• No results found

“A person’s rights are as real as his reasons are strong” - A qualitative content analysis of the Government’s proposition on new opportunity for a residence permit in Sweden

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "“A person’s rights are as real as his reasons are strong” - A qualitative content analysis of the Government’s proposition on new opportunity for a residence permit in Sweden"

Copied!
40
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

“A person’s rights are as real as his

reasons are strong”

A qualitative content analysis of the Government’s

proposition on new opportunity for a residence permit in

Sweden

Josefine Wolthers Odqvist

Human Rights Bachelor Thesis 15 Credits

Spring Semester 2019 Supervisor: Jon Wittrock

(2)

Abstract

A controversial law on new possibilities for residence permit for unaccompanied minors entered into force in Sweden, July 2018. The law states that certain unaccompanied minors should be granted residence permit for studies at the upper secondary level. The aim is to examine the proposition that led up to the law changes, by using qualitative content analysis based on Orend’s dimensions of the concept of rights. Moreover, to examine the ambiguities and conflicts regarding the interpretation of human rights. The conclusions are that the proposition is a case of interpretation of human rights, where the Government interprets certain unaccompanied minors as right holders, the Migration Board as main duty bearer and the right as legal claims, deriving from moral rights that exist within a social context in society. The proposition is an example of where the right object, which is the possibility to be granted a residence permit, has changed.

Words: 13 702

(3)

Table of content

1. Introduction ... 1

1.1 Aim and research question ... 2

2. Material and delimitations ... 3

2.1 Primary material ... 3

2.2 Selection and delimitations ... 4

2.3 Research ethical assessments ... 5

2.4 Definition of key concepts ... 6

3. Theory and method ... 7

3.1 Theoretical framework ... 7

3.1.1 Right holders ... 7

3.1.2 Duty bearers ... 8

3.1.3 Rights as claims ... 8

3.1.4 Right objects ... 9

3.2 Qualitative content analysis ... 12

3.2.1 Method discussion ... 13

4. Background and previous research ... 14

4.1 Right of asylum ... 14

4.2 Temporary residence permits ... 16

4.3 Unaccompanied minors ... 18

5. Proposition 2017/18: 252 based on the right dimensions ... 19

5.1 Operationalization chart ... 19 5.2 Right holders ... 19 5.3 Duty bearers ... 22 5.4 Rights as claims ... 23 5.5 Right objects ... 25 5.6 Conclusion ... 29 6. Discussion... 31 6.1 Final discussion ... 31 7. Summary ... 34

(4)

1. Introduction

On July 1, 2018, a controversial law on new possibilities for residence permit for certain unaccompanied minors entered into force in Sweden (The Swedish Government 2018). In conclusion, the law states that certain unaccompanied minors, who fulfil a list of criteria, and have received or should have received a decision on expulsion, should be able to be granted temporary residence permit for studies at the upper secondary level. This is based on change of the current legislation, Law (2016: 752) on temporary restrictions on the possibility of obtaining a residence permit in Sweden (Prop. 2017/18: 252).

Many of the consultative bodies that were given the opportunity to comment on the draft to the Swedish Law Council, expressed that the intention of the proposal is good, however, the new proposal is also deeply criticized. The criticism is, among other things, that the

proposition does not apply to unaccompanied minors that applied for asylum after November 24, 2015 (Save the Children Sweden 2018). Several consultative bodies are expressing critique regarding the proposal being unnecessarily complicated, which according to them, can lead to anxiety and worry of the minors who are in the asylum process. There is also expressed uncertainty regarding how the complicated legislative changes will be put into practice, something that might lead to an inconsistent interpretation of the law and thus jeopardize the legal certainty in Sweden (The Ombudsman for Children in Sweden 2018). However, the Swedish Government (hereinafter referred to as the Government) states that “Although the existing regulations are not straightforward and there is a risk that the introduction of a new foundation complicates the regulatory framework further, the Government does not consider that the proposal is so complicated that it risks leading to such application difficulties that it can affect legal certainty negatively” (Prop. 2017/18: 252: 31, author’s own translation).

The discussion that exists regarding the new law, as well as the clear difference in terms of interpretation of the law, raises questions regarding the ambiguity that exists regarding human rights and that rights often are considered to be a set of rules or principles that can be assigned different objects. The proposition being analysed is a dialogue between different instances, where the Government gives its response to objections from the other instances. This dialogue is interesting and important to examine since rights are abstract principles and there are controversies regarding what their objects should be. It is important to examine how the Government interprets these abstract principles, due to the fact that the Government is the

(5)

most important instance in that it governs Sweden and is the driving force in the work of changing Swedish legislation. Due to this, the thesis intends to look at how the Government is interpreting the rights in the proposition and what ambiguities and controversies there are regarding this.

This research problem is examined in the essay by analysing the proposition that laid foundation for the legislation changes, based on Brian Orend’s four dimensions of the concept of rights. Orend’s theory is used since it allows investigation regarding various controversies and helps to see what political and moral conflicts and dimensions exist within legal documents. Orend clarifies that rights are not just a specific list, but standards that are claimed to be universal and whose objects can be changed.

The thesis begins with a presentation of the aim and research question, and then a review on the thesis’ primary material and delimitations follows. After that, the theory and method used in the thesis are presented, followed by a chapter that includes background on relevant topics and previous research on the subject. The fifth chapter includes a qualitative content analysis of the primary material, based on the theoretical framework. Then a discussion follows where the analysis is being discussed in relation to previous research and lastly the thesis is summarized and the thesis’ conclusions are presented.

1.1 Aim and research question

The aim of the thesis is to examine the proposition 2017/18: 252 New opportunity for a residence permit, by using qualitative content analysis based on Orend’s four dimensions of the concept of rights: right holders, duty bearers, rights as claims and right objects. These right dimensions will be further explained in chapters three and five. The aim is also to examine the ambiguities and conflicts regarding the interpretation of human rights, in this specific proposition. The aim leads to the following research question:

How does the Government interpret the concepts right holders, duty bearers, rights as

claims and right objects in the proposition 2017/18: 252 New opportunity for a residence permit?

(6)

2. Material and delimitations

In the following chapter, the thesis’ primary material is presented. This is followed by the thesis’ selection, delimitations and research ethical assessments. Lastly, a definition of key concepts used in the thesis is presented.

2.1 Primary material

The primary material of the thesis consists of the proposition 2017/18: 252, New opportunity for a residence permit. A proposition is “A proposal from the Government to the Parliament regarding, for example, a new law. Some propositions consist of proposals for new

legislation. Other propositions contain minor or major changes to existing laws or proposals for different types of guidelines” (The Swedish Government 2015, author’s own translation). The proposition implies that a supplementary basis for residence permit is introduced in an already existing regulatory framework that has been applied since 2016, which is a new possibility for a residence permit for certain unaccompanied minors (Prop. 2017/18: 252: 31). The proposition proposes, “A foreigner who has received, or otherwise should have received, a deportation decision should be granted a residence permit for studies at the upper

secondary level” (Ibid: 1, author’s own translation). To be granted this residence permit, there are six requirements that must be met:

- “The foreigners first application for a residence permit was registered at the Migration Board on November 24, 2015, or earlier,

- It forthe foreigner has, or should have, been assigned a municipality to arrange for the accommodation,

- The decision on expulsion has been made or otherwise would be taken, 15 months or later from the registration date, but at the earliest July 20, 2016,

- The decision on expulsion has been made or else would be taken when the foreigner is 18 or older,

- The foreigner is in Sweden when the application for residence permits for studies at the upper secondary levels are made, and

- The foreigner is studying or intends to study at the upper secondary levels or the upper secondary levels for intellectually challenged, full time at another equivalent education or full time on a cohesive vocational training within a municipal adult education or adult

(7)

the residence permit, the applicant should not have committed any serious crimes or be regarded as a threat to Sweden as a country. Furthermore, the applicant must not have made its identity clear but should have tried to.

If the person meets these requirements, one can receive a residence permit valid for 13 months. In order to receive a continued permit after that period of time, one must have started studying and studied actively. There are various reasons for when a person can apply for an extended permit, which for instance are if a person has had a residence permit for the entire study period but has not completed the studies. In such a case, one can apply for an extended residence permit for the remaining study period, plus six months. One should then have participated actively in the studies and not have reached the age of 25. In cases where a person has had a residence permit due to the fact that he or she has been studying, but at this time cannot receive an extended permit due to the fact that the person has completed the studies, or is over the age of 25, this person must be able to prove that he or she can support him- or herself through an employment, in order to obtain a permanent residence permit.

The proposition is based on a change of current law (2016: 752) on temporary restrictions

on the possibility of obtaining a residence permit in Sweden. Proposition 2017/18: 252 extends the previous law somewhat, and offers additional alternatives to staying in Sweden through a supplementary foundation in a new shape (Prop. 2017/18: 252).

2.2 Selection and delimitations

As mentioned, the primary material in the thesis is proposition 2017/18: 252. This means that the thesis’ analysis is based on the proposition as the only material and the thesis is therefore not analysing any other circumstances or propositions. In order to gain a broader knowledge of the issue, it would have been possible to look at individual legal cases where the asylum reasons for individual unaccompanied minors are tested on the basis of the new law. However, this has not been done due to time constraints and the fact that the purpose of the thesis is to see how the Government in this particular proposition interprets the rights. The reason for this is that the thesis seeks to investigate the Government’s role and what ambiguities there are in relation to its interpretation of rights. This is interesting as the Government is the most important instance in that it governs Sweden and is driving in the work of changing Swedish legislation.

The proposals for legislative changes that are dealt with in the proposition only concern certain unaccompanied minors, as well as their chance of being granted residence permit,

(8)

which means that chapter four of the thesis only focus on these components. When it comes to the background of unaccompanied minors, the thesis is delimited only to mention what the circumstances look like in relation to Sweden, since this is relevant in relation to the origin of the proposition. The thesis only mentions figures on what it looked like in 2015, to get a better understanding regarding what the situation looked like in Sweden this year, since this is the background of the Government's proposal of the new law. The selection of research in the fourth chapter has to a great extent been chosen by searching for relevant words and concepts in different databases and a source-critical approach is applied throughout the process.

The analysis and discussion are based on Orend’s theory of four dimensions of the concept of rights, due to Orend’s theory being comprehensive and effective. The theory is chosen as the book is very clear and contains useful formulations and common questions in relation to the research problem. However, the thesis only uses the first part of the book, which is on the concept of human rights. This means that the second part of the book that deals with a more historical background of the context of rights is not used, which is a delimitation that Orend himself mentions as a possible way of using the book.

2.3 Research ethical assessments

The proposition, which the thesis is based on, is severely criticized by the Law Council and several consultative bodies. This is an aspect that may have subconsciously influenced the author and the author’s opinion regarding making the proposition into law. Examining the proposition from a human rights perspective can, therefore, affect the objectivity of the thesis and may contribute to a critical angle. However, there is no such ambition in the thesis and it intends to be fully objective.

The thesis is written in a language, which is not the author’s first language. This means that the documents written in Swedish, such as the proposition, are translated from Swedish into English. Hence, there might be a risk that the translation of quotes is not done correctly, which entails a risk that the meaning of the quotes has been misinterpreted.

(9)

2.4 Definition of key concepts

Unaccompanied minor

“An unaccompanied minor is a person who is under the age of eighteen, unless, under the law applicable to the child, majority is, attained earlier and who is separated from both parents and is not being cared for by an adult who by law or custom has responsibility to do so” (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees 1997: 1).

Refugee

“A foreigner who is outside of the country of which the foreigner is a citizen, due to the fact that he or she feels a well-founded fear of persecution due to race, nationality, religious or political opinion or due to gender, sexual orientation or other affiliation to a particular social group, and cannot, or due to their fear, not want to avail themselves of the protection of this country” (UtlL 2005: 716: 4.1 §, author’s own translation).

(10)

3. Theory and method

In the following chapter, the theory and method of the thesis are presented. The theory used in the thesis is presented first and is divided into subchapters according to Orend’s four dimensions of the concept of rights. After this, the method is presented and discussed.

3.1 Theoretical framework

There are many different definitions of what human rights are as a concept and many of these definitions are in conflict with each other, however, the thesis includes the perspective of human rights seen as four different dimensions according to Orend. This perspective is additionally the analytical framework of the thesis.

The theory is chosen since it has many different distinctions on a philosophical level, it allows investigation regarding various controversies and to see what political and moral conflicts and dimensions exist within legal documents. Orend’s theory is clarifying that rights are not just a specific list, but standards that are claimed to be universal and whose objects can be changed. Orend’s theory helps to clarify what human rights mean in practice. The dimensions of the concept of rights are: right holders, duty bearers, rights as claims and right objects. The chapter includes an explanation of the concepts, which then will be further analysed and explained in chapter five.

3.1.1 Right holders

The first dimension is based on the right holders, which means the one who has the right in question and on the basis of what. Through history, there have been disagreements regarding who has had the right to hold human rights, and for a long time, one would only be seen as a right holder if one had certain characteristics. This means that for a long period of time, only able-bodied, adult men who owned land were seen as rightful right holders. Today, another understanding exists where every human being irrespective of gender, age or function variation are considered right holders. This fundamental feature is often referred to as the universality of human rights. Orend states that to have a right is to have a claim of other people and social institutions, which should be concrete and well-founded. These social institutions are in particular governments. By claiming rights, the right holder is asserting that it has a well-founded reason to be treated in a certain way by both social institutions and

(11)

other people. This shows the necessity of justifying rights, and one way of doing this is the right holders having to give adequate reasons to why they should be treated in the certain way that they want to be treated. This often leads to the discussion of what are reasonable

demands to ask of people in social and political life (Orend 2002: 15-17).

In conclusion, to be a right holder “One must be biologically human, one must avoid violating another’s human rights, and one must have fundamental interests in, or vital needs for, living a life of minimal value” (Ibid: 65).

3.1.2 Duty bearers

The second dimension is based on duty bearers, which are the ones responsible for ensuring that the rights are met. There is no right holder without a matching duty bearer. Orend believes that duty bearers can be both institutions and individual persons. Every individual bear duties of some kind and every individual have a part in making human rights real. This means that people are both right holders and duty bearers “Holders of our own human rights claims and bearers of our own fair share if the duties needed to respect and realize everyone else’s human rights” (Orend 2002: 129).

Institutions are in many cases seen as duty bearers to a greater extent, due to the fact that the more power someone has over other people’s lives and needs, the more responsibility one has in connection to that person's rights. Individuals do not have the biggest impact on other people’s lives and do not have the main influence regarding whether or not human rights claims get fulfilled according to Orend (Ibid: 130).

In conclusion, “Both individuals and institutions bear duties correlative to human rights. These duties will vary in accordance with the power or effect that the individual or institution has on the objects of vital human need” (Ibid: 135). This means that Orend argues that

institutions have a bigger responsibility to meet the right holders’ rights than individuals do since institutions have a bigger impact on people’s lives.

3.1.3 Rights as claims

The third dimension is based on rights as claims. The focus here is on what kind of claims the rights are and what quality the rights have, whether they are moral or legal. A legal right is a right that is written into legal codes and when being violated, have legal consequences. These kinds of legal consequences are not necessary for violations of moral rights, as moral rights are rights that exist within a social context, hence do not need to be written into legal codes.

(12)

Orend highlights the importance of making a distinction between these two since they often tend to run together. In order for there to be both moral and legal rights in society, these must be in line with each other. This means that the norm that exists in society, based on moral rights, characterizes a functioning system consisting of legal rights. Moral rights are according to Orend a reflection of the morality that exists in a society and is deeply rooted. The legal rights are in turn a reflection of the moral rights. Thus, it is first and foremost the moral rights and the society’s norms that set the agenda for what then become legal rights. The legal rights that exist to promote human rights are built on the moral character of society, which has been transformed into concrete legal rights that are written down in legally binding documents (Orend 2002: 24-25). Orend states that human rights not only exist because they are written down in legal documents but primarily because of the morality and the collective belief in rights (Ibid: 75).

Orend sees human rights as moral norms that all people have and he clarifies that human rights also can be legal but this does not affect the existence of moral rights. A human right “Is a general moral right that every human being has. Sometimes it finds legal expression and protection, sometimes not” (Ibid: 33).

3.1.4 Right objects

The fourth dimension is based on the object of rights. What is seen as the object of a right is a controversial issue that has been disputed over a long period of time, and both communities and thinkers have expressed different ideas and lists of such objects. However, in conclusion, a right’s object is the object that a right holder can claim (Orend 2002: 125).

According to Orend, it is important not to confuse rights with its objects and it is therefore vital to point out the differences between these two: “A right is a justified claim to something, whereas the object of the right is that very something being claimed” (Ibid: 28). Orend uses a metaphor to explain the difference between a right and its object, where the right is a plane ticket and the flight itself is the object; the ticket is one’s claim to get on the plane, however, the flight itself is the object that one really wants (Ibid: 28).

Rights can be divided into two different rights, positive and negative rights. A negative right is when the duty bearer can fulfil his duty simply by refraining from action, while a positive right is when a duty bearer must actively do something to fulfil his duty. First-generation rights such as security, for example, can be seen as a negative right and second-generation rights such as a basic level of education as a positive right. The division between

(13)

the rights of these two generations has come to be controversial, and it is said that the idea behind the division lies in the fact that there are considered to exist two different groups of human rights which can be characterized by the particular objects that each group claims (Ibid: 31-32).

Orend mentions the process of human rights inflation where the number of laws and treaties that are dealing with human rights is increasing, which means that the number of objects being claimed as a matter of human rights is steadily rising as well. However, there exist ambiguities in what to make of the process of human rights inflation with different interpretations (Ibid: 110).

New human right objects can occur by inflation of human rights, however, the objects of human rights can change or develop, as well. There are theorists that believe that there is a division between those who argue that objects are choices and those who believe that objects are goods and benefits. Orend replies to this by presenting a theory of human right objects that he believes is unified. This theory has different levels and the first level includes the foundational five objects (hereinafter referred to as the foundational five): personal security, material subsistence, personal freedom, elemental quality and social recognition (Ibid: 125). These abstractly defined items are according to Orend criteria for the vital need of the human persons living in our time and “These five vital needs are also the ultimate objects of our human rights claims” (Ibid: 64). In conclusion “Personal security means reliable protection from, or freedom from, a context of violence that poses a threat either to one’s very life, or at least to the core aspects of one’s physical and mental well-being. Mental subsistence means having secure access to resources one requires to meet one’s biological needs [...] Elemental equality means our need to be regarded as equal in initial status with other moral agents [...] Freedom means the need to follow one’s own path in life [...] Finally, recognition means our deep need as social beings for acknowledgement from others of our own humanity” (Ibid: 64). Orend states that security also means the right to emigrate and seek asylum, and the connection between security and subsistence implies the right to have a basic education. The lack of one of these five damages a person’s functioning as a human being. The reason for this is that all five are rooted in the concept of living a minimally good life in the modern world (Ibid: 64).

The second-level specifications occur when taking the foundational five from the first level and then describe in detail what they mean when it comes to goods and benefits (Ibid: 118). The second-level specifications can differ between different people “But only if such difference is actually called for in terms of the very meaning of the foundational five

(14)

themselves” (Ibid: 125). Orend explains this by arguing that a child has the same right to liberty as adults have, however, the child has a more narrow range of objects of that right. The child can for example not vote in national elections or run for public office. This means that human rights are universal rights, but that their objects may vary (Ibid: 58).

Orend mentions that different generations of rights can be added to the list of second-level specifications. This can be done by showing new nuances of the meaning of the foundational five, or by showing that the meaning of the foundational five has changed and now actually means something else in a social context. It can also be done by demonstrating that, through an increased living standard, certain objects have become redundant and therefore is no longer needed. This is what makes human rights a continuing project. Moreover, Orend points out that “At the second-level specification of objects, there is some space for

pluralism, context and application. This is rooted in the fact that the material differences, in either the social context or the relative capacities of the right holders, can make a meaningful difference in our interpretation of the full specification of their human rights” (Ibid: 122-123).

Orend highlights the importance of providing evidence that proves the legitimacy of changing the object. The burden of showing proof always belongs to the one who proposes a new second-level of specification of human rights. It is a requirement to show that the sought-after object really is implied by the meaning of one of the foundational five. In other words, the one who proposed a new second-level of specification of human rights must demonstrate that the new object is an integral part of the vital need of minimum value in the modern world. However, “The costs cannot ever add up to the point where such provisions would interfere with, and undermine, other people’s ability to both have and lead their own lives” (Ibid: 124).

In conclusion, Orend believes that it is not possible to produce a set list of right objects that can apply for all future, as there can constantly be an increase or change in what these include and that “There is a firm foundation at the core of human rights with room for some growth at the edges” (Ibid: 124). Additionally, Orend states, “ A person’s rights are as real as his reasons are strong” (Ibid: 19). This means that rights are values that bind us to treat each other in a certain way that we believe everyone deserves to be treated. After we have removed all layers of human rights we will find out how to treat other fellow human beings and how we should shape our common institutions. This also emphasizes the importance of considering what is a justified claim to a right (Ibid: 19).

(15)

3.2 Qualitative content analysis

The method of the thesis is qualitative content analysis, which is based on the theoretical framework of the four dimensions of the concept of rights. Content analysis is a method that can be used when doing an analysis of texts in a systematic way, to describe the content of the text (Bryman 2018: 359). According to Bergström and Boréus, there is a difference between qualitative content analysis and quantitative content analysis, where the purpose of the quantitative content analysis is to count and measure phenomena in the text (Bergström & Boréus 2012: 50). The qualitative content analysis, on the other hand, does not include

measuring or counting phenomena in the text, instead, it includes a search for the underlying theme of the material being analysed. Bryman highlights the fact that content analysis is a suitable method for analysing documents in a systematic way. To do this, a search for underlying themes or categories in the material being analysed is helpful (Bryman 2018: 677). In terms of the quantitative content analysis, it may be that it “Tries to detect patterns in the content through repetition, while the qualitative content analysis [...] emphasizes the flow of the text and the content of the interpretive understanding of culture” (May 2013: 246, author’s own translation).

Due to the fact that qualitative content analysis is a suitable method for examining ideas and underlying values, the author finds that it is a suitable method for the thesis considering that the thesis seeks to understand how the view of human rights is established in the

proposition. More specifically, how the dimensions of the concept of rights are interpreted by the Government in proposition 2017/18: 252 New opportunity for a residence permit.

Furthermore, the analysis chapter is used to answer the thesis’ questions.

The four dimensions of the concept of rights are both the analysing tools and the theoretical framework in the analysis of the thesis. By using the four dimensions of the concept of rights, the proposition is systematically analysed by doing a close-up reading of the document. Relevant content and quotes are placed in the four categories in chapter five, namely: right holders, duty bearers, rights as claims and right objects.

In the right holder’s category, the focus is to find who the Government is interpreting as the group of people that the rights in the proposition apply to. The category on duty bearers includes parts that mention who the Government interprets as the duty bearers in the proposition and what the Government sees as the duty bearers’ responsibility towards the right holders. In the category on rights as claims, the focus is to find parts that establish how the Government interprets human rights as claims. Moreover, to see if the Government's view

(16)

on rights is legal or moral. In the right objects category, the focus is to find what the

Government interprets as the central rights of the proposition and the objects of those rights.

3.2.1 Method discussion

By using the four dimensions of the concept of rights, in combination with qualitative content analysis as a method, it is possible to get a nuanced picture of how the Government interprets human rights in the proposition, which is the reason for using the chosen method. The

advantages of using qualitative content analysis are that it contains much scientific freedom and room for interpretation for the author. However, this can lead to the objectivity being jeopardized in cases where the author risks only to notice what is in line with his or her own opinion. There is a risk that the categories and themes that emerge do not cover the entire material in a fair and good way.

Although choosing other methods could lead to interesting results, the chosen method is considered to be advantageous in relation to for example quantitative content analysis, since it in the thesis does not matter how many times a specific word or phenomena is repeated. A discourse analysis could also have been used since it has many similarities to content

analysis, however, the discourse analysis focuses more on questioning and contributing to change, which is not the aim of the thesis.

(17)

4. Background and previous research

The following chapter contains background and previous research. The chapter is divided into three subchapters, which are relevant in regards to the thesis: right of asylum, temporary residence permits and unaccompanied minors.

4.1 Right of asylum

The basis for the right of asylum that exists today is Article 14 (1) of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, which states “Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution” (UN General Assembly 1948). Seeking and enjoying asylum does not mean that one must actually be granted asylum, however, the article is a starting point for the obligations that states must undertake. The Universal Declaration is not legally binding but is very important when it comes to how to interpret the articles of the UN Charter that concern human rights.

One of the most important conventions when it comes to asylum law is the 1951

Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, or the Geneva Convention as it also is called, and its additional protocol of 1967. The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (hereinafter referred to as the Refugee Convention) is used as a starting point for both Swedish and European laws and contains provisions on who is considered a refugee, and what various rights and obligations the refugee has. The Refugee Convention also establishes the type of protection the refugee is entitled to by the State Parties. The Refugee Convention does not establish the right to apply for or enjoy asylum, something that instead is considered to be fulfilled by the fact that the right of asylum is included in the UN’s general declaration (Stern 2010: 296).

According to Article 1 A (2) of the Refugee Convention, the definition of a refugee is a

person that “Owing to well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it” (UN General Assembly 1951). Stateless persons can be included in the concept of refugee. However, people who are fleeing from armed conflict or who have fled due to human rights violations cannot be included in the concept of what a refugee is,

(18)

according to the Refugee Convention and are therefore not covered by it (Stern 2010: 297). The Refugee Convention has been supplemented with several regional instruments, such as the OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa and the US Convention on Human Rights. However, there is no specific convention within the Council of Europe that focuses solely on refugees and asylum seekers. Instead, there are specific articles within the European Convention on Human Rights that are important to refugees and asylum seekers in different ways.

There are collaborations within the EU on migration issues, such as the Qualification Directive. The Qualification Directive includes both the categories refugees and subsidiary protection. Subsidiary protection is a category that for example includes people fleeing from armed conflicts or violations of human rights. It also includes third-country nationals, stateless persons and persons who on other grounds need international protection. All provisions of the Qualification Directive are minimum rules and all member states must comply with these minimum rules. However, there are no obstacles preventing a member state in introducing more generous rules than those in the directive if they so desire (Ibid: 308-310).

A principle that is important in the context of migration law is the non-refoulement principle. The principle is stated in Article 33 (1) of the Refugee Convention and states that “No Contracting State shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion” (The United Nations 1951). This includes both people with refugee status and asylum seekers, something that is of great importance in the existence of a protection for asylum seekers against rejections, where their reasons for flight have not sufficiently been investigated. According to Article 33 (2), exceptions to the principle can only be made in cases where the asylum seeker is considered a danger to the security of the country where the person is seeking asylum, or if the asylum seeker committed a particularly serious crime so that it could pose social danger in the country where he or she is seeking asylum (Stern 2010: 303).

International asylum law has received strong criticism from many scholars. James Hathaway criticizes the Refugee Convention since he believes that it does not live up to either humanitarian or human rights principles, something that in turn leads to it not ensuring the human rights for involuntary migrants (Hathaway 1990a: 133). The criticism also

(19)

designed after the Second World War in order to provide protection to political refugees from Europe. This means, according to Hathaway, that it was designed for people in the west and, therefore, excludes refugees from the “third world” (Ibid: 134, 162). Hathaway believes that the convention no longer fulfils its purpose of promoting human rights, as people from developing countries in many cases are without protection. The convention now instead is a tool for the ruling states of the world to regulate who has the right to asylum. Instead of helping those in need, it makes it possible for those in power to choose how the population of their country should be designed (Ibid: 165, 179-181).

In many cases, the right of asylum ends up in a conflict between people’s need for protection and a country’s national interests and affairs. The possibility of international protection becomes a trade-off between these two, something that can be said to stem from the two fundamental philosophical perspectives of universalism and particularism (Noll 2000: 74). Universalism is based on the idea of all people being born as equals on this earth and therefore has the same right to use it. This is a boundless law that applies to all people (Ibid: 78). Within the asylum right, universalism is expressed by all people having the right to seek protection in another country. Furthermore, it can be said that right of asylum, according to universalism, means that all individuals are part of a large protection system where the need for protection of individuals is seen as superior to a nation’s own interest. The right to seek asylum is of universalistic nature due to the fact that all people have an equal right to seek protection regardless of where they are or who they are (Ibid: 75). Particularism, on the other hand, derives from the interest of the nation and its citizens. Within particularism, there is no moral duty to meet the interests of other citizens than the nation’s own (Ibid: 79).

4.2 Temporary residence permits

Since 1985, foreigners that have an intention to, and are allowed to, settle in Sweden, have normally been granted permanent residence permits. Though, the Government at that time already stated at the beginning of the reform, that it in some cases when a foreigner intended to settle in Sweden, would be relevant with so-called temporary residence permits instead (Prop. 1983/84: 144: 68). In recent years, there has been an increased restriction on

permanent residence permits, which means that the number of temporary residence permits has increased. In 1994, it was stated into law regarding temporary residence permits in cases of “mass refugee situations”. The reason for this was the collapse of Yugoslavia and the fact that it led to an increased amount of refugees in Europe. This was the first time in the history

(20)

of Sweden that such a large group of refugees received temporary residence permits (Slavnić 1998: 42).

In July 2016, the law on temporary restrictions on the possibility of obtaining a residence

permit in Sweden (2016: 752), or the temporary law as it also is called, entered into effect. The temporary law was introduced as a response to the high number of asylum seekers in 2015 and it will apply until July 19, 2019. (Hedlund 2018: 62). On July 20, 2019, the law on residence permits for students at the upper secondary level comes into force (Prop. 2017/18: 252: 24).

For people who are granted refugee status, temporary residence permits generally apply for three years, while persons who are considered to be in need for alternative protection usually receive a residence permit for 13 months. The temporary law has received much criticism due to the fact that it is considered unclear on many points, which leads to uncertainty regarding how it should be applied in practice (Ibid: 63-64).

Many consultative bodies have criticized the Government and the introduction of the temporary residence permits since they question whether temporary residence permits are compatible with international law and EU law. The Government, on the other hand, believes that there is no requirement in either EU law or international conventions that permanent residence permits must be given to either refugees or people in need of alternative protection. This means that Sweden is allowed to have laws and rules where the residence permit is temporarily adapted to the minimum level that exist in EU law and international conventions (Prop. 2015/16: 174: 27-29).

According to Alice Edwards, there is no provision in either the Refugee Convention or any

other international convention that states that nations must grant asylum in the form of

residence permits. The right to seek and enjoy asylum from persecution is stated in Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of the UN, however, Edwards argues that the provision merely states the right to seek asylum, not that it must be granted. Moreover, she argues that the obligation under international law only extends as far as offering protection as long as there is a threat to a person’s life and freedom, therefore temporary residence permits are compatible with international law (Edwards 2012: 606-609).

Hathaway supports this, as he also argues that there is nothing within international refugee law that establishes that states have an obligation to provide people with refugee status a permanent residence permit to stay in the country. This interpretation is made since Article 34 with the addition of the Refugee Convention establishes that states should facilitate

(21)

Hathaway argues that there are many possibilities for interpretation of Article 34 and that the article, therefore, is seen more as a recommendation than it is a requirement (Hathaway 1990b: 977-980).

4.3 Unaccompanied minors

In 2018, there were 68,5 million forcibly displaced people in the world according to UNHCR. 40 million of these were internally displaced people, which mean people who are refugees within their own country. 25.4 million of them were refugees outside of their country of origin and over half of those refugees were under the age of 18 (UNHCR 2018). However, there are no exact numbers of how many of these refugee children that are on the run without their legal guardians.

In 2015, there were 162 877 people applying for asylum in Sweden and 70 384 of these were children. 35 369 of these children were unaccompanied (The Swedish Migration Board 2018). That is 22 percent of the total amount of asylum seekers in Sweden that year.

Moreover, Sweden was the country in Europe that received most applications, in relation to its population, for asylum from unaccompanied minors that year (Hedlund 2018: 9).

After the year of 2015, the number of unaccompanied minors applying for asylum in

Sweden has reduced significantly and in 2016, the number was down to 2 999, which was 94% less than in 2015 (The Swedish Migration Board 2018). The number of reduced unaccompanied minors applying for asylum in Sweden is according to Hedlund due to the Swedish border- and identity controls which were introduced on the border between Sweden and Denmark in 2016. Another reason is that the EU strengthened its external border by cooperating with Turkey.

The high number of asylum seekers in 2015 showed that the Swedish welfare system was

relatively stable compared to other countries, however, the highly increased workload had a major impact on authorities such as the Migrations Board and social secretaries in the municipalities. Having experienced the massive increase of unaccompanied asylum seekers in 2015, Hedlund means that it is vital that unaccompanied minors’ rights and conditions sharpen by improving the integration measures, which in turn can lead to better conditions for the unaccompanied minors to be able to develop their own resources (Hedlund 2018: 11).

(22)

5. Proposition 2017/18: 252 based on the right dimensions

In this section, a qualitative content analysis of the Government’s proposition 2017/18: 252, New opportunity for a residence permit follows. First, an operationalization chart is

presented. Thereafter, the qualitative content analysis is carried out by dividing the content of the proposition into four categories that are based on Orend’s dimensions of the concept of rights. At the end of the chapter, a conclusion follows.

5.1 Operationalization chart

The operationalization chart below clarifies the definition of the four dimensions of the concept of rights, according to Orend.

Concept Definition

Right holder The one who has the right in question and on the basis of what

Duty bearer The one who is responsible for ensuring that the right holder’s rights are met

Rights as claims

What kind of claims the rights are and what quality the rights have, whether they are moral or legal

Right objects The objects that a right holder can claim

5.2 Right holders

In the proposition, the Government proposes a new possibility for a residence permit for certain unaccompanied minors (Prop 2017/18: 252: 1). According to the Government, one of the problems behind the proposal of the new law lies in the fact that it in many cases takes a very long time for the Swedish Migration Board (hereinafter referred to as the Migration Board) to handle the migration cases. One of the consequences of this is that many of the children who came to Sweden without a guardian before the legislative changes were

(23)

decision from the Migration Board. Hence, their trial of asylum will instead go under what applies when adults seek asylum, “It is therefore important that legislative changes are made which will mean that as many as possible in this group of young adults, who came to Sweden as unaccompanied children no later than November 24, 2015, who waited very long for the Migration Board’s decision in the asylum case and who studied, can be granted a residence permit for high school studies” (Ibid: 30, author’s own translation). This group of certain unaccompanied minors can be interpreted as the main right holders in the proposition. This, due to the fact that the right holder, or in this case the certain unaccompanied minors, have a claim of a social institution, the Government in this case. Moreover, it can be interpreted as by claiming the right to residence permit, the right holder is asserting that he or she has a well-founded reason to be treated in a certain way. By giving these adequate reasons to why they should be treated in a certain way, this can be interpreted as to justify the right.

However, there are ambiguities regarding the view on whether the requirements are reasonable demands to ask for the unaccompanied minors, as several consultative bodies claim that they are “Critical of the delimitations that are made in the proposal with regard to which foreigners are covered, eg. regarding the demand that the first application for a residence permit must have been registered by November 24, 2015” (Ibid: 28, author’s own translation). This shows that there are different ways of interpreting what are reasonable demands to ask of the unaccompanied minors in order for them to be able to claim the rights. As mentioned, one of the backgrounds for the proposition is the fact that the

unaccompanied minors who have suffered from the Migration Board’s long processing times and which the law should actually apply to, should not end up in a worse position due to the delay from the Migration Board. Had the procedure not taken so long, the trial for these right holders had been able to take place while they were still children, something that would have granted them permission to stay (Ibid: 36). The reason for this is the fact that when the Government proposed the temporary law (2016: 752) on temporary restrictions in the possibility of obtaining residence permit in Sweden, one of the requirements was that the regulations would not affect the children and families coming to Sweden before the announcement of the amendments to the law on November 24, 2015 (Ibid: 22).

Accordingly, the Government interprets certain unaccompanied minors as right holders, with the right to be given a new opportunity for a residence permit, as their object. By lowering the standards that apply to residence permits concerning the right holders, the Government wants to give the right holders a chance to stay in Sweden to finish the upper secondary levels. In turn, this can lead to an opportunity to apply for a job, establish

(24)

themselves within the labour market and be granted a permanent residence permit, when proving that one can support his- or herself. This is one of the Government’s reasons to why it should be possible to introduce temporary residence permit for studies at the upper

secondary levels, for certain unaccompanied minors (Ibid: 30). To increase the driving forces for self-sufficiency is a reason that is mentioned repeatedly in the proposition. Since June 1, 2017, there are provisions that are intended to promote the integration of young newcomers and to encourage them to finish the upper secondary levels with reason to be able to support themselves (Ibid: 23). It can be interpreted that the Government sees certain unaccompanied minors as right holders with the right to complete their schooling and that right holders have the right to claim the right to residence permit through self-sufficiency.

It is clear in the proposition that not all unaccompanied minors that have come to Sweden are seen as right holders as there are several requirements that unaccompanied minors must meet in order to be granted residence permit, and in that way become a rightful right holder. Some of the requirements that unaccompanied minors must meet are that the first application for a residence permit to the Migration Board must have been registered no later than

November 24, 2015 (Ibid: 27). The proposition includes criticism regarding the requirements from consultative bodies, including the Ombudsman for Children, the Swedish Red Cross, the Swedish Network of Refugee Support Groups (FARR), Save the Children Sweden and UNICEF Sweden. The criticism refers to “The delimitations that are made in the proposal with regard to which foreigners are covered, for instance, with regard to the requirement that the first application for a residence permit must have been registered no later than November 24, 2015 and that the processing time should be 15 months or more, and consider that they should be removed or adjusted” (Ibid: 28, author’s own translation). This suggests that the consultative bodies believe that also unaccompanied minors that handed in their first application to the Migration Board after November 24, 2015, should be right holders and be able to claim the rights in the proposition (Ibid: 28). Moreover, the Law council questions whether “It is an objectively acceptable principle that the possibilities for a residence permit must be dependent on the Migration Board’s actions and state that it is a new principle in the Aliens Act to allow the processing time to be the only reason for residence permits” (Ibid: 32, author’s translation). However, the Government does not interpret this in the same way and argues that “As it is the long processing times that have led to the possibility of a residence permit having deteriorated for the group in question, the Government considers it acceptable to demand that the processing times should be of certain length for a foreigner to be covered

(25)

reason to deviate from the assessment previously made, even though it is expressed by the consultative bodies that it can be considered unfair in individual cases. The Government considers the restriction as justified and acceptable from both the point of view of equal treatment and legal security (Ibid: 32). This can be interpreted as that the Government is confident of who should be considered right holder and who should not, even though the Law Council and several consultative bodies oppose this and interprets it in a different way.

5.3 Duty bearers

The background of the proposition is according to the Government “Due to the very long processing times at the Migration Board, many of those who came to Sweden as

unaccompanied minors before the announcement of the amendments, have become, or will become adults before they receive the first decision on the basis of the asylum application [...] There is a reason to assume that many of these young people would have been granted a residence permit in Sweden if their asylum application had been tried when they were still children” (Prop 2017/18: 252: 30, author’s own translation). This quote shows that the Migration Board’s long processing times have led to the origin of the Government’s

proposition since certain unaccompanied minors according to the Government should be able to obtain residence permit.

Many consultative bodies are unsure of who is considered to be duty bearer in the

proposition. One example of this is that some consultative bodies “Consider the proposal to put a strain on the schools’ staff [...] the proposal risks entailing increased responsibility for, among other things, study- and professional counsellors on the issue of residence permit” (Ibid: 50, author’s own translation). The Government responds to this by claiming “The Government has some understanding for these concerns, however, in this context wishes to emphasize that it is the Migration Board that decides on all issues concerning residence permits. The Swedish Migration Board also has a general service obligation on issues relating to the authority’s area of activity” (Ibid: 50, author’s own translation). This can be interpreted as an example of the ambiguities that exist in the proposition. There are different ways of interpreting who is responsible for providing the right holders with their rights since the Government claims that the Migration Board has the responsibility, while some

consultative bodies believe that some of the responsibility lies with them.

Several consultative bodies comment that the proposition will lead to an increased cost, but also an increased workload for several public bodies such as Swedish courts (Ibid: 55).

(26)

Several consultative bodies mentions that there “Is a risk that the municipalities in which the Migration Board conducts accommodations for the unaccompanied, will suffer from the proposal in an unreasonable manner and the Government must ensure an even distribution of the young people who receive a residence permit in order for the municipalities to be able to fulfil their obligations within the framework of the receipt” (Ibid: 56, author’s own

translation). In response to this, the Government claims that they “Will closely monitor developments in the future, including: with regard to how the target group is distributed between different municipalities, and is prepared to return with proposals if necessary” (Ibid: 56, author’s own translation). This can be interpreted as that the Government claims they have some duties when it comes to fulfilling the right holders’ rights. Furthermore, it can be interpreted as that even if there are objections regarding the proposition and its alleged negative consequences for some duty bearers, the right holder’s right objects are being prioritized in relation to that. This also indicates that many consultative bodies, such as municipalities and counties, see themselves as duty bearers. However, the Government sees the Migration Board as the institution with the biggest impact and power regarding the right holders’ lives and therefore has the main influence on whether or not the right holder’s rights are fulfilled. This, therefore, indicates that the Government sees the Migration Board as the main duty bearer of the proposition.

The Migration Board has an obligation to investigate, which means that the Migration Board’s task is to ensure that a case of residence permit becomes as investigated as the condition requires (Ibid: 39). As mentioned, the Migration Board can hence be interpreted as the main duty bearer due to the fact that the authority is responsible for asylum cases and is the authority in charge of handling cases regarding the right holders’, residence permits. There exist ambiguities and interpretations within the proposition regarding who has the duty to meet the rights. However, the Government interprets the Migration Board as the main duty bearer.

5.4 Rights as claims

As previously stated, the Government believes that one of the backgrounds for the drafting of the proposition is that “The number of asylum seekers who applied for asylum in Sweden in 2015 was a record high. This entailed great strain on the Swedish asylum system and has also meant that the average processing time for asylum cases at the Swedish Migration

(27)

Board many of those who came to Sweden as unaccompanied minors before the

announcement on November 24, 2015, which has, or will have, become an adult before the Migration Board makes a decision in their asylum case. Thus, their ability to be granted residence permit in Sweden has deteriorated. It is important that measures are taken to improve the situation for this group as soon as possible” (Prop 2017/18: 252: 22, author’s own translation).

Another reason for proposing the new law is the long awaiting response from the Migration Board, which according to the Government leads to uncertainty among many unaccompanied minors and “In many cases, their stay in Sweden has been characterized by great concern and uncertainty in a way that has made this group particularly vulnerable. It is therefore important that legislative changes are made which means that as many as possible in this group of young adults [...] can be granted a residence permit for studies at the upper secondary level” (Ibid: 30, author’s own translation). It is also mentioned that an introduction of the proposition into law will promote the group's personal development and establishment in society (Ibid: 58).

These underlying reasons for the drafting of the proposition show moral rights that exist in the social context, regarding wanting to promote personal development. It is also considered a moral right not to have an everyday life that is characterized by anxiety and uncertainty. This can be interpreted as an example of when the legal rights that exist to promote human rights are built on the moral character of society, which has been transformed into concrete legal rights and then written down into legally binding documents. This highlights that the Government interprets it as a legal right for the certain unaccompanied minors not to live a life of uncertainty and to be able to develop on a personal level. The fact that the rights are written into legally binding documents is another way to interpret the human rights in the proposition are legal claims, this due to the fact that the document being analysed is a proposition, in other words, a proposed bill that applies in Swedish law. If these legal rights are violated, it will lead to legal consequences.

The proposition receives criticism from both the Law Council and consultative bodies. The Law Council writes in its opinion to the proposition that there are several objections

regarding the complexity of the law “The courts have argued that the complexity makes it difficult to get an overview of the consequences of the proposal at all, and this must entail difficulties not least for individuals. The Law Council shares this assessment, and consider that the limit here has been reached for what is acceptable in terms of how legislation can be designed” (Ibid: 118, author’s own translation). Moreover, “Many consultative bodies

(28)

believe that the proposal is complicated and can lead to application difficulties. Some consultative bodies also express concern regarding that it may adversely affect legal certainty” (Ibid: 31, author’s own translation). This can be interpreted as there being a concern among the consultative bodies that the ambiguity in the proposition may lead to different interpretive possibilities regarding the application of the proposition, which in turn may have a negative impact on legal certainty in Sweden. Furthermore, it can be interpreted that many of the consultative bodies consider that the rights in the proposition should

continue to be interpreted as moral rights since there is a risk for the legal certainty to become unstable if the rights become legally binding.

The Government interprets the complexity of the regulations in the proposition differently and replies to the consultative bodies by arguing that “Although the existing regulatory framework is not straightforward and that there is a risk that the introduction of a new foundation complicates the regulatory framework further, the Government does not consider that it risks leading to such application difficulties that it can adversely affect legal

certainty” (Ibid: 31, author’s own translation). This quote can be interpreted as saying that the Government does not see the complexity and the different interpretation possibilities as reasons not to make the moral rights into legal rights. In conclusion, there is a clear

difference in the interpretation of the complexity of the proposition since the Law Council goes as far as saying that the limit has been reached for what is acceptable regarding how legislation can be designed, while the Government, on the other hand, does not believe there is a risk for the complexity to adversely affect legal certainty. This indicates a clear conflict between two rather strong extremities. This divergence between the Government, the

consultative bodies and the Law Council regarding the claims indicates that the content of the proposition can be interpreted differently and that there exists a conflict within the document.

5.5 Right objects

The main content of the proposition states, “A foreigner who has received, or should have received, a decision on expulsion must be granted a residence permit for studies at the upper secondary level if…” (Prop 2017/18: 252: 1, author’s own translation). Whereupon six requirements that must be fulfilled in order to be able to obtain a new opportunity for a residence permit follows. The main right object, which the right holders can claim in the proposition is thus that certain unaccompanied minors who have received, or should have

(29)

secondary level. The temporary residence permits as a right object can, in turn, lead to additional right objects in such a way that the residence permit for studies at the upper secondary levels according to the Government can lead to the possibility of applying for a job. In the long term, this could lead to permanent residence permit when proving that one can support him- or herself (Ibid: 30). When it comes to the possibility of the unaccompanied minor to apply for the introduction program for the professional introduction, the purpose is that the group is receiving the opportunity to establish themselves on the labour market, something that in turn could lead to permanent residence (Ibid: 46). This can be interpreted as another right object in the proposition.

It is mentioned in the proposition that many of the certain unaccompanied minors, during the process will have cases that are still on going in their asylum and expulsion issues, which means that they are entitled to a public assistant. “A public assistant must, within the

framework of his assignment, take advantage of the asylum seeker’s interests in the case. This includes providing information and advice based on current law” (Ibid: 31, author’s own translation). This can be interpreted as another right object that the right holders can claim. It can also be interpreted as the rights in the proposition are seen as positive rights, since the public assistant within the framework of their assignment must assist the person seeking residence permit, with information and advice. Furthermore, they must actively act in order for the right holder to be able to claim the right object. Another example of the rights in the proposition being positive is that the Migration Board actively must give the certain unaccompanied minors, who meet the requirements for a new residence permit, the possibility of being granted residence permit (Ibid: 1).

However, not all unaccompanied minors can claim the right objects in the proposition since it only applies to certain unaccompanied minors. This has been criticized by several consultative bodies, “Some consultative bodies, eg. FARR and Save the Children, believes that the proposal should also include other groups affected by the Migration Board’s long processing times” (Ibid: 29, author’s own translation). Many consultative bodies argue that more people should be included in the group who can be granted the residence permit and believes that “The date, at least, must be adjusted to December 31, 2015, or later to ensure that those who arrived before the time limits really are covered” (Ibid: 31, author’s own translation). The Government responds to this criticism by claiming that they “See no reason to depart from the assessment made earlier that the registration date should be the

(30)

own translation). The Government believes “The restriction is justified and acceptable from the point of view of equal treatment and legal certainty” (Ibid: 32, author’s own translation). Some consultative bodies, including the Migration Board, believe that it is unclear what is meant by the fact that a foreigner should have been assigned to a municipality since they believe that it is unclear what the formulation actually means. The Government responds to this by pointing out that “The purpose of the formulation is not to make any general review of the Migration Board’s initial disclosure assessment [...] the formulation should instead be aimed at the cases where the Migration Board accepts the stated age when deciding on expulsion. The Government considers that the formulation in the draft to the Law Council referral is sufficiently clear” (Ibid: 34, author’s own translation).

Furthermore, there are ambiguities between the various bodies in the proposition as “The Law Council does not find it possible to approve that the referenced bill becomes the basis for legislation and states, among other things, that the proposed rules are complicated, that there is an obvious risk that they will not be effective and that the preparation requirement cannot be considered well-satisfied” (Ibid: 22, author’s own translation). The Law Council additionally has “Objections to that the draft to the Law Council had been remitted in such a short amount of time” (Ibid: 22, author’s own translation). Despite this strong opinion stated by the Law Council, the Government believes it is important “That measures be taken to improve the situation of the group in question [...] it is therefore of great importance that the changes proposed in the temporary law can enter into force as soon as possible” (Ibid: 22, author’s own translation). The Government also believes “The preparation requirement in the form of Government is adequately met” (Ibid: 22, author’s own translation). This shows that there are clear conflicts in the document and that the content, and what the right objects should apply to, is open to be interpreted in different ways by the different bodies. It can also be interpreted that, unlike many consultative bodies, the Government considers that there is strong and convincing evidence that the bill is implemented and the objects for the rights thus is changed. Furthermore, this can be interpreted as saying that the Government, just like Orend, considers a person’s rights to be as real as his reasons are strong, due to the fact that the Government believes there are strong reasons for certain unaccompanied minors to have a right to be granted a residence permit. However, the proposition shows that what the objects of these rights should be, are open for interpretation.

Moreover, the proposition can be interpreted as a case where the object of human rights has changed since the proposal entails an additional foundation for residence permit into a

References

Related documents

Enligt kraven i FAS-konceptet skall töjningen, bestämd genom dynamisk kryptest, för bindlagret vara högst 12 000 mikrostrain medan det för bindlagret på CBÖ- sträckan inte

Under våren 2014 skriver jag mitt examensarbete och syftet med detta arbete är att belysa variationerna i hur lärare inom grundskolan, grundsärskolan och inriktningen

Assumption 2 The open-loop system dynamics can be described by a strictly causal 6.. More precisely, we shall show that the interest of non- causal models of the closed loop

Results from measurements on large slab specimens can be found in Appendix C and all data from tests on small slabs can be seen in Appendix D.. During the standard test, the test

Even though the variation in the values of friction coefficients will affect the contact forces observed, the main component of force that alters the push-in and pull-out forces

Secondly, I tried to show how his idea of overlapping consensus of different reasonable doctrines can help ensure a long standing stability in the country, since the various

United Nations, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 13 December 2006 United Nations, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966

Swedenergy would like to underline the need of technology neutral methods for calculating the amount of renewable energy used for cooling and district cooling and to achieve an