas, mesmo nas interações com atores historicamente posicionados como aliados ou opositores, mesmo com uso de estratégias recorrentes, é preciso se moldar às conjunturas sociais, jurídicas, econômicas e políticas, captar as novas ameaças e as novas oportunidades. Tais confrontos demonstram relações de tensão entre Estado e movimentos sociais, com fechamento institucional em ambientes de participação e de deliberação, na baixa representatividade parlamentar ou possibilidade de levar questões ao Judiciário, na permissividade por parte do Executivo pela ausência de fiscalização de ilegalidades Abstract: This thesis’ object is the historical reconstruction of the legal mobilization trajectory in confrontations involving transgenics and pesticides in Brazil, based on the performance of Public Prosecutor’s Office role. I start from the hypothesis that the institution changes its repertoire of action, its meanings and cooperative, conflictive and alliance interactions with the actors and arenas involved in this mobilization field, depending on the threats and the opportunities inside the social-economical and political situation. The temporal cut is from 2003 to 2013, with temporal retreats and advances in order to situate origins, causes and effects. These years not only involve relevant macro political changes with the first and the last terms of the leftists in the presidency, but also the main judicial decisions in the last resort of strategic disputes around transgenics and moments of pause and change of the Working Group of Public Prosecutor’s Office members. In order to develop the thesis, I used a set of approaches and concepts to guide an empirical investigation: (1) basic analytical-theoretical perspective, situated within the dialogue between legal mobilization studies and concepts from the political process; (2) meta-analysis about the institutional evolution of the Public Prosecutor’s Office in Brazil and identification of the main arguments and positions, such as institutionalist readings, ideas of functional independence, high discretion and autonomy. The predominant methodology was the qualitative with the use of multiple approaches, starting from the search of official documental sources to the semi structured interview. The collected documents were analyzed with content analysis. In the case of the disputes, details were considered, such as defendants, accusers, judgments, and other data. Part of the archives are analyzed via statistical analysis and/or frequency. The outcomes show that the Public Prosecutor’s Office members change their repertoire, even though there are learnings and legacy opportunities, even within the interactions with historical positioned actors as allies or opponents, even with the use of ongoing strategies, it is necessary to shape the social, juridical, economical and political situations, and capture the new threats and opportunities. Such conflicts show tension relations between the State and Social Movements, with institutional closure in environments of participation and deliberation, in the low parliamentary representation or the possibility of delivering matters to the Judicial Power, in the permissiveness on the part of the Executive for the absence of inspection of illegalities Doutorado Ciência Política Doutora em Ciência Política

Like any other adjudicative body, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is an essentially reactive institution: it cannot create disputes on its own motion, but it needs to be ‘mobilized’. This simple observation leads us to a question of central importance in the field of courts and social justice: who brings social justice claims before the Court of Justice? This is a particularly salient question if confronted with the Court’s restrictive legal standing rules: individuals and collective actors have limited access to the Court and engaging in EU litigation requires the availability of specific resources and allies. This paper relies on an original dataset of 291 rulings of the CJEU in the field of migration, complemented with qualitative empirical research, to unveil and map the actors that defend migrant rights in Luxembourg. The analysis offers an innovative and critical reflection on the accessibility of international courts by disadvantaged groups, showing how some features of the preliminary reference procedure affect the type of actors that engage in EU litigation.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This research report has been published as part of the EU Horizon 2020 VULNER research project (www.vulner.eu). The VULNER research project is an international research initiative, the objective of which is to reach a more profound understanding of migrants’ experiences of vulnerability when applying for asylum and other humanitarian protection statuses, and how they could best be addressed. It therefore makes use of a twofold analysis, which studies existing protection mechanisms for refugees, migrants and asylum seekers who are labelled as ‘vulnerable’ and compares these with their own experiences on the ground. This introductory report contextualises the seven VULNER country reports and their own detailed and elaborate findings and conceptualisations. It should be read in conjunction with these country reports, which present the intermediate research results of the VULNER project, based on the first research phase. The first phase consisted in analysing the legal and bureaucratic vulnerability assessment tools and processes developed by state authorities and, when relevant in the domestic context, international aid agencies. The countries under study are located in Europe (Belgium, Germany, Italy and Norway), Africa (Uganda), the Middle East (Lebanon) and North America (Canada). The report first introduces the common overall theoretical and methodological framework of the VULNER project which served as a basis for the VULNER country reports’ own findings and conceptualisations that reflect domestic specificities. The report shows that ‘vulnerability’ acquires different meanings depending on whether it is used as an analytical tool to study human experiences from an empirical perspective or as a legal and bureaucratic tool to tailor state intervention to people’s needs. It also shows that ‘vulnerability’ is not a neutral concept. The term conveys implicit ideological meanings and conceptions of equality, which contribute to both shaping and justifying the exclusionary effects inherent in relying on ‘vulnerability’ assessments to select the individuals who will receive specific advantages. This observation raises various conceptual challenges, which resurface when designing and implementing vulnerability assessment tools and processes to tailor state intervention to various bureaucratic contexts – from targeting aid programmes to the most vulnerable refugees hosted in developing countries to adapting the reception conditions and asylum procedures to the needs of the most vulnerable asylum seekers. The report also identifies the main threads and findings common to the various VULNER country reports. These common threads and findings relate to the vulnerability assessment tools and processes that have been developed in each country under study: How are vulnerabilities identified? What are the criteria, and which are the groups that benefit from particular attention? For what purposes are vulnerabilities identified? What are the concrete consequences of being labelled as ‘vulnerable’? The report examines these while showing how, taken together, the VULNER country reports illustrate the multiple challenges of relying on vulnerability assessments to tailor asylum and migration policies to the specific protection needs of the most vulnerable protection seekers. These challenges all involve striking a balance between systematic and standardised bureaucratic practices, and the flexibility required to address actual experiences of ‘vulnerabilities’, which are contextual and socially embedded. The common findings highlight the risks of excessive reliance on standardised ‘vulnerability’ checks, which fail to engage comprehensively with people’s actual life challenges. Vulnerability assessments that are performed based on predefined criteria present major advantages in identifying immediate practical needs resulting from some personal characteristics (such as age, gender, severe health issues, etc.). But state actors on the ground commonly emphasise that these criteria should not lead to definitive consequences, which deprive the actors of the flexibility required to act in accordance with the specific needs of each individual they are responsible for. The findings from the VULNER country reports generally warn against developing ‘sanitised’ vulnerability assessments, which fail to account for the actual position of protection seekers and the complex ways in which their life challenges intersect.

Despite vast expenditures on prison construction in the late 20th century, infrastructure has not kept pace with the dramatic growth of incarceration in the U.S. As a result, extreme prison overcrowding has led to humanitarian, legal and fiscal emergencies nationwide. These emergencies are especially pronounced at the state level, where the Great Recession most directly affected and severely curtailed public spending; today, more than a third of state prison populations exceed institutional capacity. In the present policy environment, rather than investing scarce capital on building more prisons, state-level legal reforms aimed at downsizing the prison population are widely seen as the more prudent solutions. Little is known, however, about the diffusion and implementation of prison reform laws among local criminal justice actors and their effects at the county level of practice, where the incarceration process begins for most inmates. This project examines the 2011 “Realignment” of California’s unconstitutionally overcrowded prison system as an empirical window into how legal interventions and policy innovations filter to lower levels of government and diffuse into local organizational and professional practices. Using multiple methods, the study investigates how differences in local organizational culture shape the meaning of law on the ground in ways that bolster or undermine the reform goal of decarceration. The research focuses on two questions: (1) how do local criminal justice actors respond to, comply with, shape, and resist prison downsizing laws, and (2) what effect do these responses have on decarceration as a key metric of institutional change? A combination of group-based trajectory modeling and institutional ethnographic methods are used to assess the proposition that local organizational culture mediates the implementation of prison downsizing laws and that variation in county organizational culture explains differences in the outcome of decarceration. These multiple methods enable to the study to: (1) specify the measures of local variation most salient in predicting decarceration, (2) identify processes by which local organizational culture mediates law, as well as variations in these processes across counties, and (3) relate these variations to the outcome of decarceration.

This paper examines how the LGBT Veteran organization, Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Veterans of America, has framed their advocacy for LGBT veterans’ rights, including their unique deployment of joint LGBT and military/veteran identities to strengthen their cause. Specifically, this research explores the way that the positive veteran/military identity that intersects with the less positively viewed LGBT identity facilitates both the cause and potential outcomes of their advocacy. While many social movements mobilize around a primary identity, LGBT veterans use their status as “protected veterans” to pursue rights for the LGBT community, both in the military and out. I argue that recognition of the elevated status enjoyed by military veterans is seen in the framing techniques of the LGBT veteran social movement and what I am calling “positive intersectionality”. Theories of intersectionality typically regard intersecting identities as limiting in an individual’s ability to fight discrimination, but this addendum to intersectional theory that I am proposing encompasses the full spectrum of identity, examining positive outcomes of intersectional identities rather than only negative outcomes.

The occupation of empty properties in downtown Vitória, which took place from 2017 onwards, gave rise to a conflicting coalition that uses various tactics to mobilize the law. The objective of the research is to understand how the coordinated performances developed in the execution of tactics of legal mobilization shape collective action and provide innovations. For this, I work with the Legal Mobilization Theory and with the concepts of repertoires, tactics and performances. The methods used were participant observation, interviews, document analysis, drawing up a map and a timeline of collective action. As a result, I found that, from the performances established by the actors in the context of occupations: the right to the city came to be used as a legal framework to legitimize the transgressive action of occupations; judicial action has become a strategic and symbolic resource for collective action; academic activities organized the supporters of the occupations and gave rise to a new collective; the greater cohesion between the actors resulted in a new repertoire for the realization of a legal instrument. La ocupación de propiedades vacías en el centro de Vitória, que tuvo lugar a partir de 2017, dio lugar a una coalición conflictiva que utiliza diversas tácticas para movilizar la ley. El objetivo de la investigación es comprender cómo las actuaciones coordinadas desarrolladas en la ejecución de tácticas de movilización de la ley configuran la acción colectiva y aportan innovaciones. Para ello trabajo con la Teoría de la Movilización del Derecho y con los conceptos de repertorios, tácticas y actuaciones. Los métodos utilizados fueron la observación participante, entrevistas, análisis de documentos, elaboración de un mapa y un cronograma de acción colectiva. Como resultado, encontré que, a partir de las actuaciones establecidas por los actores en el contexto de las ocupaciones: el derecho a la ciudad pasó a ser utilizado como marco legal para legitimar la acción transgresora de las ocupaciones; la acción judicial se ha convertido en un recurso estratégico y simbólico para la acción colectiva; las actividades académicas organizaron a los partidarios de las ocupaciones y dieron origen a un nuevo colectivo; la mayor cohesión entre los actores resultó en un nuevo repertorio para la realización de un instrumento legal. As ocupações de imóveis vazios no Centro de Vitória, que ocorreram a partir do ano de 2017, deram origem a uma coalização conflituosa que se vale de diversas táticas de mobilização do direito. O objetivo da pesquisa é o de compreender como as performances coordenadas desenvolvidas na execução das táticas de mobilização do direito moldam a ação coletiva e proporcionam inovações. Para isso, eu trabalho com a Teoria da Mobilização do Direito e com os conceitos de repertórios, táticas e performances. Os métodos empregados foram a observação participante, entrevistas, a análise de documentos, a elaboração de um mapa e de uma linha do tempo da ação coletiva. Como resultado, eu constatei que, a partir das performances estabelecidas pelos atores no contexto das ocupações: o direito à cidade passou a ser utilizado como enquadramento legal para legitimar a ação transgressiva das ocupações; a atuação judicial se tornou um recurso estratégico e simbólico da ação coletiva; as atividades acadêmicas organizaram os apoiadores das ocupações e deram origem a um novo coletivo; a maior coesão entre os atores resultou em um novo repertório para a efetivação de um instrumento legal.

Climate change is a wicked problem, a framework not often used in sociolegal studies. The problem is complex, not readily named, and not limited to one jurisdiction. Therefore, the places of law are multiple: human rights instruments, supranational tribunals, regional courts, and local governments and NGOS. Litigation concerning responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions has largely not resulted in favorable judgments, and the papers in this collection turn to other ways of conceptualizing law and courts in responding to climate change. Relevant legal strategies include environmental legal enforcement, but also changes in investment, and response to the many disasters that are related to climate change. The papers in this collection travel across jurisdictions, actors and problems to assess legal strategies concerning climate change. El cambio climático es un problema perverso, un marco poco usado en los estudios sociojurídicos. El problema es complejo, de difícil denominación, y no está limitado a una sola jurisdicción. Por lo tanto, el derecho tiene muchos espacios: instrumentos de derechos humanos, tribunales supranacionales, juzgados regionales y gobiernos y ONG locales. Los litigios sobre responsabilidades por emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero no han solido acabar con veredictos favorables, y los artículos de esta colección miran hacia otras formas de conceptualizar el derecho y los tribunales como respuesta al cambio climático. Estrategias legales importantes incluyen la aplicación del derecho, pero también cambios en inversiones y respuestas a los múltiples desastres relacionados con el cambio climático. Los artículos de este número navegan por varias jurisdicciones, agentes y problemas para valorar las estrategias jurídicas sobre cambio climático. Available from: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1059

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This research report has been established as part of the EU Horizon 2020 VULNER project, which aims to contribute to a better understanding of the experiences of ‘vulnerability’ as lived by migrants applying for a protection status (such as the refugee status and other complementary forms of humanitarian protection, including the one awarded to victims of human trafficking), and to critically assess the potentials and pitfalls of using ‘vulnerability’ as a legal and policy standard to guide the development and implementation of migration policies at EU and global level. The VULNER project starts from the common observation, widely documented in the scientific literature, that the requirement to address the specific needs of ‘vulnerable’ migrants, including asylum seekers, victims of human trafficking and unaccompanied minors, is flooding the legal and policy discourse on asylum and migration at EU and global level (as illustrated by the UN Global Compact for Migration and its objective to ‘reduce vulnerabilities’ in migration, or the current focus at EU level on resettlement programmes for vulnerable refugees namely). Yet, if not based on scientific data and analyses that provide a clear and non-stereotyped understanding of the vulnerabilities that are lived and experienced by migrants, such policy objectives risk failing to address vulnerabilities, exacerbating existing vulnerabilities, or even producing new ones. The overall objective of the VULNER project is to produce knowledge that will assist States in identifying suitable strategies to assess the ‘vulnerabilities’ of migrants and to address them. This research report presents some of the intermediary research results of the VULNER project, based on the first phase of the project which consisted in mapping the vulnerability assessment mechanisms as developed by state authorities in Norway, including how they are concretely implemented on the ground through the practices of the public servants in charge. The objective was to address the following research questions: How is the vulnerability of migrants defined in the relevant legislation, case law, policy documents, and administrative guidelines at national, regional, and international levels? Is there a duty to assess vulnerability, and how? What are the legal consequences of this? How do decision-makers (street-level bureaucrats) understand the vulnerability of migrants? How do they address them through their everyday practices? The approach followed was an inductive one, which aimed to start from existing state approaches towards ‘vulnerability’ as a legal and policy concept. This first phase of the project is being followed with a second one, during which ethnographic fieldwork will be conducted among informal and state-run migrant and refugee settlements, with the view to reach a more profound understanding of their experiences of vulnerability. The objective is to document and reflect on how these experiences are shaped, and perhaps even produced, by the legal frameworks and state practices; how refugees and migrants adapt their behaviour to fit within existing vulnerability categories; and what coping and resilience strategies they develop. The sources and data collected for the report In Norway, the most common way to obtain a residence permit is by applying for asylum upon arrival to Norway and being recognized as a refugee or receiving a permit to stay on humanitarian grounds. An alternative is to arrive through a resettlement program. Norway grants residency to a certain number of resettled refugees each year. The number is politically determined. Refugees cleared for resettlement in Norway are settled directly into a municipality upon arrival. The objective of the legal enquiry was to analyse and reflect upon how ‘vulnerability’ is being developed as a legal and bureaucratic concept in the Norwegian regulations. Legal sources include national laws and regulations related to immigration and welfare (health, child welfare, and social security), as well as more than hundred administrative guidelines. The main policy documents included in the analysis consist of white papers, resolution proposals, and written political interventions in debates concerning reception conditions and certain groups of refugees. The empirical research methods were conducted to complement and deepen the legal analysis. The aim of this part of the study was to document and analyse how the ‘vulnerabilities’ of the protection seekers are understood and addressed by the relevant decision-makers in their everyday practices. The recruitment of participants (36 persons) consisted of representatives of the Ministry of Justice and Social Security, street-level bureaucrats in the Directorate of Immigration (UDI), judges on the Appeal Board (UNE), the management in reception centres, representatives for the welfare system, experts on vulnerable groups (unaccompanied minors/victims of torture), and legal representatives for unaccompanied minors. Key findings In Norway, human rights discourse is the normative center of asylum law and policies. The concept of vulnerability is neither explicit in legislation nor in the Immigration Regulations but is implicit in the principles of non-discrimination and equal treatment. Although the concept of vulnerability is not a legal one per se, legal obligations to assess and address certain vulnerabilities are implemented in the immigration law as well as in welfare regulations. Certain groups and persons are given special attention with reference to the state obligations derived from specific international conventions, creating a hierarchy of vulnerabilities. The main attention is on minors, gender related issues, sexual identity and victims of human trafficking for the purpose of prostitution. We find that the use of human rights discourse normatively specifies obligations for individuals and groups to ensure that they receive effective protection and tailored kinds of support. The normative content is specified in administrative guidance, without an extensive use of a ‘vulnerability’ discourse in these regulations. Practitioners we interviewed tended to use the concept in a descriptive manner. The vulnerability discourse, then, is gaining traction in practices. This is particularly the case for procedural adjustments and guarantees, and in the context of reception conditions. There is no specific procedure for identifying especially vulnerable protection seekers. Instead, the responsibility to identify special needs is integral to ordinary registration and asylum procedures, and as such diffused across different institutions. There are advantages to this approach, but also certain built-in challenges. Vulnerability thus becomes one of many topics to cover, and often a peripheral one given time pressures and limited expertise. Another challenge is the fragmentation of data, attributable to different data systems and data privacy regulations. Caseworkers’ personal commitment and networks can be vital to ensuring a good information flow across institutional boundaries. As for reception conditions, we have emphasised the use of separated sections for those with demanding health problems, and access to ordinary health and welfare services in our analysis. For certain groups, such as unaccompanied minors and victims of trafficking, modified accommodation and support is available. In relation to procedural aspects, numerous guidelines and circulars address how to identify claimants from certain vulnerable groups during the asylum interview and throughout the decision-making process. Even so, there are some shortcomings in the way in which asylum hearings are conducted, including restrictions on the right to a personal appearance upon appeal and limits on legal aid. In the protection assessment, the concept of ’vulnerability’ draws attention to groups at heightened risk of persecution or serious harm in any given context. Norwegian practice recognizes that the assessment of both a claimant’s credibility and the objective risks that they face upon return may be affected by factors such as age, gender, marital status, mental and physical health, and experience with trafficking or sexual violence. Many country practice notes and other forms of guidance highlight specific groups exposed to serious harms (for example single women without a male network), but the level of detail differs between countries. Situations not covered explicitly may be overlooked or considered less credible. While human rights law is the normative focus of Norway’s protection regime, we found that only a select subset of international legal sources and instruments are applied by courts and the bureaucracy to identify people in need of protection: the ECHR, the CRC, and the Refugee Convention. Other instruments, including ICERD, CAT, CRPD, could usefully focus attention on the obstacles that applicants with particular vulnerabilites — for example a disability or experience of torture — might face upon return, and therefore clarify their right to refugee status. We find that the scope of protection for vulnerable asylum seekers and refugees is limited by narrow readings of Norway’s obligations under the 1951 Geneva Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights. For example, Norwegian law excludes consideration of whether removal to an “internal protection alternative” would be reasonable for the person concerned, meaning that vulnerabilities associated with ‘return’ to internal displacement may be dismissed in the inclusion and cessation assessments. This legally-produced vulnerability violates refugee law doctrine and undermines the obligations Norway has undertaken to support durable solutions under the Global Compact on Refugees. If a protection seeker does not fulfill the criteria for refugee status, vulnerability factors are considered as part of the assessment of whether “strong humanitarian considerations” justify a residence permit. Here, vulnerabilities related to health, age and trafficking experience are considered along with compound factors that would make return indefensible from a humanitarian perspective. However, in Norwegian law and practice, access to humanitarian status is influenced by overall asylum flows. The duty of a decision-maker to balance individual factors against state interests leads to the exclusion of many protection seekers with profound vulnerabilities, including physical and mental health problems. This is particularly true when the protection seeker comes from a country with many similarly situated people (for example, a trafficked woman from Nigeria, or an unaccompanied minor from Afghanistan), raising equal treatment concerns between countries. When it comes to the best interests of children, meanwhile, it is clear that the weight given to this “fundamental consideration” varies widely depending on the competing state interests. The increased use of time-limited permits for persons with humanitarian status who have not proven their identity increases the vulnerability of people with a recognized right to remain. People with limited residence permits face documented difficulties accessing bank services, finding work, getting a driver’s license and travelling. Sick or traumatized protection seekers may never be able to satisfy documentation requirements to be granted the ordinary permit, and families face a delay in resettlement from the reception centers. In the context of refugee resettlement, vulnerability criteria are co-constructed cross-sectorally by a plethora of institutional actors in Norway and abroad. Here, priority is given to families with young children, typically below the age of 15 years. Transparency is a particularly salient issue in this context due to the discretionary nature of resettlement, which is far less regulated by law than the topics raised above. Among other things, this relates to how refugees’ vulnerabilities are balanced against their presumed future integration potential. Despite the uneven attention given to various vulnerability factors in Norwegian practice, our informants found the concept of vulnerability to be useful for highlighting the complex and often interrelated factors that expose people to harm –in their countries of origin, in transit, as well as in Norway. More systematic efforts to promote contextual understandings of vulnerability – in contrast to simplified categories - may help ensure that people’s protection needs are met in a more consistent manner. Main protection gaps Related to the findings above, we have identified the following areas in which Norwegian practice departs from international standards in terms of identifying, assessing, and addressing vulnerabilities: • Some vulnerable refugees with special needs wait for years to be settled in a municipality. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) obliges state parties, including Norway, to take all appropriate measures to modify or abolish existing practices that constitute discrimination against persons with disabilities. • Best interests of children are excluded from the protection assessment (IA §28). Instead, they are evaluated when considering a discretionary permit on humanitarian grounds (IA §38). The consequence is that children’s best interests are frequently sacrificed to immigration control interests, raising doubts about whether they have been adequately weighed as a ‘fundamental consideration’ in the decision (CRC). • The Istanbul Protocol for the identification and documentation on torture and its implications is implemented as part of The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment and Punishment (UNCAT). However, the guidelines are not sufficiently made known and used in the health service and in rehabilitation of torture victims. • The IPA (“internal protection alternative”) excludes an assessment of whether “return” to internal displacement is unreasonable for the claimant, who has already established a protection need visa-vis his or her home area. There is broad consensus among states, UNHCR, and other experts that IPA application must be conditioned by the following safeguards: relocation must be accessible, safe, and reasonable. Norway’s position not only violates the 1951 Convention but also undermines the durable solutions agenda most recently reinforced by the UN Compact on Refugees. • Cessation practice relies on non-state actors of protection and IPA practice to justify the withdrawal of refugee status. Severe past persecution does not, on its own, relieve a refugee from potential cessation of status. • The extensive use of temporary residence permits undermines children’s rights to stability and development (CRC), and infringes the rights of refugees of all ages to participation and inclusion in the country of residence (Articles 2-34 Refugee Convention).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY VULNER project This research report has been published as part of the EU Horizon 2020 VULNER research project (www.vulner.eu). Our project arose from the finding that the requirement to address refugees’ multiple and various vulnerabilities is flooding the policy discourse on asylum and migration at the EU and global levels (as illustrated by the UN Global Compact for Migration and its objective 7 to ‘reduce vulnerabilities’ in migration, and the current focus at the EU level on the establishment of vulnerability assessment mechanisms as part of asylum and border procedures as well as in resettlement programmes). Yet, if not based on scientific data and analyses that provide a clear and non-stereotyped understanding of the vulnerabilities that are lived and experienced by migrants and refugees, such a policy objective runs the risk of failing to address vulnerabilities, exacerbating existing vulnerabilities or even producing new ones. The overall objective of the VULNER project is to produce such scientific knowledge in ways that will assist states in identifying suitable strategies to assess the ‘vulnerabilities’ of refugees, to address their specific needs and to prevent stereotyped understandings of their lived experiences. The VULNER project also seeks to develop a broader, more thorough and more critical reflection on the increasing use of ‘vulnerability’ as a legal and policy standard that guides the development and the implementation of asylum policies, including how it relates to border control considerations inherent in such policies. This research report presents some of the intermediate research results of the VULNER project, based on the first phase of the project, which consisted of mapping out the vulnerability assessment mechanisms developed by state authorities in Lebanon, including how they are implemented on the ground through the practices of the public servants in charge. In addition, the report examined the refugees’ vulnerability assessment mechanism employed by international organizations in Lebanon, whether the United Nations agencies or other international and national non-governmental organizations. The following research questions are addressed in Lebanon’s report: What do the relevant domestic legislation, case-law, policy documents, and administrative guidelines reveal about how “vulnerabilities” are being assessed and addressed in the countries under study? Do the relevant state and/or aid agencies have a legal duty to assess refugees’ vulnerabilities, and if yes, using which procedures, when and how? Following which legal and bureaucratic criteria? How do decision-makers (street-level bureaucrats) understand and perceive the ‘vulnerabilities’ of the refugees they meet on a daily basis? How do they address these ‘vulnerabilities’ through their everyday practices? What is their stance on existing legal requirements towards ‘vulnerable’ refugees? Which loopholes do they identify? The approach followed for this report was an inductive one, in which we aimed to start by analyzing existing state approaches towards ‘vulnerability’ as a legal and policy concept. We complemented our focus on the legal framework with interviews with decision-makers. This is just the first phase of the data collection process. We are now conducting ethnographic fieldwork among informal and state-run refugee settlements, with the view to reach a more profound understanding of refugees’ own experiences of vulnerability. The objective is to document and reflect on how these experiences are shaped, and sometimes even produced, by the legal frameworks and state practices; how refugees and migrants adapt their behavior to fit within existing vulnerability categories; and what coping and resilience strategies they develop. Our ultimate objective is to reflect upon thoroughly and from a critical perspective on the increasing use of ‘vulnerability’ as a standard that guides the development and implementation of migration policies at EU and global levels. Main findings Lebanon is the country hosting the most refugees per capita and has thus received considerable attention from the international community including EU funding to help curb the influx of refugees attempting to reach to Europe in search for a better future. The Lebanon report within the VULNER project adds a new layer and perspective on the notion of refugees’ vulnerability, since it presents data and findings from the heart of a humanitarian crisis and relief. The legal and policy frameworks which deny refugees access to asylum on its territory coupled by international aid aimed at stabilizing the refugee population in Lebanon, made it both a host and a transit country for refugees but where integration and resettlement are not allowed. The report seeks to understand how the concept of vulnerability of a refugee is conceived and implemented in the legal system and policies in Lebanon. The interest in the potentials of the notion of vulnerability in humanitarian contexts comes at a time when international aid is shrinking while the Syrian conflict became protracted. To this end, the research adopts a qualitative methodology comprising a desk research and semi-structured interviews with the aim of unpacking the legal and policy understanding and practices around refugees’ vulnerability. The desk research examines the following: 1. The legislation, regulations, administrative guidelines, and case laws directly or indirectly affecting refugees’ stay and livelihood in Lebanon. 2. The policies issued and implemented by State authorities and their partners. 3. The responses and publication of the UN agencies and other international and national non-governmental organizations leading the humanitarian response in Lebanon. In addition to the desk review, the report examines findings from forty-two interviews conducted with key stakeholders, state and non-state actors to account for the official and non-official responses on the security and humanitarian levels. Interviews were conducted with judges, officials working with the Ministry of Social Affairs, and the General Security and Internal Security Forces’ Directorate-General. On the other hand, interviews were conducted with key staff of UN agencies, international and national NGOs in addition to legal practitioners. Research findings revealed that vulnerability has no legal institution under Lebanese law and that Lebanon offers no tailored legal protection to refugees. Lebanon has no asylum law and promotes itself as a country of transit; the hard law sources in Lebanon provide protection to vulnerable groups and categories through sporadic and incomplete legislations. The study revealed that the protection approach to vulnerable categories is a recent endeavor in Lebanon and in many cases was only adopted due to donors’ pressure. The vulnerability of refugees managed to infiltrate soft law sources but till now, has not found itself a solid base in hard law. The report discusses the repercussions of the schism in the official responses to refugees’ presence in Lebanon where two distinct responses are observed, a security response and a humanitarian response. While the security response targeting issues of residency, movement, and access to work opportunities takes no account of vulnerability concerns, the humanitarian response is centered around the concept of vulnerability. Vulnerability under the humanitarian response has not been defined, but the sectors and criteria for its assessment are well determined by the UN agencies in Lebanon. In addition, there is a lack of communication between the actors leading the two policies; thus, the security actors identified in the report are not represented under the humanitarian response’s structure although issued at the governmental level. Research findings highlight the clear difference between the humanitarian vulnerability as observed and approached in Lebanon and the vulnerability as defined and approached by the other countries part ofthe VULNER consortium. In Lebanon, vulnerable categories are not a primary concern for the refugees’ vulnerability assessments since the prime concern of humanitarian actors is to ensure the socio-economic needs of the refugee population. Consequently, only one out of the ten sectors under the humanitarian response is dedicated to protection. Findings from the interviews showcased the extent to which external factors of vulnerability define refugees’ vulnerability in Lebanon. These external factors, while recognizing the increased risks to women and minors, encompass legal vulnerability (mainly access to legal residency) and poverty and economic situation on defining a refugee’s vulnerability. In addition, one other factor relates to the type of shelter and the area of residence; thus, many participants linked vulnerable area in Lebanon to vulnerable refugees due to the historical and societal livelihood challenges. The report notes that while no other approach to target the response to refugees’ needs was suggested by participants, the reliance on vulnerability was criticized since it renders refugees passive and it is defined abroad by the international community mainly humanitarian organizations and imposed on Lebanon. Practitioners called to adopt a discovery approach to define refugees’ vulnerability and to unpack its root causes, rather than being focused only on dealing with the consequences. In the light of these findings, the next phase of the study will be focused on understanding vulnerability from the perspectives of refugees in Lebanon in order to unpack their perception of vulnerability.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This research report has been published as part of the EU Horizon 2020 research project ‘Vulnerabilities Under the Global Protection Regime: How Does the Law Assess, Address, Shape and Produce the Vulnerabilities of the Protection Seekers?’ (VULNER GA n. 870845). Our project arose from the finding that the requirement to address migrants’ multiple and various vulnerabilities is flooding the policy discourse on asylum and migration at the EU and global levels. This is illustrated by the UN Global Compact for Migration and its objective 7 to ‘reduce vulnerabilities’ in migration; and by the current focus at EU level on the establishment of vulnerability assessment mechanisms as part of asylum and border procedures, as well as in resettlement programs. Yet, if not based on scientific data and analyses that provide a clear and non-stereotyped understanding of the vulnerabilities that are lived and experienced by migrants, such a policy objective runs the risk of failing to address vulnerabilities, exacerbating existing ones, and even producing new ones. The overall objective of the VULNER project is to produce such scientific knowledge in ways that will assist states in identifying suitable strategies to assess the ‘vulnerabilities’ of migrants, to address their specific needs and to prevent stereotyped understandings of their lived experiences. The VULNER project also seeks to develop a broader, more thorough and more critical reflection on the increasing use of ‘vulnerability’ as a legal and policy standard that guides the development and the implementation of migration policies, including how it relates to border control considerations inherent in such policies. This research report presents some of the intermediate research results of the VULNER project, based on the first phase of the project, which consisted of mapping out the vulnerability assessment mechanisms developed by state authorities in Italy, including how they are implemented on the ground through the practices of the public servants in charge. The following research questions are addressed: What do the relevant domestic legislation, case-law, policy documents, and administrative guidelines reveal about how ’vulnerabilities’ are being assessed and addressed in the countries under study? Do the relevant state and/or aid agencies have a legal duty to assess migrants’ vulnerabilities, and if yes, using which procedures, when and how? Following which legal and bureaucratic criteria? How do decision-makers (street-level bureaucrats) understand and perceive the ‘vulnerabilities’ of the migrants they meet on a daily basis? How do they address these ‘vulnerabilities’ through their everyday practices? What is their stance on existing legal requirements towards ‘vulnerable’ migrants? What loopholes do they identify? The approach followed for this report was an inductive one, in which we aimed to start by analyzing existing state approaches towards ‘vulnerability’ as a legal and policy concept. We complemented our focus on the legal framework with interviews with decision-makers. This is just the first phase of the data collection process. We are now conducting ethnographic fieldwork among informal and state-run migrant and refugee settlements, with a view to reach a more profound understanding of migrants’ own experiences of vulnerability. The objective is to document and reflect on how these experiences are shaped, and sometimes even produced, by the legal frameworks and state practices; how refugees and migrants adapt their behavior to fit within existing categories of vulnerability; and what coping and resilience strategies they develop. Our ultimate objective is to thoroughly and critically reflect on the increasing use of ‘vulnerability’ as a standard that guides the development and implementation of migration policies at EU and global levels. Sources and data collected The research for this report was carried out between February 2020 and October 2020 and relied on the analysis of the relevant legal framework and related policies and case law, as well as in-depth interviews with key stakeholders. The report explores how vulnerability is included in the Italian legal framework, covering not only the legal framework regarding asylum and migration, but also that concerning particular groupsof people, such as victims of trafficking, victims of gender-based violence and minors, for whom specific protection provisions are foreseen. In relation to the conceptual framework guiding our research, we have opted to use the term ‘migrants in situations of vulnerability’, instead of ‘vulnerable migrants’, to avoid reducing vulnerability to ontological characteristics, and to highlight instead its situational and context-specific dimension. The legal documents under analysis include legislation and ministerial circulars. The report also examines the administrative guidelines and other tools, such as COI (Country of Origin Information), relevant to vulnerability assessments, paying specific attention to victims of trafficking, mental health problems, sexual orientation, gender identity/expression and sex characteristics (SOGIESC)-based claims. The analysis of relevant case law focused on rulings by civil tribunals and the Court of Cassation (149 decisions in total) concerning, respectively, appeals by protection seekers against the decisions of Territorial Commissions (TCs), and appeals against civil tribunal decisions denying them international or humanitarian protection. The selection was made by focusing on themes that are relevant to the topic of vulnerability, taking into account the list of vulnerable groups as set out in national legislation (LD 142/2015, Art. 17), and on the basis of information and suggestions provided by the research participants. The analysis includes decisions of civil tribunals and the Court of Cassation on granting humanitarian protection, because this protection is still being granted to those who applied before the entry into force (5 October 2018) of Decree Law 113/2018, which abolished it. Furthermore, the applicant’s situation of vulnerability is a key element considered in granting this form of protection. With regard to the fieldwork, we conducted forty-four interviews with institutional and legal actors working in the field of migration and asylum in Italy. In addition, we had informal conversations with key informants and gatekeepers. Interviewees included various institutional and legal actors: twenty decision makers (one member of the National Commission for the Right of Asylum (CNDA), thirteen members/presidents of TCs, six civil tribunal judges, one judge of the Court of Cassation); nineteen lawyers and legal advisors (ten lawyers, nine legal advisors working in NGOs); twelve members of international organizations (UNHCR, EASO, IOM); three other institutional actors; three experts/consultants. Institutional and legal actors involved in the research have been selected taking into account the relevance of their role, expertise, or territory in which they work. In the case of international organizations (EASO, IOM, UNHCR), they act in the identification of vulnerabilities at the point of rescue and throughout the administrative procedure. The decision makers (members of TCs and civil tribunal judges) have specific experience in identification and assessment in territories that are particularly relevant to the research. Finally, lawyers and legal advisors were selected taking into account their expertise on specific themes and forms in which vulnerabilities manifest themselves. As regards biographical and professional profiles, the interviewees varied in age, role/profession/expertise, and lived in different regions of Italy. We had good geographic coverage and in some cases we were able to include more than one participant of the same territory in order to collect experiences to enable us to look at vulnerabilities from different standpoints. Key findings As with the EU CEAS instruments, in Italian asylum and immigration legislation, the definition of vulnerability is not provided per se, but a list of groups considered vulnerable is set out (see Art. 17 of Legislative Decree 142/2015, which transposed the EU Reception Directive and the EU Procedures Directive). The same approach can be found in national legislation on trafficking, in particular Decree Law 24/2014, transposing EU Directive 2011/36 on trafficking into national law. By classifying vulnerabilities into discrete groups, this framing risks overlooking the situational dimension of vulnerability, neglecting how economic, legal, social, gendered and racial elements simultaneously interact to create and exacerbate situations of vulnerability. As for guidelines and policy documents produced by key international organizations working in the field of migration and asylum (UNHCR and IOM), in recent years they have adopted definitions of vulnerability acknowledging the interaction of situational and individual vulnerabilities. There is a tendency to use the terms ‘people with special/specific needs’ instead of that of vulnerability. However, as the participants to this research stressed, this alternative phrasing does not prevent the complexities of vulnerabilities from being overlooked. Broadly speaking, as emerged from the fieldwork, the limits today of a definitory approach that overlooks the situational aspects of vulnerability are particularly evident. Indeed, the restrictive legislative and political reforms in the field of migration and asylum which have been introduced in Italy in recent years, converged to either create situations of vulnerability or worsen existing ones, forcing migrants - including refugees - to resort to dangerous routes, such as the Mediterranean Sea and Balkan routes. These paths are marked by abuse and violence, and leave those who eventually arrive in Italy in conditions of precariousness and uncertainty, which increase their exposure to dynamics of exploitation. One of the main reforms introduced by the so-called 2018 Security/Salvini Decree, was the abrogation of humanitarian protection, which has been replaced with a series of residence permits for ‘special cases’. These have typified, once again, vulnerabilities in specific categories, such as victims of trafficking, people fleeing natural disasters, and so on. In contrast with this tendency, in recent years there have been insightful developments at the conceptual-legal level through some rulings of civil tribunals and the Court of Cassation on the notion of vulnerability in the context of humanitarian protection, taking into account the interplay between different factors contributing to situations of vulnerability linked to human rights violations. Even regarding international protection, some judicial authorities have adopted a broad conception of vulnerability with respect to specific issues. Of particular relevance are some civil tribunal decisions concerning victims of trafficking that recognized the difficulties that people may have in the reconstruction of their experience and situations of vulnerability, and which have stressed the importance of applicants’ trust in the associations and anti-trafficking NGOs during the referral mechanism. In these decisions, judges have paid attention to the gender dimension. Moreover, some have adopted an approach that is in line with an intersectional perspective. However, despite these noteworthy rulings, gendered, sexualized and culturalized conceptions of some categories are still the dominant paradigms. This leads not only to the exclusion of those who do not fit into these categories, but it also results in significant aspects of the person’s situations of vulnerability being overlooked. This limited approach often also emerges in other contexts, such as during the referral mechanisms between TCs and anti-trafficking NGOs. Indeed, even in this system, there is a tendency to refer to a specific conception of victims of trafficking - viewed as women mainly from Nigeria and Ivory Coast - and victims of sexual exploitation. Although institutional tools, such as COI or guidelines, constitute useful instruments in addressing and assessing the situations of vulnerability, a number of interviewees criticized the way some of these are conceived and used, highlighting that dominant interpretations and paradigms risk downplaying certain vulnerabilities. Others stressed that guidelines need to be frequently updated. While in recent years there has been increasing institutional attention on the issue of early identification of vulnerabilities, the many legal changes to the asylum procedures, with respect to their approach and duration, have gone in the opposite direction. This has significantly affected the right to asylum and limited access to it, and has played a crucial role in producing and exacerbating situations of vulnerability. Ever greater numbers of migrants in situations of vulnerability have been excluded from the process – such as those coming from ‘safe countries of origin’ – or have been subjected to an accelerated procedure, which does not confer the same level of time and resources to prepare and make their case. On the other hand, those protection seekers who arrived in Italy before the introduction of reforms to the asylum procedures have been subjected to an exhausting process, which in some cases has lasted years. We also find it important to highlight that many participants signaled the need to strengthen training activities for relevant actors – including TC members, judges, interpreters, cultural mediators, police staff and professionals working in reception centers – in order to consolidate their ability to understand, recognize and address situations of vulnerability. Many participants also stressed the need to use a multi-factor perspective on vulnerabilities, underlining the importance of imagining new tools to deal with intersecting vulnerabilities, considering personal and socio-political dimensions. To this end, many argued for the importance of cooperating with other professionals – including cultural mediators, anthropologists and ethnopsychologists. Other participants highlighted the need to foster cooperation and dialogue between the various institutional and non-institutional actors involved in the identification and assessment of protection seekers’ situations of vulnerability. For instance, TCs may collaborate more with civil tribunals and police headquarters in looking at how to address some complex vulnerabilities. Civil tribunals can also establish and/or consolidate forms of cooperation – for instance through protocols – with local associations and services, such as anti-trafficking organizations, so as to implement referral mechanisms. In conclusion, this research underlines how important it is to take into account the impact of reforms in a time of significant structural change. For instance, as this report was being written, the Italian government issued the so-called ‘Lamorgese Decree’, converted into law in December 2020. This partially revised the so-called ‘Security Decrees’, by, for example, introducing a new residence permit for ‘special protection’ similar to the former humanitarian protection. Moreover, the current pandemic has sharply exacerbated the structural inequalities that characterize the socioeconomic system of many countries, including Italy, with a disproportionate impact on people most affected by social exclusion and discrimination. At the same time, some emergency measures affecting prospective asylum seekers that were adopted to address the Covid-19 crisis – such as the creation of quarantine vessels along Italy’s coasts – reinforce inequalities by exposing migrants, especially those in situations of vulnerability, to further forms of discrimination and fundamental rights violations.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This research report has been published as part of the EU Horizon 2020 VULNER research project (www.vulner.eu). Our project arose from the finding that the requirement to address migrants’ multiple and various vulnerabilities is flooding the policy discourse on asylum and migration at the EU and global levels (as illustrated by the UN Global Compact for Migration and its objective 7 to ‘reduce vulnerabilities’ in migration, and the current focus at the EU level on the establishment of vulnerability assessment mech- anisms as part of asylum and border procedures as well as in resettlement programmes). Yet, if not based on scientific data and analyses that provide a clear and non-stereotyped understanding of the vulnerabilities that are lived and experienced by migrants, such a policy objective runs the risk of failing to address vulnerabilities, exacerbating existing vulnerabilities or even producing new ones. The overall objective of the VULNER project is to produce such scientific knowledge in ways that will assist states in identifying suitable strategies to assess the ‘vulnerabilities’ of migrants, to address their specific needs and to prevent stereotyped understandings of their lived experiences. The VULNER project also seeks to develop a broader, more thorough and more critical reflection on the increasing use of ‘vulnerability’ as a legal and policy standard that guides the development and the implementation of migration policies, including how it relates to border control considerations inherent in such policies. This research report presents some of the intermediate research results of the VULNER project, based on the first phase of the project, which consisted of mapping out the vulnerability assessment mechanisms developed by state authorities in Belgium, including how they are implemented on the ground through the practices of the public servants in charge. The following research questions are addressed: What do the relevant domestic legislation, case-law, policy documents, and administrative guidelines reveal about how “vulnerabilities” are being assessed and addressed in the countries under study? Do the relevant state and/or aid agencies have a legal duty to assess migrants’ vulnerabilities, and if yes, using which procedures, when and how? Following which legal and bureaucratic criteria? How do decision-makers (street-level bureaucrats) understand and perceive the ‘vulnerabilities’ of the migrants they meet on a daily basis? How do they address these ‘vulnerabilities’ through their everyday practices? What is their stance on existing legal requirements towards ‘vulnerable’ migrants? Which loopholes do they identify? The approach followed for this report was an inductive one, in which we aimed to start by analysing existing state approaches towards ‘vulnerability’ as a legal and policy concept. We complemented our focus on the legal framework with interviews with decision-makers. This is just the first phase of the data collection process. We are now conducting ethnographic fieldwork among informal and state-run migrant and refugee settlements, with the view to reach a more profound understanding of migrants’ own experiences of vulnerability. The objective is to document and reflect on how these experiences are shaped, and sometimes even produced, by the legal frameworks and state practices; how refugees and migrants adapt their behaviour to fit within existing vulnerability categories; and what coping and resilience strategies they develop. Our ultimate objective is to reflect upon thoroughly and from a critical perspective on the increasing use of ‘vulnerability’ as a standard that guides the development and implementation of migration policies at EU and global levels. This report aims at reaching institutions, actors and organizations involved to distinct levels in the Belgian protection regime. It can be a useful tool to shed light on how vulnerabilities are concretely assessed and addressed throughout the asylum procedure. Raising awareness of the way through which vulnerability is evaluated and handled at each step of the asylum process is relevant to improve the overall efficiency of the system. Indeed, this would enable the authorities and the actors involved in the protection regime to learn their respective practices. Furthermore, this study comes at a time where more attention is paid to Belgian asylum and protection regime with the current proposal to establish a Belgian Migration Code. Therefore, this research could also be of interest to the experts in charge of this reform project as well as to the legislative power. This report explores the asylum procedure in Belgium under the Law of 15 December 1980 regarding the entry, residence, settlement and removal of aliens (Aliens Act), the Law of 12 January 2007 regarding the reception of asylum seekers and other categories of aliens (Reception Act) as well as their implementation decrees.1 It also deals with the specific “durable solution procedure” for minors, as enshrined in Articles 61/14 and 74/16 paragraph 2 of the Aliens Act. With the objective of assessing the implementing practices, administrative guidelines have been consulted, such as Ministerial decree laying down the code of ethics for staff members of reception facilities for asylum seekers or Ministerial Circular of 15 September 2005 on the residence of unaccompanied foreign minors. Moreover, guidelines and comments from the UNHCR have been consulted.2 The combination of all these documents allows us to have a comprehensive understanding of the Belgian asylum system in light of the international protection regime, as well as to identify the challenges in terms of assessing and addressing vulnerabilities. The fieldwork included sixty interviews with both asylum authorities and reception centres’ staff. The asylum authorities involved in the study were: Minors and Victims of Human Trafficking Special Unit (MINTEH) at the Immigration Office, Office of the General Commissioner for Refugees and Stateless persons (CGRS), Council of Alien Law Litigation (CALL), Labour Court, Fédasil Dispatching Unit, Fédasil Voluntary Return Service. Interviews have been conducted also with the staff (Directors, Deputy Directors, social workers and medical staff) of eight reception centres run by Fédasil (Federal Agency for the reception of asylum seekers) and the Red Cross. Moreover, one interview has been carried with the Director of Sürya (centre specialized for the victims of human trafficking) as well as with a social assistant of a Local Reception Initiative (LRI). Those institutions and reception facilities have been selected for this study for three main reasons. Firstly, because they are key institutions that intervene at specific moments in the Belgian protection regime. Secondly, because these institutions are identifying and addressing vulnerability in their respective functions and daily practices (based sometimes on legal obligations to do so). Thirdly, because they are confronted with different groups of vulnerable people throughout the procedure (from a long period of time on daily basis for reception centres to a short hearing in front of the Council for Alien Law Litigation). The legal research and the fieldwork have led to key findings: the partial/uncomprehensive scope of the vulnerable groups identified in the law; the diversity of approach taken by the actors in the field; the lack of a (consistent) communication between the different authorities and actors involved in the Belgian protection system. The authorities and aid workers on the ground favour a case-by-case approach in identifying the more vulnerable profiles among the protection seekers. The groups and categories enshrined in the law are used as a warning bell by the actors on the field in order to pay special attention to certain applicants, to take into account their protection and reception needs and, eventually, to inform their decisions. In general, the case-by-case approach leads to a diffuse inclusive effect because the applicants’ needs are prospectively taken into adequate consideration. However, in light of the ample room for manoeuvre in the hands of the authorities and in the absence of substantial guidelines upstream as well as the obligation to state reasons of the decision downstream, there is a real risk of highly discretional decisions. Furthermore, in the same way a flexible approach could be inclusive, it then can also exclude anyone from the qualification of being vulnerable. In light of the study conducted in Belgium, identifying and addressing vulnerabilities departing from the categories could prove to be problematic for three main reasons. Firstly, vulnerability is a multifaceted, complex concept susceptible to change and develop over time and space. In light of the fact that vulnerability is likely to be an intrinsic feature for all the protection seekers and that intersectionality is the rule, vulnerability should not be assessed and addressed in a logic of presence/absence, but rather along layers and degrees of vulnerabilities. Secondly, the categories identified in the law are not ultimately comprehensive. There are some groups that are not taken into account – above all (isolated) man and young adults (those who have just turned eighteen) – as well as some factors that are relevant for vulnerability assessment. Among others, the most recurring and relevant factors identified are the socio-cultural and socio-economic background as well as the consequences of the migratory path, the complexities of the asylum procedure and the hardships of the life in the reception centres. Thirdly, the vulnerabilities that are addressed on the ground seems to be the most “practical” ones. This leads to a more general reflection that the consideration and the “management” of vulnerability seems to be calibrated in line with what the State can do in light of economic and human resources at disposal as well as its political priorities. The results of the research also show the lack of (consistent) communication between the different actors involved in the asylum procedure that makes the process of identifying, assessing and addressing vulnerability fragmented and potentially ineffective in the long run. Strikingly, as an example, the dialogue between the CGRS and the reception centres seems to be non-existent, even though both have clear obligations to assess and consider vulnerability. The rigid division of the tasks over the procedure and the distinct roles assigned to the different authorities and actors prevents common and fruitful channel of communication from being implemented. This lack of communication prevents a continuous, coherent consideration and a real follow-up of vulnerable profiles throughout the procedure. This report also shows that vulnerability does not carry the same consequences for the different asylum bodies, or sometimes any consequences at all. This lead not only to a lack of effective consequences deriving from the notion of vulnerability on the ground (the concrete effects of qualifying an asylum seeker as vulnerable remains unclear), but also to a lack of consistency in the way it is assessed and considered within the procedure. The impact and role vulnerability can therefore remain very variable, with a large margin of appreciation for the decision-makers supposed to assess it on the ground. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Footnotes 1 See Royal Decree of 8 October 1981 regarding the entry on the territory, residence, settlement and removal of aliens; Royal Decree of 11 July 2003 determining the procedure and functioning of the Office of the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons; Royal Decree of 25 April 2007 on the modalities of the assessment of the individual situation of the reception beneficiary. 2 UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONNER FOR REFUGEE, Background Note on the Safe Country Concept and Refugee Status, EC/SCP/68, 26 July 1991; UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES, Comments of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) on Bill 2548/003 amending the Law of 15 December 1980 on access to the territory, residence, establishment and removal of foreigners and the Law of 12 January 2007 on the reception of asylum seekers and certain categories of foreigners (hereinafter ‘Unicameral Bill [opinion]’), 4 October 2017; EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER’S PROGRAMME, General Conclusion on International Protection, No. 87 (L), 50th session, A/AC.96/928, 8 October 1999; UN COMMITTEE ON THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS OF ALL MIGRANT WORKERS AND MEMBERS OF THEIR FAMILIES (CMW), Joint general comment No. 4 of the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families and No. 23 of the Committee on the Rights of the Child on State obligations regarding the human rights of children in the context of international migration in countries of origin, transit, destination and return, 16 November 2017, CMW/C/GC/4-CRC/C/GC/23.

Executive Summary This research report has been published as part of the EU Horizon 2020 VULNER research project (www.vulner.eu). The VULNER research project is an international research initiative, which objective is to reach a more profound understanding of the experiences of vulnerabilities of migrants applying for asylum and other humanitarian protection statuses, and how they could best be addressed. It therefore makes use of a twofold analysis, which confronts the study of existing protection mechanisms towards vulnerable migrants (such as minors and victims of human trafficking), with the one of their own experiences on the ground. This research report presents some of the intermediary results of the VULNER project based on the first phase of the project, which consisted of mapping out the vulnerability assessment mechanisms developed by state authorities in Canada. Given the massive amount of documentation that the Canadian team had to review in the first phase of the project, this first report only includes a presentation and analysis of desk research data. At the time of writing (December 2020), interviews with civil servants and practitioners had not begun and were expected to begin shortly. The following research questions are addressed: What do the relevant domestic legislation, case-law, policy documents, and administrative guidelines reveal about how “vulnerabilities” are being assessed and addressed in the countries under study? Do the relevant state and/or aid agencies have a legal duty to assess migrants’ vulnerabilities, and if yes, using which procedures, when and how? Following which legal and bureaucratic criteria? In Canada, there are a variety of pathways for vulnerable migrants to gain legal status and protection. Each pathway has its own specific criteria as to who can apply and under which conditions protection is granted. Additionally, protection can be granted from abroad (as in the case of refugee resettlement) or from within Canada. Therefore, this research covers a much broader range of protection procedures currently in place in Canada compared to the EU: • Refugee protection, granted to individuals who meet the strict 1951 Geneva Convention definition of a refugee, who are in circumstances considered similar to those of a Convention refugee, or whose removal to their country of origin would subject them to torture or inhumane and degrading treatment according to the Convention Against Torture (permanent residency status, with pathway to citizenship). • Permanent residency (with pathway to citizenship), granted to individuals who are about to be removed from Canada and who demonstrate an imminent danger of torture, risk of persecution or of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if sent back to their country of origin (Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA)). • Permanent residency (with pathway to citizenship), granted to individuals who are inadmissible or who do not meet the requirements of the immigration legislation, but have compelling Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) grounds to remain in Canada (Humanitarian and Compassionate Grounds (H&C)). • Permanent residency (with pathway to citizenship), granted to individuals who are inadmissible or do not meet the requirements of the existing immigration legislation, but are justified by public policy considerations to remain in Canada (Public Policy Grounds). • Temporary protection granted to migrant workers on a valid employer-specific work permit who demonstrate experiencing abuse - or being at risk of abuse- in the context of their employment in Canada (Vulnerable Worker Open Work Permit (VWOWP)). • Temporary protection granted to individuals recognized as victims of human trafficking or of family violence (Temporary Resident Permit (TRP)). In addition, the Canadian government will take into account the specific situation of certain categories of migrants – such as immigration detainees, unaccompanied minors, stateless persons, or individuals from countries to which there is a moratorium on removals – who are likely to experience heightened vulner- ability in immigration/asylum proceedings. Such categories are also the focus of our study. In Canada, there are three key immigration “players”: the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) and the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB). CBSA manages Canada’s border, including determining an individual’s initial admissibility at ports of entry and carrying out enforcement duties (detention, removal, etc.). IRCC is responsible for developing and ad- ministering all of Canada’s immigration programs from economic to humanitarian admission, including Canada’s overseas refugee resettlement programs and applications to remain in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. The IRB is an independent tribunal with four distinct divisions, including the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), which is responsible for adjudicating eligible inland claims for refugee protection, and the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD), which reviews most denials of protection by the RPD. Additionally, there are six main sources of immigration and refugee law (and policy) in Canada: the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (RSC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]), the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (SOR/2002-227 [IRPR]), Ministerial Instructions, Ministerial Guidelines (IRCC and CBSA), Chairperson’s Guidelines (IRB) and case law. Much of the operation of law takes place through Ministerial Guidelines (i.e., operational manuals, program delivery instructions etc.), which provide details on the interpretation of the IRPA and IRPR to IRCC’s and CBSA’s officers. Furthermore, the IRB’s Chairperson’s Guidelines provide guiding principles for IRB personnel who manage and adjudicate cases. IRB’s Guidelines are not mandatory but board members do need to justify any non-compliance in their written decisions (IRB, 2018b). As for IRCC’s and CBSA’s Ministerial Guidelines, “… they are ‘not legally binding’ (….) Officers can (…) consider [them]in the exercise of their (…) discretion but should turn ‘[their] mind[s] to the specific circumstances of the case’” (Kanthasamy v. Canada, 2015 SCC 6, at para. 32). This report examined over 377 legal and policy documents, including legislation and regulations, guidelines and ministerial instructions produced by the IRB, the IRCC and the CBSA. Our study was complimented by an analysis of over 884 cases of the Supreme Court, the Federal Court, Provincial Courts, and the IRB. Over 100 secondary sources from UN agencies, NGOs, lawyers, and academic scholarships were also analysed. The aim of these multiple research efforts was to understand how the concept of vulnerability is approached in these documents; what obligations (if any) this recognition of ‘vulnerability’ provides to migrants; if there is a focus on the vulnerabilities of certain migrants, and if so, what consequences are attached to this recognition of vulnerability. It is important to take note of the many positive advancements that are unique to the Canadian protection regime. Among these is a growing recognition in government documents of ‘vulnerability’ among migrants, and the development of guides aimed at assisting decision-makers in proceedings concerning ‘vulnerable’ migrants. Since 2018, Canada has also been the world leader in refugee resettlement. Despite such important efforts, we find ‘vulnerability’ an elusive concept that is rarely defined, difficult to under stand and consequently, not always properly addressed in Canadian documents. More particularly, there is a lack of clarity on who is a vulnerable person, and how exactly their vulnerability must be addressed. This raises critical questions regarding how officials use their broad discretionary powers to address such vulnerabilities in practice. Additionally, while there are procedural accommodations available for most ‘vulnerable’ migrants in immigration/asylum proceedings, being identified as ‘vulnerable’ does not lead – on its own – to obtaining protection status (an exception to this is found in the administration of Canada’s overseas resettlement program). Equally, a recognition of vulnerability is rarely paired with the promise to address the underlying issues that contribute to the vulnerability. The findings presented in this report will be refined in the next phase of the research through interviews with civil servants and practitioners., Canadian Research Council SSHRC/CRSH Fonds de recherche du Québec – Sociétés et Cultures (FRQSC)

Executive Summary This research report has been published as part of the EU Horizon 2020 VULNER research project (www.vulner.eu). Our project arose from the finding that the requirement to address migrants’ multiple and various vulnerabilities is flooding the policy discourse on asylum and migration at the EU and global levels (as illustrated by the UN Global Compact for Migration and its objective 7 to ‘reduce vulnerabilities’ in migration, and the current focus at the EU level on the establishment of vulnerability assessment mechanisms as part of asylum and border procedures as well as in resettlement programmes). Yet, if not based on scientific data and analyses that provide a clear and non-stereotyped understanding of the vulnerabilities that are lived and experienced by migrants, such a policy objective runs the risk of failing to address vulnerabilities, exacerbating existing vulnerabilities or even producing new ones. The overall objective of the VULNER project is to produce such scientific knowledge in ways that will assist states in identifying suitable strategies to assess the ‘vulnerabilities’ of migrants, to address their specific needs and to prevent stereotyped understandings of their lived experiences. The VULNER project also seeks to develop a broader, more thorough and more critical reflection on the increasing use of ‘vulnerability’ as a legal and policy standard that guides the development and the implementation of migration policies, including how it relates to border control considerations inherent in such policies. This research report presents some of the intermediate research results of the VULNER project based on the first phase of the project, which consisted of mapping out the vulnerability assessment mechanisms developed by state authorities in Germany, including how they are implemented on the ground through the practices of the public servants in charge. The following research questions are addressed: What do the relevant domestic legislation, case-law, policy documents, and administrative guidelines reveal about how “vulnerabilities” are being assessed and addressed in the countries under study? Do the relevant state and/or aid agencies have a legal duty to assess migrants’ vulnerabilities, and if yes, using which procedures, when and how? Following which legal and bureaucratic criteria? How do decision-makers (street-level bureaucrats) understand and perceive the ‘vulnerabilities’ of the migrants they meet on a daily basis? How do they address these ‘vulnerabilities’ through their everyday practices? What is their stance on existing legal requirements towards ‘vulnerable’ migrants? Which loopholes do they identify? The approach followed for this report was an inductive one, in which we aimed to start by analysing existing state approaches towards ‘vulnerability’ as a legal and policy concept. We complemented our focus on the legal framework with interviews with decision makers. This is just the first phase of the data collection process. We are now conducting ethnographic fieldwork among informal and state-run migrant and refugee settlements, with the view to reach a more profound understanding of migrants’ own experiences of vulnerability. The objective is to document and reflect on how these experiences are shaped, and sometimes even produced, by the legal frameworks and state practices; how refugees and migrants adapt their behaviour to fit within existing vulnerability categories; and what coping and resilience strategies they develop. Our ultimate objective is to reflect upon thoroughly and from a critical perspective on the increasing use of ‘vulnerability’ as a standard that guides the development and implementation of migration policies at EU and global levels. Due to the federalised system in Germany, three different procedures were examined. Firstly, the German asylum procedure, which is uniformly regulated by the federal level (Bund). Secondly, the reception procedures and accommodation systems, which are left to each German state (Länder), so that 16 different reception procedures were examined here. Thirdly, the German procedures for humanitarian admission from abroad including resettlement, which are decided by the Bund and the Länder. Concerning the EU level, we mainly analysed the EU Reception Conditions Directive (RCD) and the Asylum Procedures Directive (APD). Both oblige EU Member States to identify vulnerable individuals during the asylum process and to provide them with specialised assistance. In addition, further European and international regulations were considered, especially those focusing on human trafficking such as the European Directive on Trafficking in Human Beings or the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings. At the national level, the focus was on the relevant regulations of the German Reception Act (RA) and Asylum Act (AA). The fact that the 16 Länder are responsible for most relevant aspects of the reception procedure and its corresponding legislation was a great challenge for our research. Here, we found a great variety of different approaches, measures and instruments for addressing the vulnerabilities of asylum seekers. All in all, we intensively analysed around 100 (legal) regulations and documents. Our “map” of these regulations concerning the reception procedures and their provisions addressing the special reception needs of vulnerable migrants can be grouped in 5 types of norms: Parliamentarian acts Executive decrees Internal administrative instructions Operator contracts with reception centres Strategic concepts Interviews with key actors and scientific experts made it clear that the reality of the practical procedures is often different from the legal regulations, so that we had to explore and compare both levels. Our interview partners were representatives from BAMF (Federal Office for Migration and Refugees), specialised NGOs (6 interviews), researchers (1 interview), lawyers (1 interview) and court judges (1 interview). In German law and legal research, the term and topic “vulnerability” are mentioned in various research contexts, but they are not given a centralised and unified definition and orientation. Therefore, it is not easy to find thematically relevant studies with corresponding database queries because they may utilise other key terms. The research was focused on four aspects: The interplay of the international, EU and federal levels in a multilevel legal system. A systematic analysis of the existing norms, their implementation and efficacy. The special regulations and procedures relating to victims of human trafficking. The importance of different infrastructural settings (especially regarding the activities and services of specialized NGOs) in the different parts of Germany and their effects on satisfying the special reception and procedural needs (special needs) of vulnerable migrants and protection seekers in general and victims of human trafficking in particular. In German federalism the obligation to identify vulnerable protection seekers concerns on the one hand the Bund and on the other hand the Länder, including municipalities (Kommunen). In this system the Bund carries out the asylum procedure, whereas the Länder and Kommunen are responsible for reception in respective accommodation facilities or apartments. Together they have to guarantee identification of vulnerable individuals and address their special needs. However, Germany has inconsistently applied these EU directives in its own practice. So far, the federal Asylum Act only briefly mentions the obligation to identify vulnerable people, referring broadly to “women” and “persons in need of special protection” (besonders schutzbedürftige Personen). Furthermore, it passes on this responsibility to the Länder, whose regulations and practices for reception procedures vary greatly. The Asylum Act does not contain any legal guidelines regarding the identification procedure for which the BAMF, and thus the federal level, is responsible. Nevertheless, the federal BAMF office has introduced some measures to assess and address special vulnerabilities in the asylum procedure: special representatives, e.g. concerning trafficking in human beings; administrative regulations, e.g. a list of indicators for trafficking; a counselling service by BAMF employees. However, the practical impact of these measures on the identification of vulnerable persons is an open question. Undoubtedly, a legally binding right for vulnerable persons to be heard by a special representative should be included in the Asylum Act. The fact that in most relevant aspects the 16 Länder are responsible for the reception procedure and its corresponding legislation is a great challenge. Here, we found a great variety of different approaches, measures and instruments for addressing the vulnerabilities of asylum seekers. In all the states examined, there are arrangements with NGOs which offer additional support, especially social and legal counselling, social care and other supports. Formal and informal cooperation with NGOs turned out to be very important and is to be examined more deeply. Many regulations were implemented or changed within the last three years and are continuously changing, making them difficult to evaluate. Protection concepts against violence (Gewaltschutzkonzepte), here understood as a formal legal framework for reception centres, serve as the main way to address vulnerability in the Länder. Their implementation differs widely (regulations, administrative regulations, advices, contracts). Conversely, concrete legislative considerations of special needs remain the exception. The executive branch thus becomes a key actor – not only in implementation, but also in normatively addressing the needs of vulnerable protection seekers in general. Regardless of the type of regulation, their references to single vulnerability criteria are as common as substantial considerations of vulnerability in general. In addition to minors, this frequently affects (pregnant) women, single parents and, in some cases, LGBTI+-persons. This gives us an idea of the German understanding of vulnerability. The mention of particular vulnerabilities is probably not least due to the fact that the discourse on legal obligations to certain groups of people has a long tradition and is flanked by other human rights sources. Nevertheless, comprehensive consideration of vulnerability is necessary for implementing the RCD. Differentiation between vulnerable groups can and must be made only in the case of needs-based support and within the framework of protection concepts against violence. Accommodation in collective reception centres applies in principle to vulnerable persons as well as protection seekers in general. The explicit promotion of mass accommodation, as in the states of Bavaria or North Rhine-Westphalia, must be viewed through an especially critical lens with regard to its risks for vulnerable persons. The approach of the city-state Berlin, which considers the accommodation of vulnerable persons in collective reception centres per se as unreasonable, is in contrast noteworthy but needs to be practically realized. In general, there is a difference in supply between city and territorial states, where access is much more difficult due to peripheral accommodation, especially since it is sometimes impossible for counselling centres to provide assistance simply because of the distance. This makes internal relocation within the Länder an essential requirement. In this regard additional legal regulations, such as the right to adequate accommodation in shelters and flats, are necessary and must be included in the Asylum Act. As there are important regional differences in infrastructure for migrants and refugees with special needs, the reception procedure should be reformed, so that the identification and consideration of vulnerable persons is regarded as an integral part in the reception procedure in all parts of Germany. In the reception centres for protection seekers managed the Länder as well as in BAMF offices, increased attention should be paid to the training of employees. This applies also to other public institutions, such as the immigration offices of the Länder. Humanitarian admission and resettlement programs, which provide a legal way to enter the German territory, mostly consider specific vulnerabilities, including minors, pregnant women, single parents, the ill and elderly protection seekers. At the same time, these programs include the “integration capability” (Integrationsfähigkeit) as selection criteria. In German federalism, both, the Bund and the Länder may decide upon the issuance of admission programs. Since 2018 a range of municipalities and Länder demand admission of more forced migrants in their towns. This movement and the legal implications merit further attention. In all, awareness of the special needs of vulnerable migrants in Germany is increasing, but it is not yet sufficiently legally implemented in comparison with the provisions of international and European Law.

Le déploiement des compétences citoyennes en arène publiques face aux élus fait l’objet de nombre d’analyses sociologiques qui s’intéressent aux dispositifs participatifs en urbanisme comme lieux par excellence du renouvellement démocratique. En se penchant sur les dispositifs consultatifs à partir d’une controverse urbanistique à Bruxelles, cette contribution fait ressortir les contrastes des modes d’investissement citoyen entre arènes publiques participatives et consultatives. Face au constat d’une juridicisation du discours et d’une judiciarisation du conflit dans les assemblées consultatives, cet article développe une analyse soulignant l’ambivalence des usages sociaux stratégiques du droit, mobilisés tant par les élus que par les citoyens, tentant respectivement de gérer la contestation citoyenne et de contester la gestion des politiques publiques. Les usages sociaux du droit observés, entre ressource et contrainte, questionnent en définitive les relations entretenues entre droit et politique dans les politiques d’aménagement du territoire. Many sociological works focus on the civic and critical capacities of lay citizens confronted to local officials in public arenas, especially in participative assemblies, considered as the ultimate venue of a democratic renewal. However, by concentrating on the consultative public arenas in the context of a local urban planning controversy in Brussels, this paper aims to shed light on the contrasting modes of citizen investment in participative and consultative assemblies. Taking the political mobilization of law as both judicialization of the conflict and juridicisation of discourse, this article examines how local officials and lay citizen respectively try to manage the contestation and contest the management of public policies. The observed social uses of law question the relations between law and politics in urban planning. Las competencias críticas ciudadanas en arena públicas frente a los funcionarios electos es el tema de una serie de análisis sociológicos que se centran en dispositivos participativos en urbanismo como lugares por excelencia de la renovación democrática. Al centrarse en los dispositivos consultativos de una controversia urbana en Bruselas, esta contribución resalta los contrastes en los patrones de inversión ciudadana entre los espacios públicos participativos y consultivos. Ante el hallazgo de una juridicización del discurso y una judicialización del conflicto en las asambleas consultivas, este artículo desarrolla un análisis que subraya la ambivalencia de los usos sociales estratégicos del derecho, movilizados tanto por los funcionarios electos como por los ciudadanos, intentando, respectivamente, gestionar la protesta ciudadana y cuestionar la gestión de las políticas públicas. Los usos sociales del derecho observados, entre recursos y restricciones, cuestionan las relaciones mantenidas entre la ley y las políticas en las políticas de planificación.

Orientador: Luciana Ferreira Tatagiba Tese (doutorado) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Instituto de Filosofia e Ciências Humanas Resumo: A presente tese tem como objetivo geral investigar as relações entre movimentos sociais, direito e Poder Judiciário. Para tanto, utilizou como marco analítico os estudos sobre a mobilização do direito, desenvolvidos principalmente na literatura estadunidense. Essa agenda de pesquisa é explorada em trabalhos internacionais com mais intensidade desde os anos 1990, mas só recentemente foi incorporada ao caso brasileiro. Assim, a tese pretende contribuir para a expansão desse campo de estudos no Brasil. O objeto de estudo empírico selecionado foi o movimento feminista na cidade de São Paulo. A partir da identificação das organizações mais relevantes nesse campo, foi traçado um panorama geral de seu surgimento no contexto mais amplo do movimento feminista, suas principais características estruturais e estratégias de ação, com ênfase nas táticas que mobilizam o direito e o Poder Judiciário. Ao analisar tais dados, o objetivo foi o de investigar a relação entre a estrutura organizativa dos grupos selecionados pelo estudo e as diversas formas de mobilização do direito identificadas pela pesquisa. Também foi realizado um estudo da campanha do movimento feminista pelo direito ao aborto no Brasil, desde o seu surgimento nos anos 1970 até o momento atual. Com essa investigação argumentou-se que o movimento feminista direcionou ao Poder Judiciário a demanda pelo direito ao aborto, já que os outros canais institucionais (os Poderes Legislativo e Executivo) encontravam-se bloqueados pelos seus adversários no campo político: os grupos conservadores e religiosos Abstract: The main objective of this thesis is to investigate the relationship between social movements, Law and Judiciary. To this end, it uses as analytical framework the studies on legal mobilization developed in American literature. This research agenda has been intensively explored in international studies since the 1990s, but only recently has been incorporated into the Brazilian case. Thus, the thesis aims to contribute in expanding this field of study in Brazil. The selected object of empirical study was the feminist movement in São Paulo city. From the identification of the most relevant organizations in this field, it was traced an overview of their rise in the broader context of the feminist movement, their main structural features and their strategies of action, with emphasis on tactics that mobilize law and Judiciary. By analyzing such data, the objective was to investigate the relationship between the organizational structure of the groups selected by the study and the different forms of legal mobilization identified by the research. Furthermore, it was done a study of the feminist movement campaign for abortion rights in Brazil since its rise in the 1970s until the present time. Through this research, it was argued that the feminist movement directed the demand for abortion to the Judiciary, since other institutional channels (the Legislative and the Executive) found themselves blocked by their opponents in the political field, such as conservative and religious groups Doutorado Ciências Sociais Doutora em Ciências Sociais CAPES

International audience; The field of disability studies has largely overlooked the role of trade unions in the promotion of the rights of workers with disabilities. To address this oversight, this article explores how union activists pursue disability rights and how this cause is situated in their struggle for workers’ rights in Belgium, a country which both has a strong welfare system and gives a predominant role to social partners in industrial relations. It argues that there is a division of work inside unions between representatives at branch level who lobby to increase job opportunities in sheltered workshops and diversity officers at interbranch level who attempt to strengthen equality in the ordinary labour market. Although these two groups do not pursue disability rights in the same way, they share in common a reluctance to mobilise antidiscrimination law because the ideals of equality contradict the routinised practices of employers and of workers’ organisations.Points of interest: 1) In most countries, people with disabilities experience higher unemployment rates than those without a disability. When they work, they are more likely to be found at lower-skilled and part-time positions, as they face discrimination.2) In Belgium, trade unions are very active in supporting workers’ rights but their attitude towards disability rights is still very poorly documented.3) Based on interviews with union activists, this study shows that trade unions focus mainly on the development of an adapted work sector, by increasing the number of places in sheltered workshops.4) Diversity officers working in trade unions aim to combat discrimination in employment but they are reluctant to criticise an employer who do not comply with the law because they fear to harm further negotiation with employers.