The Experts below are selected from a list of 135 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Anjum Gupta - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
unwilling or unable the failure to conform the Nonstate Actor standard in asylum claims to the refugee act
Columbia Human Rights Law Review, 2021Co-Authors: Charles Shane Ellison, Anjum GuptaAbstract:Pursuant to its obligations to the international community, the United States provides asylum to individuals fleeing persecution “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” For decades, both the Board of Immigration Appeals and federal courts recognized that individuals could obtain asylum based on a fear of persecution at the hands of Nonstate Actors, so long as the applicant demonstrated that their government was “unable or unwilling” to control the persecution. As part of a wide-ranging attack on asylum, the Trump Administration has sought to eliminate asylum based on Nonstate Actor persecution. In June 2018, the Attorney General issued a sweeping decision, Matter of A B-, vacating a 2014 decision in which the Board of Immigration Appeals had held that those fearing domestic violence could obtain asylum relief. Among other things, the decision heightened the Nonstate Actor standard, requiring that applicants not only show that their governments were “unwilling or unable” to control the persecution, but also that the governments “condoned” or were “completely helpless” to stop the persecution. After Matter of A-B- was decided, federal courts have disagreed as to which standard to apply, or, indeed, whether the two tests differ at all. Courts in some circuits found the two standards to be different and held that the change to heighten the Nonstate Actor test was arbitrary and capricious. Other courts held that the condone-or-completely-helpless formulation was merely a permissible interpretation of the familiar unwilling-or-unable standard. In response, on January 14, 2021, the Acting Attorney General (“AG”) issued Matter of A-B- II, redoubling the defense of the condone-or-complete-helplessness articulation and evoking the agency’s Chevron and Brand X authority to combat decisions from the courts of appeals that had rejected Matter of A-B- I. The Acting AG claimed that the condone-or-complete-helplessness articulation was not a departure from the older unable-or-unwilling test, but he argued that even if it was a change in policy, it constituted a reasonable construction of the ambiguous statutory term “persecution.” In his elaboration of the condone-or-complete-helplessness standard, however, the Acting AG revealed that the new test is vastly more difficult to satisfy. He concluded that any state effort to protect victims—including even the most minimal effort—is sufficient to deny asylum protections. This Article provides the first systematic analysis of the impact of the heightened Nonstate Actor test in cases before both the Board of Immigration Appeals and federal courts. We argue that the two tests are, in fact, different by analyzing the plain language they employ as well as the divergent case outcomes they have produced. Then, rather than ground the Nonstate Actor standard in the term “persecution,” we anchor the standard in the statutory language defining refugees as those who are “unable or unwilling to avail [themselves] . . . of [state] protection,” a strangely ignored part of the U.S. asylum statute and international treaty. This novel theory has yet to be considered by the courts, but it demonstrates that the unwilling-or-unable test is the correct one. The heightened condone-or-complete-helplessness standard, by contrast, is antithetical to the protections afforded by the statute and treaty and poses an insurmountable hurdle for many of the world’s most vulnerable refugees.
Charles Shane Ellison - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
unwilling or unable the failure to conform the Nonstate Actor standard in asylum claims to the refugee act
Columbia Human Rights Law Review, 2021Co-Authors: Charles Shane Ellison, Anjum GuptaAbstract:Pursuant to its obligations to the international community, the United States provides asylum to individuals fleeing persecution “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” For decades, both the Board of Immigration Appeals and federal courts recognized that individuals could obtain asylum based on a fear of persecution at the hands of Nonstate Actors, so long as the applicant demonstrated that their government was “unable or unwilling” to control the persecution. As part of a wide-ranging attack on asylum, the Trump Administration has sought to eliminate asylum based on Nonstate Actor persecution. In June 2018, the Attorney General issued a sweeping decision, Matter of A B-, vacating a 2014 decision in which the Board of Immigration Appeals had held that those fearing domestic violence could obtain asylum relief. Among other things, the decision heightened the Nonstate Actor standard, requiring that applicants not only show that their governments were “unwilling or unable” to control the persecution, but also that the governments “condoned” or were “completely helpless” to stop the persecution. After Matter of A-B- was decided, federal courts have disagreed as to which standard to apply, or, indeed, whether the two tests differ at all. Courts in some circuits found the two standards to be different and held that the change to heighten the Nonstate Actor test was arbitrary and capricious. Other courts held that the condone-or-completely-helpless formulation was merely a permissible interpretation of the familiar unwilling-or-unable standard. In response, on January 14, 2021, the Acting Attorney General (“AG”) issued Matter of A-B- II, redoubling the defense of the condone-or-complete-helplessness articulation and evoking the agency’s Chevron and Brand X authority to combat decisions from the courts of appeals that had rejected Matter of A-B- I. The Acting AG claimed that the condone-or-complete-helplessness articulation was not a departure from the older unable-or-unwilling test, but he argued that even if it was a change in policy, it constituted a reasonable construction of the ambiguous statutory term “persecution.” In his elaboration of the condone-or-complete-helplessness standard, however, the Acting AG revealed that the new test is vastly more difficult to satisfy. He concluded that any state effort to protect victims—including even the most minimal effort—is sufficient to deny asylum protections. This Article provides the first systematic analysis of the impact of the heightened Nonstate Actor test in cases before both the Board of Immigration Appeals and federal courts. We argue that the two tests are, in fact, different by analyzing the plain language they employ as well as the divergent case outcomes they have produced. Then, rather than ground the Nonstate Actor standard in the term “persecution,” we anchor the standard in the statutory language defining refugees as those who are “unable or unwilling to avail [themselves] . . . of [state] protection,” a strangely ignored part of the U.S. asylum statute and international treaty. This novel theory has yet to be considered by the courts, but it demonstrates that the unwilling-or-unable test is the correct one. The heightened condone-or-complete-helplessness standard, by contrast, is antithetical to the protections afforded by the statute and treaty and poses an insurmountable hurdle for many of the world’s most vulnerable refugees.
Florea Adrian - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Introducing the Armed Nonstate Actor Rivalry Dataset (ANARD)
'Informa UK Limited', 2021Co-Authors: Powell, Stephen R., Florea AdrianAbstract:While research on interstate rivalries is abundant, scholarship examining Nonstate rivalries remains limited. To address this shortcoming, in this article we introduce the Armed Nonstate Actor Rivalry Dataset (ANARD) – a dataset which captures dyadic rivalries and militarised disputes among armed Nonstate Actors in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) between 1993 and 2018. We begin by explaining why fine-grained data on militarised interactions between armed Nonstate organisations are needed for a comprehensive understanding of conflict. We then provide details of the data collection process and coding practices. Finally, we identify the contributions that ANARD can make to conflict research
Aydinli E. - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Assessing violent Nonstate Actorness in global politics: a framework for analysis
'Informa UK Limited', 2015Co-Authors: Aydinli E.Abstract:This article begins with the assumption that the most important shift that is taking place in contemporary global politics is the shift in polity power from the predominance of the state to the rising importance of Nonstate Actors. It goes on to argue that disciplinary understandings of this shift and, in particular, the nature of the Actors driving it, remain dispersed. This article aims, therefore, to provide a framework for evaluating the global political potential—or Actorness—of one type of Nonstate Actor, the violent Nonstate Actor, positing it as that most overtly challenging states' authority, and therefore with the potential to play a uniquely stimulating role in the shifting of power. Based on three principles of autonomy, representation and influence, the framework provides broad criteria for understanding violent Nonstate Actors, as well as a means for evaluating violent Nonstate Actorness and for exploring its potential in global politics. © 2015, © 2013 Centre of International Studies
-
Assessing violent Nonstate Actorness in global politics: a framework for analysis
'Informa UK Limited', 2013Co-Authors: Aydinli E.Abstract:Cataloged from PDF version of article.This article begins with the assumption that the most important shift that is taking place in contemporary global politics is the shift in polity power from the predominance of the state to the rising importance of Nonstate Actors. It goes on to argue that disciplinary understandings of this shift and, in particular, the nature of the Actors driving it, remain dispersed. This article aims, therefore, to provide a framework for evaluating the global political potential—or Actorness—of one type of Nonstate Actor, the violent Nonstate Actor, positing it as that most overtly challenging states’ authority, and therefore with the potential to play a uniquely stimulating role in the shifting of power. Based on three principles of autonomy, representation and influence, the framework provides broad criteria for understanding violent Nonstate Actors, as well as a means for evaluating violent Nonstate Actorness and for exploring its potential in global politics
Jan Beyers - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
should i stay or should i go explaining variation in Nonstate Actor advocacy over time in global governance
Governance, 2020Co-Authors: Marcel Hanegraaff, Jorik Vergauwen, Jan BeyersAbstract:The past decades have been characterized by a growing number of Nonstate Actors (NSAs) involved in global governance. However, despite this growth, only a small number of NSAs have been able to maintain a prolonged global presence over a substantial period of time. To explain why some NSAs are more active, we rely on resource dependence theory. We demonstrate that sustained advocacy over time can be explained by a density dependence mechanism, namely the more NSAs mobilize, the lower the chance that individual NSAs will prolong their global advocacy efforts. Analysis of data stemming from a unique data set of 5,627 NSAs active at the global climate conferences demonstrates that much advocacy in this field is indeed of an incidental nature, namely a large number of groups attend once and never return.
