Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Recognition of Refugee Women in International Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Legal Issues of International Law from a Gender Perspective

Part of the book series: Gender Perspectives in Law ((GPL,volume 3))

  • 393 Accesses

Abstract

According to the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), around 80 million people have been forced into displacement, with more than half of them being women and girls. In addition to marginalization, poverty, and other challenges that all refugees face, women are exposed to gender discrimination and persecution. Despite this, refugee protection is based on the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol, both of which are gender-neutral and do not recognize “gender” as a ground for persecution.

This paper examines a number of human rights instruments that provide women refugees with complementary protection. The author argues that the 1951 Convention protects women either as a “social group” or when gender-related claims intersect with other recognized grounds of prosecution, such as race, nationality, ethnicity, or religion. Gender-based persecution takes very specific forms and it needs to be recognized in national legislation and understood by public authorities, in order to provide proper protection to women refugees. However, even if these preconditions are met, the author underlines that an asylum procedure must be gender-sensitive, as this allows for the submission of an asylum claim, the proper conduct of an interview, and the assessment of case evidence, all of which lead to a successful recognition of refugee status.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Lehmann (2019), pp. 2–15.

  2. 2.

    Mayblin (2010), p. 1.

  3. 3.

    Hathaway (1990), p. 141.

  4. 4.

    Kelley (2001), pp. 559–568.

  5. 5.

    Convention related to the Status of Refugees (1951), p. 137.

  6. 6.

    Article A 2) of the 1951 Convention.

  7. 7.

    The UN Charter in Article 1 (3) expressly prohibits, among other grounds, discrimination based on sex.

  8. 8.

    Weis (1951).

  9. 9.

    The representatives from Austria, Colombia, Italy Switzerland, Turkey, the UK, and the U.S. rejected the proposal.

  10. 10.

    Article I (2) of the OAU Convention.

  11. 11.

    Section III (3) of the Cartagena Declaration.

  12. 12.

    Peroni (2018), p. 350.

  13. 13.

    Peroni (2018), p. 351.

  14. 14.

    See, e.g. Collins and Akaziebie v. Sweden, 2007; Izevbekhai v. Ireland, 2011; R.B.A.B. and Others v. The Netherlands, 2016.

  15. 15.

    V.F. v. France, 2011; F.A. v. the United Kingdom, 2013.

  16. 16.

    N. v. Sweden, 2010.

  17. 17.

    N. v. Sweden, 55.

  18. 18.

    R.D. v. France, 2016.

  19. 19.

    R.D. v. France, 40-41.

  20. 20.

    General recommendation No. 24 (1999).

  21. 21.

    General recommendation No. 24 (1999), 6.

  22. 22.

    General recommendation No. 24 (1999), 16.

  23. 23.

    General recommendation No. 24 (1999), 16.

  24. 24.

    General recommendation No. 24 (1999), 38.

  25. 25.

    General recommendation No. 24 (1999), 50.

  26. 26.

    General recommendation No. 28 (2010), 26.

  27. 27.

    General recommendation No. 30 (2013), 22.

  28. 28.

    General recommendation No. 32 (2014).

  29. 29.

    General recommendation No. 32 (2014), 5.

  30. 30.

    General recommendation No. 32 (2014), 7,14.

  31. 31.

    General recommendation No. 32 (2014), 8.

  32. 32.

    General recommendation no. 38 (2020), 24.

  33. 33.

    General recommendation no. 38 (2020), 13.

  34. 34.

    General recommendation no. 38 (2020), 16.

  35. 35.

    Australian Department of Immigration and Multi-Cultural Affairs (1996), 4.29.

  36. 36.

    Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board (1996), p. 5.

  37. 37.

    Hooper (2019), p. 29.

  38. 38.

    Hooper (2019), p. 30.

  39. 39.

    General recommendation No. 32 (2014), 31.

  40. 40.

    General recommendation No. 32 (2014), 31.

  41. 41.

    General recommendation No. 32 (2014), 15.

  42. 42.

    General recommendation No. 32 (2014), 13.

  43. 43.

    S.J.A. v. Denmark, 2017; H.D. v. Denmark, 2018; S.O. v. Canada, 2014; A.S. v. Denmark, 2018.

  44. 44.

    Y.W. v. Denmark, 2015.

  45. 45.

    X. v. Denmark, 2018.

  46. 46.

    X. v. Austria, 2018; J.O. v. Switzerland, 2018; O.D.A. v. Denmark, 2019.

  47. 47.

    H.S. v. Denmark, 2018; N.S. v. Denmark, 2019; Y. v. Ecuador, 2018.

  48. 48.

    Article 1 a) of the Istanbul Convention.

  49. 49.

    Article 4 (3) of the Istanbul Convention.

  50. 50.

    Explanatory report (2011), 298.

  51. 51.

    Explanatory report (2011), 298.

  52. 52.

    Article 59 (1) of the Istanbul Convention.

  53. 53.

    Explanatory report (2011), 301.

  54. 54.

    Explanatory report (2011), 303.

  55. 55.

    Article 59 (2) of the Istanbul Convention.

  56. 56.

    Explanatory report (2011), 306.

  57. 57.

    Explanatory report (2011), 306.

  58. 58.

    Article 59 (3) of the Istanbul Convention.

  59. 59.

    Article 59 (4) of the Istanbul Convention; Explanatory report (2011, 308).

  60. 60.

    GREVIO (2022), p. 515.

  61. 61.

    GREVIO (2022), p. 517.

  62. 62.

    GREVIO (2022), p. 517.

  63. 63.

    GREVIO (2022), p. 518.

  64. 64.

    GREVIO (2022), pp. 520–521.

  65. 65.

    GREVIO (2022), pp. 521–522.

  66. 66.

    Explanatory report (2011), 313.

  67. 67.

    Fitzpatrick (2016), p. 5.

  68. 68.

    Explanatory report (2011), 310.

  69. 69.

    Explanatory report (2011), 322.

  70. 70.

    EASO (2018), p. 28.

  71. 71.

    GREVIO (2022), pp. 572–575.

  72. 72.

    GREVIO (2022), p. 577.

  73. 73.

    Hathaway (1991), p. 162.

  74. 74.

    UNHCR Executive Committee (1985, d).

  75. 75.

    UNHCR Guidelines (2002), 2-3.

  76. 76.

    UNHCR Guidelines (2002), 29.

  77. 77.

    UNHCR Guidelines (2002), 7.

  78. 78.

    UNHCR Guidelines (2002), 3.

  79. 79.

    UNHCR Guidelines (2002), 30.

  80. 80.

    Peroni (2018), p. 370.

  81. 81.

    Perdomo v. Holder (2010).

  82. 82.

    Perdomo v. Holder (2010), 667. See for more Lieberan (2010) and Elias (2010).

  83. 83.

    Center for Refugees and Gender studies (2011), p. 2.

  84. 84.

    In re Fauziya KASINGA, 1996.

  85. 85.

    Matter of A-R-C-G- et al., Respondents (2014).

  86. 86.

    Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel v X and Y and Z v Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel (2013).

  87. 87.

    See, e.g. Da Silva v. Attorney General (2012); Safaie v. INS (1994).

  88. 88.

    The UK Immigration Appeal tribunal (1996).

  89. 89.

    UNHCR Guidelines (2002), 6.

  90. 90.

    Hathaway (1991), p. 125.

  91. 91.

    Goodwin-Gill (1996), p. 67.

  92. 92.

    Grahl-Madsen (1966), p. 193.

  93. 93.

    Maiani (2008), p. 7.

  94. 94.

    Directive 2011/95/EU (recast).

  95. 95.

    Louise Hooper (2019), pp. 22–23. See also UNHCR Gender Guidelines No. 1 and UNHCR Handbook (2019), 54–55.

  96. 96.

    Gender-Related Persecution: An Analysis of Recent Trends (1997), pp. 84–85.

  97. 97.

    Gender-Related Persecution: An Analysis of Recent Trends (1997), pp. 84–85.

  98. 98.

    Gender-Related Persecution: An Analysis of Recent Trends (1997), pp. 91–92.

  99. 99.

    Gender-Related Persecution: An Analysis of Recent Trends (1997), pp. 96–97.

  100. 100.

    See, e.g., Talpis v. Italy (2017).

  101. 101.

    Gender-Related Persecution: An Analysis of Recent Trends (1997), p. 100.

  102. 102.

    GREVIO (2022), p. 535.

  103. 103.

    For example, Finland, Sweden, and Serbia. GREVIO (2022), p. 536. See also Gender Related Asylum Claims in Europe (2012), p. 45.

  104. 104.

    Gender Related Asylum Claims in Europe (2012), p. 15.

  105. 105.

    Explanatory report, 310; Haines (2003), p. 326.

  106. 106.

    Explanatory report, 310.

  107. 107.

    UN GA ‘Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women (1994), Article 2; UNHCR Position Paper (2000), 4-5.

  108. 108.

    Hooper (2019), p. 34.

  109. 109.

    UNHCR (2000).

  110. 110.

    Hooper (2019), p. 39.

  111. 111.

    Arbel et al. (2014), p. 11.

  112. 112.

    Michelle Foster (2014), p. 17.

References

  • Arbel E, Dauvergne C, Millbank J (2014) Introduction. In: Dauvergne E, Millbank C, Jenni (eds) Gender in refugee law: from the margins to the centre. Routledge, London

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Australian Department of Immigration and Multi-Cultural Affairs (1996) Guidelines on gender issues for decision-makers, 4.29

    Google Scholar 

  • Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board (1996) Guidelines on women refugee claimants fearing gender-related persecution

    Google Scholar 

  • Center for Refugees and Gender Studies (2011) Amicus brief in support of respondent

    Google Scholar 

  • EASO (2018) Judicial analysis: Asylum procedures and the principle of non-refoulment

    Google Scholar 

  • Elias P (2010) Federal court opens door for Guatemalan asylum claims. Associated Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzpatrick B (2016) Tactical rape in war and conflict: International recognition and response. Policy Press, Great Britain

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Foster M (2014) Why we are not there yet: the particular challenge of “Particular Social Group”. In: Arbel E, Dauvergne C, Millbank J (eds) Gender in refugee law: from the margins to the centre. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Gender-Related Persecution: An Analysis of Recent Trends (1997) International Journal of Refugee Law: 9 (Special Issue), 79–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Gender-Related Asylum Claims in Europe (2012) European Parliament

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin-Gill GS (1996) The refugee in International Law. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Grahl-Madsen A (1966) The status of refugees in International Law. A.W. Sijithoff, Leyden

    Google Scholar 

  • GREVIO (2022) Mid-term horizontal review of Grevio baseline evaluation reports

    Google Scholar 

  • Haines QCR (2003) Gender-related persecution. In: Feller E, Türrk V, Nicholson F (eds) Refugee protection in international law: UNHCR's global consultations on International Protection. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 129–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Hathaway JC (1990) A reconsideration of the underlying premise of refugee law. Harv Int Law J 31(1):129–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Hathaway JC (1991) Law of refugee status. Butterworths, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooper L (2019) Gender-based asylum claims and non-refoulement: Articles 60 and 61 of the Istanbul Convention. Council of Europe, Strasbourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley N (2001) The Convention refugee definition and gender-based persecution: a decade’s progress. Int J Refugee Law 13(4):559–568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann JM (2019) At the crossroads: The 1951 Geneva Convention Today in Satvinder Singh Juss. In: Research handbook on International Refugee Law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 2–15

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lieberan A (2010) Appeals case gives hope to Guatemalan refugees, Women's E-News

    Google Scholar 

  • Maiani F (2008) The concept of “Persecution” in refugee law: indeterminacy, context-sensitivity, and the quest for a principled approach, OpenEdition Journals

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayblin L (2010) Historically European, morally universal? The 1951 Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees, E-International Relations

    Google Scholar 

  • Peroni L (2018) The protection of women Asylum Seekers under the European Convention on Human Rights: unearthing the gendered roots of harm. Human Rights Law Rev 18:347–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNHCR Executive Committee (1985) Refugee Women and International Protection no. 39

    Google Scholar 

  • UNHCR (2000) Position paper on gender-related persecution

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss P (1951) The refugee convention, 1951

    Google Scholar 

Legal Documents and Cases

  • Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of the European Union of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (recast)

    Google Scholar 

  • Convention related to the Status of Refugees, Geneva 28 July 1951, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 189, 137

    Google Scholar 

  • The Refugee Convention, 1951: The Travaux préparatoires analysed with a Commentary by Dr. Paul Weis, available at: https://www.unhcr.org/protection/travaux/4ca34be29/refugee-convention-1951-travaux-preparatoires-analysed-commentary-dr-paul.html.

  • Collins and Akaziebie v. Sweden, Application no. 23944/05, Decision from 8 March 2007

    Google Scholar 

  • Izevbekhai v. Ireland, Application no. 43408/08, Decision from 17 May 2011

    Google Scholar 

  • R.B.A.B. and Others v. The Netherlands, Application no. 7211/06, Decision from 7 June 2016

    Google Scholar 

  • V.F. v. France, Application no., 7196/10, Decision from 29 November 2011

    Google Scholar 

  • F.A. v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 20658/11, Decision from 10 September 2013

    Google Scholar 

  • N. v. Sweden, Application No. 23505/09, Judgment from 20 July 2010

    Google Scholar 

  • R.D. v. France, Application No. 34648/14, Judgment from 16 June 2016

    Google Scholar 

  • General recommendation No. 24: Article 12 of the Convention (women and health), 1999

    Google Scholar 

  • General recommendation No. 28 on the core obligations of States parties under article 2 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, 2010

    Google Scholar 

  • General recommendation No. 30 on women in conflict prevention, conflict and post-conflict situations, 2013

    Google Scholar 

  • General recommendation No. 32 on the gender-related dimensions of refugee status, asylum, nationality and statelessness of women, 2014

    Google Scholar 

  • General recommendation no. 38 on trafficking of women and girls in the context of global migration, 2020

    Google Scholar 

  • S.J.A. v. Denmark, Communication no. 79/2014, Decision from 6 November 2017

    Google Scholar 

  • H.D. v. Denmark, Communication no. 76/2014, Decision from 9 July 2018

    Google Scholar 

  • S.O. v. Canada, Communication no. 49/2013, Decision from 27 October 2014

    Google Scholar 

  • A.S. v. Denmark, Communication no. 80/2015, Decision from 26 February 2018

    Google Scholar 

  • Y.W. v. Denmark, Communication no. 51/2013, Decision from 2 March 2015

    Google Scholar 

  • X. v. Denmark, Communication no. 73/2014, Decision from 29 October 2018

    Google Scholar 

  • X. v. Austria, Communication no. 112/2017, Decision from 29 October 2018

    Google Scholar 

  • J.O. v. Switzerland, Communication no. 115/2017, Decision from 9 July 2018

    Google Scholar 

  • O.D.A. v. Denmark, Communication no. 84/2015, Decision from 15 July 2019

    Google Scholar 

  • H.S. v. Denmark, Communication no. 113/2017, Decision from 9 July 2018

    Google Scholar 

  • N.S. v. Denmark, Communication no. 109/2016, Decision from 15 July 2019

    Google Scholar 

  • Y. v. Ecuador, Communication no. 83/2015, Decision from 29 October 2018

    Google Scholar 

  • Perdomo v. Holder, 611 F.3d 662 (9th Cir. 2010)

    Google Scholar 

  • In re Fauziya KASINGA, U.S. Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Board of Immigration Appeals, 13 June 1996

    Google Scholar 

  • Matter of A-R-C-G- et al., Respondents, U.S. Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Board of Immigration Appeals, 26 August 2014

    Google Scholar 

  • Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel v X and Y and Z v Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel C-199/12 to C-201/12, Judgment from 7 November 2013

    Google Scholar 

  • Da Silva v. Attorney General, 459 F. App'x 838, 841 (11th Cir. 2012)

    Google Scholar 

  • Talpis v. Italy, Application no. 41237/14, Judgment from 2 March 2017

    Google Scholar 

  • Safaie v. INS, 25 F.3d 636, 640 (8th Cir. 1994)

    Google Scholar 

  • The UK Immigration Appeal tribunal, TH/23443/93 (13956), 2 October 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN General Assembly, ‘Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women’, 20 Dec. 1993, UN doc. A/RES/48/104, 23 Feb. 1994.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Belgrade, Faculty of Law, Belgrade, Serbia

    Ivana Krstić

Authors
  1. Ivana Krstić
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ivana Krstić .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia

    Ivana Krstić

  2. Department of Law, LUMSA, Palermo, Italy

    Marco Evola

  3. University of Cádiz, Cadiz, Spain

    Maria Isabel Ribes Moreno

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Krstić, I. (2023). The Recognition of Refugee Women in International Law. In: Krstić, I., Evola, M., Ribes Moreno, M.I. (eds) Legal Issues of International Law from a Gender Perspective . Gender Perspectives in Law, vol 3. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13459-3_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13459-3_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-13458-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-13459-3

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation