Aleinikoff, T. A., ‘State Centred Refugee Law: From Resettlement to Containment’, Michigan Journal of International Law, 14 (1992), 120.Google Scholar

Allan, James, Fried, Charles and Dworkin, Ronald, ‘“The Supreme Court Phalanx”: An Exchange’ (6 December 2007) 54 New York Review of Books, 19 (2007).Google Scholar

Allan, T.R.S., ‘Justice and Fairness in Law's Empire’, Cambridge Law Journal, 52 (1993), 64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Allan, T. R. S., Law Liberty and Justice: The Legal Foundations of British Constitutionalism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993).Google Scholar

Anker, D., Law of Asylum in the United States, 3rd edition (Boston, MA: Refugee Law Center, 1999).Google Scholar

Anker, D., Fitzpatrick, J. and Shacknove, A., ‘Crisis and Cure: A Reply to Hathaway/Neve and Schuck’, Harvard Human Rights Journal, 11 (1998), 295.Google Scholar

Baldaccini, Annelise, Guild, Elspeth and Toner, Helen (eds.), Whose Freedom, Security and Justice? EU Immigration and Asylum Law and Policy (Oxford: Hart, 2007).

Balkin, R., ‘International Law and Domestic Law’ in Blay, S. (ed.), Public International Law: An Australian Perspective (Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1997), Chapter 5.Google Scholar

Barnett, L., ‘Global Governance and the Evolution of the International Refugee Regime’, International Journal of Refugee Law, 14 (2002), 238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barutciski, M., ‘A Critical View on UNHCR's Mandate Dilemmas’, International Journal of Refugee Law, 14 (2002), 365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beaton-Wells, Caron, ‘Disclosure of Adverse Information to Applicants under the Migration Act 1958’ 11 Australian Journal of Administrative Law, 61 (2004).Google Scholar

Bayne, Peter., ‘The Common Low Basis of Judicial Review’ 67 Australian Law Journal, 781 (1993).Google Scholar

Beaton-Wells, C., ‘Disclosure of Adverse Information to Applicants under the Migration Act 1958, 11’ Australian Journal of Administrative La, 61, (2004).Google Scholar

Beaton-Wells, C., ‘Judicial Review of Migration Decisions: Life after S157’, Federal Law Review, 33 (2005), 142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beatty, D. M., The Ultimate Rule of Law (Oxford University Press, 2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Betts, A., ‘Towards a Mediterranean Solution? Implications for the Region of Origin’, International Journal of Refugee Law, 18 (2006), 652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Betts, A. and Durieux, J.-F., ‘Convention Plus As a Norm-Setting Exercise’, Journal of Refugee Studies, 20 (2007), 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Billings, P., ‘Balancing Acts: Six Acts in Search of Equilibrium’, Journal of Immigration Asylum and Nationality Law, 20 (2006), 197.Google Scholar

Bix, B., ‘Legal Positivism’ in Golding, M. and Edmundson, W. (eds.), The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory (London: Blackwell, 2005), Chapter 2.Google Scholar

Blake, N., ‘The Impact of the Minimum Standards Directives 2004/83/EC on National Case Law’ in ,International Association of Refugee Law Judges (IARLJ) (eds.), The Asylum Process and the Rule of Law (New Delhi: Manak Publications, 2006).Google Scholar

Blake, N. and Husain, R., Immigration, Asylum and Human Rights (Oxford University Press, 2003).Google Scholar

Bosniak, L., The Citizen and the Alien: Dilemmas of Contemporary Membership (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bostock, C. M.-J., ‘The International Legal Obligations Owed to the Asylum Seekers on the MV Tampa’, International Journal of Refugee Law, 14 (2002), 279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boswell, C., The Ethics of Refugee Policy (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing, 2005).Google Scholar

Brennan, G., ‘Limits on the Use of Judges’, Federal Law Review, 9 (1978), 1.Google Scholar

Brennan, G., ‘The Purpose and Scope of Judicial Review’ in Taggart, M. (ed.), Judicial Review of Administrative Action in the 1980s: Problems and Prospects (Auckland: Oxford University Press and Legal Research Foundation Inc, 1986), pp. 18–35.Google Scholar

Brennan, G., ‘The Impact of a Bill of Rights on the Role of the Judiciary: An Australian Response’ in Phillip Alston (ed.), Towards an Australian Bill of Rights (Canberra: Centre for International and Public Law and HREOC, 1994).Google Scholar

Brennan, G., ‘Extra-Judicial Notes’, Australian Bar Review, 17 (1998), 9.Google Scholar

Brunnée, J. and Toope, S., ‘A Hesitant Embrace: Baker and the Application of International Law by Canadian Courts’ in Dyzenhaus, D. (ed.), The Unity of Public Law (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2004).Google Scholar

Burbank, S. B., ‘The Architecture of Judicial Independence’, Southern California Law Review, 72 (1999), 315.Google Scholar

Byrne, R. and Shacknove, A., ‘The Safe Third Country Notion in European Asylum Law’, Harvard Human Rights Journal, 9 (1996), 185.Google Scholar

Byrne, R., Noll, G. and Vested-Hansen, J. (eds.), New Asylum Countries? Migration Control and Refugee Protection in an Enlarged European Union (Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International, 2002).

,Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board, Guidelines on Women Refugee Claimaints Fearing Gender-Related Persecution (Ottawa: Immigration and Refugee Board, 1993, updated 1996).Google Scholar

Cane, Peter, ‘Mapping the Frontiers’ in Nirks, Peter (ed.), The Frontiers of Liability, Vol 1 (Oxford University Press, 1994).Google Scholar

Carens, J., ‘Aliens and Citizens: The Case for Open Borders’, The Review of Politics, 49 (1987), 251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carlin, James L., ‘Significant Refugee Crises Since World War II and the Response of the International Community’ Michigan Yearbook of International Legal Studies, 3 (1982).Google Scholar

Carrington, K., ‘Ministerial Discretion in Migration Matters: Contemporary Policy Issues in Historical Context’, Parliament of Australia, Current Issues Brief, 3 (2003–4).Google Scholar

Castles, S., ‘Towards a Sociology of Forced Migration and Social Transformation’, Sociology, 37 (No 1 – Global Refugees) (2003), 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Castles, S., ‘The Migration–Asylum Nexus and Regional Approaches’ in Kneebone, S. and Rawlings-Sanaei, F. (eds.), New Regionalism and Asylum Seekers: Challenges Ahead (Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2007), Chapter 1.Google Scholar

Cholewinski, R., ‘Enforced Destitution of Asylum Seekers in the United Kingdom: The Denial of Fundamental Human Rights’, International Journal of Refugee Law, 10 (1998), 462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clayton, G., Textbook on Immigration and Asylum Law, 2nd edition (Oxford University Press, 2006).Google Scholar

Cohen, R., ‘Response to Hathaway’, Journal of Refugee Studies, 20 (2007), 370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

,Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar, Report of the Events Relating to Maher Arar (Ottawa: Public Works and Government Services Canada, 2006).Google Scholar

,Committee against Torture, Conclusions and Recommendations: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland – Dependent Territories, 10 December 2004, CAT/C/CR/33/3 para. 4(d); House of Lords, House of Commons, Joint Committee on Human Rights, Nineteenth Report, Session 2005–06, para. 131, www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200506/jtselect/jtrights/185/18508.htm (accessed 19 April 2008).

Costello, C., ‘The Asylum Procedures Directive and the Proliferation of Safe Country Practices: Deterrence, Deflection and the Dismantling of International Protection?’, European Journal of Migration and Law, 7 (2005), 35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Covell, C., The Defence of Natural Law: A Study of the Ideas of Law and Justice in the Writings of Lon L. Fuller, Michael Oakeshot, F.A. Hayek, Ronald Dworkin and John Finnis (New York: St Martin's Press, 1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cox, A., ‘The Independence of the Judiciary: History and Purposes’, University of Dayton Law Review, 21 (1996), 565.Google Scholar

Craig, P, ‘Ultra Vires and the Foundation of Judicial Review’ Cambridge Law Journal, 63 (1998).Google Scholar

Craig, P., ‘Formal and Substantive Conceptions of the Rule of Law: An Analytical Framework’, Public Law (1997), 467.Google Scholar

Craig, Paul, ‘Competing Models of Judicial Review’ Public Law, 428 (1999).Google Scholar

Craig, Paul, ‘Public Law, Political Theory and Legal Theory’ Public Law, 211 (2000).Google Scholar

Cranwell, G., ‘Treaties and Interpretation of Statutes: Two Recent Examples in the Migration Context’, Australian Institute of Administrative Law Forum, 39 (2003), 49.Google Scholar

Crawford, J. and Edeson, W. R., ‘International Law and Australian Law’ in Ryan, K. W. (ed.), International Law in Australia, 2nd edition (Sydney: Lawbook, 1984), Chapter 4.Google Scholar

Crawley, H., Refugees and Gender: Law and Process (Bristol, UK: Jordans Publishing Ltd, 2001).Google Scholar

Crépeau, F. and Jimenez, E., ‘Foreigners and the Right to Justice After 9/11’, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 27 (2004), 609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crépeau, F. and Legomsky, S. H., ‘North American Responses: A Comparative Study of U.S. and Canadian Refugee Policy’ in Kneebone, S. and Rawlings-Sanaei, F. (eds.), New Regionalism and Asylum Seekers: Challenges Ahead (Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2007), Chapter 6.Google Scholar

Crisp, J., ‘Forced Displacement in Africa: Dimensions, Difficulties and Policy Directions’, UNHCR Research Paper No. 126 (July 2006).

Crock, M, ‘Climbing Jacob's Ladder: The High Court and the Administrative Detention of Asylum Seekers in Australia’ 15 Sydney Law Review (1993).Google Scholar

Crock, M., ‘A Sanctuary Under Review: Where To From Here for Australia's Refugee and Humanitarian Program?’, UNSW Law Journal, 23 (2000), 246.Google Scholar

Crock, M., ‘The Refugees Convention at 50: Mid-life Crisis or Terminal Inadequacy? An Australian Perspective’ in Kneebone, S. (ed.), The Refugees Convention 50 Years On: Globalisation and International Law (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2003), Chapter 3.Google Scholar

Cronin, K., ‘A Culture of Control: An Overview of Immigration Policy Making’, in Jupp, J. and Kabala, M. (eds.), The Politics of Australian Immigration (Canberra: AGPS, 1993), Chapter 5.Google Scholar

Dauvergne, C., ‘Beyond Justice: the Consequences of Liberalism for Immigration Law’, Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, 10 (1997), 323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dauvergne, C., ‘Amorality and Humanitarianism in Immigration Law’, Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 37 (1999), 597.Google Scholar

Dauvergne, C., ‘Refugee Law and the Measure of Globalisation’ in Taylor, S. (ed.), Nationality, Refugee Status and State Protection: Explorations of the Gap between Man and Citizen (Special edition of Law in Context, Federation Press, 2005), pp. 62–82.Google Scholar

Davies, M., Asking the Law Question (Sydney: Thomson Lawbook, 1994).Google Scholar

Davies, S. E., ‘Redundant or Essential? How Politics Shaped the Outcome of the 1967 Protocol’, International Journal of Refugee Law, 19 (2007), 703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Costa, A., ‘Assessing the Cause and Effect of Persecution in Australian Refugee Law: Sarrazola, Khawar and the Migration Legislation Amendment Act (No. 6) 2001 (Cth)’, Federal Law Review, 30 (2002), 534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

DeWind, J., ‘Response to Hathaway’, Journal of Refugee Studies, 20 (2007), 381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

,Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, Immigration, Population and Citizenship Digest (Canberra: Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, 2003).Google Scholar

Dicey, Albert Venn, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, 10th edn (London: Macmillan, 1959).Google Scholar

Divine, R. A., American Immigration Policy, 1924–1952 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1957).Google Scholar

Douglas-Scott, S., Constitutional Law of the European Union (Harlow, UK: Pearson Education, 2002).Google Scholar

Dworkin, R., Taking Rights Seriously, 2nd edition with a Reply to Critics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978).Google Scholar

Dworkin, R., A Matter of Principle (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985).Google Scholar

Dworkin, R., Law's Empire (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1986).Google Scholar

Dworkin, R., Justice in Robes (Cambridge, MA; London: Belknap Press/Harvard University Press, 2006).Google Scholar

Dyzenhaus, D., ‘The Politics of Deference: Judicial Review and Democracy’ in Taggart, M. (ed.), The Province of Administrative Law (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 1997), Chapter 13.Google Scholar

Dyzenhaus, D., ‘Reuniting the Brain: The Democratic Basis of Judicial Review’, Public Law Review, 9 (1998), 98.Google Scholar

Dyzenhaus, D., ‘Recrafting the Rule of Law’ in Dyzenhaus, D. (ed.), Recrafting the Rule of Law: The Limits of Legal Order (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 1999), Chapter 1.Google Scholar

Dyzenhaus, D. (ed.), The Unity of Public Law (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2004).

Elliot, Mark, ‘The Ultra Vires Doctrine in a Constitutional Setting: Still the Central Principle of Administrative Law’ 58 Cambridge Law Journal, 129 (1999).Google Scholar

,European Council of Refugees and Exiles (ECRE), Country Report 2005, United Kingdom, August 2006, www.ecre.org/files/ECRE%20Country%20Report%202005rev.pdf (accessed 22 April 2008).

,European Union, ‘Entry into Force of European Rules on the Qualification and Status of Persons in Need of International Protection’, EU at the UN, EC06-307EN, 10 October 2006, www.europa-eu-un.org/home (accessed 20 April 2008).

,European Union, ‘Green Paper on the Future Common European Asylum System’, Press Release, MEMO/07/229, Brussels, 6 June 2007, http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/07/229 (accessed 31 March 2008).

Feller, E., ‘Asylum, Migration and Refugee Protection: Realities, Myths and the Promise of Things to Come’, International Journal of Refugee Law, 18 (2006), 509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Feller, E., UNCHR Assistant High Commissioner for Refugees, speaking at meeting of Institute of European Affairs: Jill Donoghue and Johnny Ryan, Rapporteurs Report (Ireland: Institute of European Affairs, 23 July 2006), www.iiea.com/images/managed/news_attachments/erika%20feller%20rep%20eport.pdf (accessed 2 April 2008).Google Scholar

Fitzpatrick, J. et al., ‘Current Issues in Cessation of Refugee Protection is a Subject of Confusion Mixed with Heightened Interest among States, Refugees and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)’, background paper as part of the Global Consultations on International Protection, www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b3889c28.pdf (accessed 20 April 2008).

Martin, S. F., Refugee Women, 2nd edition (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2004).Google Scholar

Forsyth, Christopher, ‘Of Fig Leaves and Fairy Tales: The Ultra Vires Doctrine, the Sovereignty of Parliament and Judicial Review’ 55 Cambridge Law Journal, 122 (1996).Google Scholar

Foster, M., International Refugee Law and Socio-Economic Rights: Refuge from Deprivation (Cambridge University Press, 2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Frecker, John, Immigration and Refugee Legal Aid Cost Drivers (Canada: Department of Justice, 2002).Google Scholar

Frelick, B., ‘Abundantly Clear: Refoulement’, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, 19 (2005), 245.Google Scholar

Frelick, B., ‘US Detention of Asylum Seekers: What's the Problem? What's the Solution?’, Bender's Immigration Bulletin, 10 (2005), 159.Google Scholar

Fullerton, M., ‘Failing the Test: Germany Leads Europe in Dismantling Refugee Protection’, Texas International Law Journal, 36 (2001), 231.Google Scholar

Galligan, D. J., Discretionary Powers: A Legal Study of Official Discretion (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986).Google Scholar

Galligan, D. J., Law in Modern Society (Oxford University Press, 2007).Google Scholar

Galloway, D., ‘Liberalism, Globalism and Immigration’, Queens Law Journal, 18 (1993), 266.Google Scholar

Galloway, D., ‘Criminality and State Protection: Structural Tensions in Canadian Refugee Law’ in Kneebone, S. (ed.), The Refugees Convention 50 Years On: Globalisation and International Law (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2003), Chapter 5.Google Scholar

Galloway, D., ‘Proof and Narrative: Reproducing the Facts in Refugee Cases’, (unpublished manuscript on file with Professor Audrey Macklin).

Geiringer, C., ‘Tavita and All That: Confronting the Confusion Surrounding Unincorporated Treaties and Administrative Law’, New Zealand Universities Law Review, 21 (2004), 66.Google Scholar

Gibney, M. J., The Ethics and Politics of Asylum: Liberal Democracy and the Response to Refugees (Cambridge University Press, 2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gibney, M. J., ‘Forced Migration, Engineered Regionalism and Justice Between States’ in Kneebone, S. and Rawlings-Sanaei, F. (eds.), New Regionalism and Asylum Seekers: Challenges Ahead (Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2007), Chapter 3.Google Scholar

Gil-Bazo, M.-T., ‘Refugee Status and Subsidiary Protection under EC Law: The Qualification Directive and the Right to Be Granted Asylum’ in Baldaccini, A., Guild, E. and Toner, H. (eds.), Whose Freedom, Security and Justice? EU Immigration and Asylum Law and Policy (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2007).Google Scholar

Gil-Bazo, M. -T., ‘The Protection of Refugees under the Common European Asylum System: The Establishment of a European Jurisdiction for Asylum Purposes and Compliance with International Refugee and Human Rights Law’, Cuadernos Euopeos de Deusto, No. 36/2007, pp. 153–82, http://ssrn.com/abstract=983722 (accessed 16 April 2008).

Goldberg, P., ‘Women and Refugee Status: A Review Essay’, International Journal of Refugee Law, 7 (1995), 756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Golding, Martin and Edmundson, William (eds.), The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory (London: Blackwell, 2005).CrossRef

Goldsmith, Lord, ‘Symposium: Global Constitutionalism: Keynote Address’, Stanford Law Review, 59 (2007), 1155.Google Scholar

Goodwin-Gill, G., ‘Judicial Reasoning and “Social Group” after Islam and Shah’, International Journal of Refugee Law, 11 (1999), 537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goodwin-Gill, G., ‘Article 31 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees: Non-penalization, Detention, and Protection’ in Feller, E., Turk, V. and Nicholson, F. (eds.), Refugee Protection in International Law: UNHCR's Global Consultations on International Protection (Cambridge University Press, 2003), Part 3.1.Google Scholar

Goodwin-Gill, G. S., ‘International Protection and Assistance for Refugees and the Displaced: Institutional Challenges and UN Reform’, Paper presented to Refugee Studies Centre Workshop, Oxford, April 2006, p. 4, http://refugeelaw.qeh.ox.ac.uk/pdfs/guy-goodwin-gill-institutional-challenges.pdf (accessed 14 April 2008).

Goodwin-Gill, G. S., ‘Forced Migration: Refugees, Rights and Security’ in McAdam, J. (ed.), Forced Migration, Human Rights and Security (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2008), Chapter 1.Google Scholar

Goodwin-Gill, G. S. and McAdam, J., The Refugee in International Law, 3rd edition (Oxford University Press, 2007).Google Scholar

Gordon, C., Mailman, S. and Yale-Loehr, S., Immigration Law and Procedure (New York: Matthew Bender, 2006).Google Scholar

Gordon, J., Suburban Sweatshops: The Fight for Immigrant Rights (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gorlick, B., ‘The Convention and the Committee against Torture: A Complementary Protection Regime for Refugees’, International Journal Of Refugee Law, 11 (1999), 479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gorlick, B., ‘Common Burdens and Standards: Legal Elements in Assessing Claims to Refugee Status’, International Journal of Refugee Law, 15 (2003), 357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Green, M. S., ‘Dworkin v. The Philosophers: A Review Essay on Justice in Robes’, University of Illinois Law Review, 5 (2007), 1477.Google Scholar

Guest, S., Ronald Dworkin (Edinburgh University Press, 1992).Google Scholar

Guild, E., ‘The Europeanisation of Europe's Asylum Policy’, International Journal of Refugee Law, 18 (2006), 630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hailbronner, K., ‘The Concept of “Safe Country” and Expeditious Asylum Procedures: A Western European Perspective’, International Journal of Refugee Law, 5 (1993), 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hailbronner, K., ‘New Techniques for Rendering Asylum Manageable’ in Hailbronner, K., Martin, D. A. and Motomura, H. (eds.), Immigration Controls (New York: Berghahn Books, 1998), vol. IV.Google Scholar

Haines, Roger, ‘National Security and Non-Refoulement in New Zealand: Commentary on Zaoui v Attorney-General (No 2)’ in McAdam, Jane (ed.), Moving On: Forced Migration and Human Rights (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2008).Google Scholar

Harlow, Carol and Rawlings, Richard, Law and Administration (London: Weidenfield and Nicholson, 1984).Google Scholar

Hart, H. L. A., The Concept of Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961).Google Scholar

Harvey, C., ‘Asylum Seekers, Ultra Vires and the Social Security Regulations’, Public Law, (1997) 394.Google Scholar

Harvey, C., ‘Refugees, Asylum Seekers, The Rule of Law and Human Rights’ in Dyzenhaus, D. (ed.), The Unity of the Public Law (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2004), Chapter 8.Google Scholar

Harvey, C., ‘Regionalism, Human Rights and Forced Migration’, in Kneebone, S. and Rawlings-Sanaei, F. (eds.), New Regionalism and Asylum Seekers: Challenges Ahead (Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2007).Google Scholar

Harvey, C. and Barnidge, R. P., ‘Human Rights, Free Movement, and the Right to Leave in International Law’, International Journal of Refugee Law, 19 (2007), 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hathaway, J. C., ‘The Evolution of Refugee Status in International Law: 1920–1950’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 33 (1984), 348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hathaway, J. C., The Rights of Refugees Under International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hathaway, J. C., ‘Forced Migration Studies: Could We Agree Just to ‘Date’?’, Journal of Refugee Studies, 20 (2007), 349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hathaway, J. C. and Neve, R. A., ‘Making International Refugee Law Relevant Again: A Proposal for Collectivised and Solution-Oriented Protection’, Harvard Human Rights Journal, 10 (1997), 115.Google Scholar

Hay, E. and Kneebone, S., ‘Refugee Status in Australia and the Cessation Provisions: QAAH of 2004 v. MIMIA’, Alternative Law Journal, 31 (2006), 147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Henkin, Louis, et al., Human Rights (New York: Foundation Press, 1999).Google Scholar

,Home Office, Asylum Statistics 2002 United Kingdom (London: Home Office RDSR, 23 August 2003).Google Scholar

,Home Office, Asylum Statistics United Kingdom 2006, 3rd edn. (London: Home Office RDSD, 21 August 2007).Google Scholar

,Home Office, ‘Public Performance Target: Removing More Failed Asylum Seekers Than New Anticipated Unfounded Applications’, Statistics for First Quarter 2006 (London: Home Office RDSD).

,Home Office, Asylum Statistics: 4th Quarter 2007 United Kingdom (London: Home Office RDSR).

Hopper, R. and Osuna, J. P., ‘Remedies of Last Resort: Private Bills and Deferred Action’, Immigration Briefings, June (1997), 1.Google Scholar

Hull, E., Without Justice For All: The Constitutional Rights of Aliens (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1985).Google Scholar

Hutchinson, Allan C. and Monahan, Patrick (eds.), The Rule of Law: Ideal or Ideology (Toronto: Carswell, 1987).

Huysmans, J., Nexus Terrorism/Immigration/Asylum/Refuge in Parliamentary Debates in the UK: Commons Debates since 11 September 2001, Report for ESRC Project MIDAS (Migration, Democracy and Security) in the New Security Challenges programme, 2 November 2005, www.midas.bham.ac.uk/researchandpolicy.htm (accessed 19 April 2008).Google Scholar

,ICAR, ‘The History of Kosovars in the UK’ in Navigation Guide, www.icar.org.uk/?lid=307 (accessed 16 April 2008).Google Scholar

,ICAR, Reporting Asylum: The UK Press and the Effectiveness of PCC Guidelines, January 2007, www.icar.org.uk/?lid=4775 (accessed 17 April 2008).

,Immigration and Refugee Board, Concerning Preparation and Conduct of a Hearing in the Refugee Protection Division: Guidelines Issued by the Chairperson Pursuant to Section 159(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Ottawa: Immigration and Refugee Board, 2003).Google Scholar

,Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Situation of Human Rights of Asylum Seekers within the Canadian Refugee Determination System, 2000, www.cidh.org/countryrep/canada2000en/table-of-contents.htm (accessed 3 March 2008).

Jackson, V. C., ‘Proconstitutional Behavior, Political Actors, and Independent Courts: A Comment on Geoffrey Stone's Paper’, International Journal of Constitutional Law, 2 (2004), 368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jacobson, J. L., ‘At-Sea Interception of Alien Migrants: International Law Issues’, Willamette Law Review, 28 (1992), 811.Google Scholar

Jastram, K. and Cavalieri, S., ‘Human Rights in Refugee Tribunals’, Refugee Survey Quarterly, 24 (2005), 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

,Joint Committee on Human Rights, The Treatment of Asylum Seekers, Tenth Report of 2006–07, HL Paper 81, HC 60 (London: House of Commons, 30 March 2007), www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200607/jtselect/jtrights/81/81i.pdf (accessed 18 April 2008).Google Scholar

,Joint Committee on Human Rights, Government Response to the Committee's Tenth Report of this Session: The Treatment of Asylum Seekers, Seventeenth Report of 2006–7, HL Paper 134, HC 790 (London: House of Commons, 5 July 2007), www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200607/jtselect/jtrights/134/134.pdf (accessed 18 April 2008).Google Scholar

,Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, ‘Parliamentary Briefing – Clauses 115–122 Special Immigration Status’, House of Commons, Second Reading, 8 October 2007, www.jcwi.org.uk/news/jcwi%5B1%5D.cjb.brief.pdf (accessed 20 April 2008).

Jowell, Jeffrey, ‘Of Vires and Vacuums: The Constitutional Context of Judicial Review’ Public Law, 448 (1999).Google Scholar

Kelley, N., ‘International Refugee Protection: Challenges and Opportunities’, International Journal of Refugee Law, 19 (2007), 401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kneebone, S., ‘The Refugee Review Tribunal and the Assessment of Credibility: An Inquisitorial Role?’, Australian Journal of Administrative Law, 5 (1998), 78.Google Scholar

Kneebone, S., ‘What is the Basis of Judicial Review?’, Public Law Review, 12 (2001), 95.Google Scholar

Kneebone, S., ‘Natural Justice and Non-Citizens: A Matter of Integrity?’, Melbourne University Law Review, 26 (2002), 355–80.Google Scholar

Kneebone, S. (ed.), The Refugees Convention 50 Years On: Globalisation and International Law (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2003).

Kneebone, S., ‘Believable Tales: Proving a Well-Founded Fear of Persecution’, Migration Action, 25 (2004), 4.Google Scholar

Kneebone, S., ‘Bouncing the Ball between the Courts and the Legislature: What is the Score on Refugee Issues?’ in Davis, T. (ed.), Human Rights 2003: The Year in Review (Melbourne: Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, Monash University, 2004), pp. 135–78.Google Scholar

Kneebone, S., ‘Strangers at the Gate: Refugees, Citizenship and Nationality’, Australian Journal of Human Rights, 10 (2004), 33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kneebone, S., ‘What We Have Done With the Refugees Convention: The Australian Way’ in Taylor, S. (ed.), Nationality, Refugee Status and State Protection: Explorations of the Gap between Man and Citizen (Special edition of Law in Context, Federation Press, 2005), pp. 83–119.Google Scholar

Kneebone, S., ‘Is the Australian Refugee Review Tribunal “Institutionally” Biased?’ in Crépeau, F. et al. (eds.), Forced Migration and Global Processes: A View from Forced Migration Studies (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2006), Chapter 10.Google Scholar

Kneebone, S., ‘The Pacific Plan: The Provision of “Effective Protection”?’, International Journal of Refugee Law, 18 (2006), 696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kneebone, S., ‘The Legal and Ethical Implications of Extraterritorial Processing of Asylum Seekers: The “Safe Third Country” Concept’ in McAdam, J. (ed.), Forced Migration, Human Rights and Security (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2008), Chapter 5.Google Scholar

Kneebone, S. and Rawlings-Sanaei, F. (eds.), New Regionalism and Asylum Seekers: Challenges Ahead (Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2007).

Kneebone, Susan and Pickering, Sharon, ‘Australia, Indonesia and the Pacific Plan’ in Kneebone, Susan and Rawlings-Sanaei, Felicity (eds.), New Regionalism and Asylum Seekers: Challenges Ahead (Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2007).Google Scholar

Koser, K., ‘Strategies, Stories and Smuggling: Inter-regional Asylum Flows and Their Implications for Regional Responses’ in Kneebone, S. and Rawlings-Sanaei, F. (eds.), New Regionalism and Asylum Seekers: Challenges Ahead (Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2007), Chapter 2.Google Scholar

Krause, D. and Knott, I., ‘Refugee Determination Processes: A View Across the Tasman’, Alternative Law Journal 27 (2002), 220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kurzban, I. J., ‘Restructuring the Asylum Process’, San Diego Law Review, 19 (1981), 91.Google Scholar

Kushner, T. and Knox, K., Refugees in an Age of Genocide (London: Frank Cass, 1999).Google Scholar

Lambert, H., ‘The EU Asylum Qualification Directive: Its Impact on the Jurisprudence of the United Kingdom and International Law’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 55 (2006), 161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Langfield, Malcolm, More People Imperative: Immigration to Australia 1901–1939 (Canberra: National Archives of Australia, 1999).Google Scholar

Lauterpacht, E. and Bethlehem, D., ‘The Scope and the Content of the Principle of Non-Refoulement’ in Feller, E., Turk, V. and Nicholson, F. (eds.), UNHCR's Global Consultations on International Protection (Cambridge University Press, 2003).Google Scholar

LaViolette, N., ‘Gender-Related Refugee Claims: Expanding the Scope of the Canadian Guidelines’, International Journal of Refugee Law, 19 (2007), 169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Legomsky, S. H., ‘Forum Choices for the Review of Agency Adjudication: A Study of the Immigration Process’, Iowa Law Review, 71 (1986), 1297.Google Scholar

Legomsky, S. H., Immigration and the Judiciary: Law and Politics in Britain and America (Oxford University Press, 1987).Google Scholar

Legomsky, S. H., ‘Refugees, Administrative Tribunals, and Real Independence: Dangers Ahead for Australia’, Washington University Law Quarterly, 76 (1998), 243.Google Scholar

Legomsky, S. H., ‘The Detention of Aliens: Theories, Rules, and Discretion’, University of Miami Inter-American Law Review, 30 (1999), 531.Google Scholar

Legomsky, S. H., ‘Secondary Refugee Movements and the Return of Asylum Seekers to Third Countries: The Meaning of Effective Protection’, International Journal of Refugee Law, 15 (2003), 567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Legomsky, S. H., Immigration and Refugee Law and Policy, 4th edition (New York: Foundation Press, 2005).Google Scholar

Legomsky, S. H., ‘Deportation and the War on Independence’, Cornell Law Review, 91 (2006), 369.Google Scholar

Legomsky, S. H., ‘The USA and the Caribbean Interdiction Program’, International Journal of Refugee Law, 18 (2006), 677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Legomsky, Stephen, ‘Learning to Live with Unequal Justice: Asylum and the Limits to Consistency’ 60 Stanford Review, 413 (2007).Google Scholar

Legomsky, S. H., ‘The New Path of Immigration Law: Asymmetric Incorporation of Criminal Justice Norms’, Washington and Lee Law Review, 64 (2007), 469.Google Scholar

Levinson, P. J., ‘The Façade of Quasi-Judicial Independence in Immigration Appellate Adjudications’, Bender's Immigration Bulletin, 9 (2004), 1154.Google Scholar

Lippert, R., Sanctuary, Sovereignty and Sacrifice: Canadian Sanctuary, Power and Law (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2005).Google Scholar

Loescher, G. and Scanlan, J. A., Calculated Kindness: Refugees and America's Half-Open Door 1945–Present (New York: Free Press, 1986).Google Scholar

Macklin, A., ‘Attorney-General v. Ward: A Review Essay’, International Journal of Refugee Law, 6 (1994), 362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Macklin, A., ‘The State of Law's Borders and the Law of States’ Borders' in Dyzenhaus, D. (ed.), The Unity of the Public Law (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2004), Chapter 7.Google Scholar

Magner, T., ‘A Less Than “Pacific” Solution for Asylum Seekers in Australia’, International Journal of Refugee Law, 16 (2004), 53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Maher, Gerry, ‘Natural Justice as Fairness’ in MacCormick, Neil and Birks, Peter (eds.), The Legal Mind: Essays for Tony Honore (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986).Google Scholar

Manne, R. and Corlett, D., ‘Sending Them Home: Refugees and the New Politics of Indifference’, Quarterly Essay, 13 (2004), 1.Google Scholar

Martin, S. F., ‘Reforming Asylum Adjudication: On Navigating the Coast of Bohemia’, (1990) 138 University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 1247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McAdam, J., ‘Complementary Protection: A Comparative Perspective’, in UNHCR Discussion Paper, No. 2 2005, Complementary Protection.

Mcadam, J., ‘The Refugee Convention as a Rights Blueprint for Persons in Need of International Protection’ in McAdam, J. (ed.), Forced Migration, Human Rights and Security (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2008), Chapter 10.Google Scholar

McMillan, J., ‘Federal Court v Minister for Immigration’, Australian Institute of Adminstrative Law Forum, 22 (1999), 1.Google Scholar

Mertus, J., ‘The State and the Post-Cold War Refugee Regime: New Models, New Questions’, International Journal of Refugee Law, 10 (1998), 321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Millbank, A., ‘The Detention of Boat People’ Current Issues Brief, 8 (2000–1), www.aph.gov.au/Library/pubs/CIB/2000-01/01cib08.htm (accessed 10 March 2008).Google Scholar

Millbank, A., The Problem with the 1951 Convention (Canberra: Department of the Parliamentary Library, 2000–2001), Research Paper 5, www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/2000-01/01RP05.htm (accessed 1 May 2008).Google Scholar

Miller, T. A., ‘Blurring the Boundaries between Immigration and Crime Control after September 11’, Boston College Third World Law Review, 25 (2005), 81.Google Scholar

Moore, C., Review of US Refugee Resettlement Programs and Policies (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1980).Google Scholar

Mullan, D., Administrative Law: Essentials of Canadian Law (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2001).Google Scholar

Murphy, L., ‘Concepts of Law’, Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy, 30 (2005), 1.Google Scholar

Musalo, K., Moore, J. and Boswell, R. A., Refugee Law and Policy: A Comparative and International Approach, 2nd edition (Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 2001).Google Scholar

Musgave, Thomas, ‘Refugees’, in Blay, Sam et al. (eds.), Public International Law: An Australian Perspective (South Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1997).Google Scholar

,National Association of Immigration Judges, An Independent Immigration Court: An Idea Whose Time Has Come (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2002).Google Scholar

Neuman, G. L., ‘Extraterritorial Violations of Human Rights by the United States’, American University Journal of International Law and Policy and Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Journal, 9 (1994), 213.Google Scholar

Nicholson, F. and Twomey, P. (eds.), Refugee Rights and Realities: Evolving International Concepts and Regimes (Cambridge University Press, 1999).

Noll, G., ‘Seeking Asylum at Embassies: A Right of Entry under International Law?’, International Journal of Refugee Law, 17 (2005), 542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

North, A. and Decle, P., ‘Courts and Immigration Detention: Once a Jolly Swagman etc’, Australian Journal of Administrative Law, 10 (2002), 5.Google Scholar

Nyers, P., ‘Abject Cosmopolitanism’, Third World Quarterly, 24 (December 2003), 1069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nyers, Peter, ‘Taking Rights, Mediating Wrongs: Disagreements over the Political Agency of Non-Status Refugees’, in Huysmans, Jef, Dobson, Andrew and Prokhovnik, Raia (eds.), The Politics of Protection: Sites of Insecurity and Political Agency (London: Routledge, 2006).Google Scholar

Oliver, D., ‘Is the Ultra Vires Rule the Basis of Judicial Review?’, Public Law (1987), 543.Google Scholar

Oliver, D., ‘The Underlying Values of Public and Private Law’ in Taggart, M. (ed.), The Province of Administrative Law (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 1997), pp. 217–42.Google Scholar

Ong Hing, B., ‘No Place for Angels: In Reaction to Kevin Johnson’, University of Illinois Law Review, (2000), 559.Google Scholar

Palmer, J. R. B., ‘The Nature and Causes of the Immigration Surge in the Federal Courts of Appeals: A Preliminary Analysis’, New York Law School Law Review, 51 (2006–7), 13.Google Scholar

Palmer, J. R. B., Yale-Loehr, S. W. and Cronin, E., ‘Why Are So Many People Challenging Board of Immigration Appeals Decisions in Federal Court? An Empirical Analysis of the Recent Surge in Petitions for Review’, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, 20 (2005), 1.Google Scholar

Passel, J. S., Estimates of the Size and Characteristics of the Undocumented Population (Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Trust, 2005).Google Scholar

Pham, H., ‘The Inherent Flaws in the Inherent Authority Position: Why Inviting Local Enforcement of the Immigration Laws Violates the Constitution’, Florida State University Law Review, 31 (2004), 965.Google Scholar

Phillips, Lord Chief Justice, ‘Reflections on the Rule of Law, America's 400th Anniversary at Jamestown Addresses: Rule of Law Conference: Global Issues and the Rule of Law’, University of Richmond Law Review, 42 (2007), 37.Google Scholar

Pirjola, J., ‘Shadows in Paradise: Exploring Non-Refoulement as an Open Concept’, International Journal of Refugee Law, 19 (2007), 639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Poynder, N., ‘Recent Implementation of the Refugee Convention in Australia and the Law of Accommodations to International Human Rights Treaties: Have We Gone Too Far?’, Australian Journal of Human Rights, 2 (1995), 75.Google Scholar

Poynder, N., ‘“Mind the Gap”: Seeking Alternative Protection Under the Convention Against Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’ in Kneebone, S. (ed.), The Refugees Convention 50 Years On: Globalisation and International Law (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2003), Chapter 7.Google Scholar

Quinn, R. and Yale-Loehr, S., ‘Private Immigration Bills: An Overview’, Bender's Immigration Bulletin, 9 (2004), 1147.Google Scholar

Ramji-Nogales, J., Schoenholtz, A. and Schrag, P. G., ‘Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication’, Stanford Law Review, 60 (2007), 295.Google Scholar

Rankin, M. B., Extending the Limits or Narrowing the Scope? Deconstructing the OAU Refugee Definition Thirty Years On, UNHCR, New Issues in Refugee Research, Working Paper No 113 (April 2005).

Rawitz, S. B., ‘From Wong Yang Sung to Black Robes’, Interpreter Releases, 65 (1980), 453.Google Scholar

Rawls, John, A Theory of Justice, revised ed. (Oxford University Press, 1999).Google Scholar

Rawlings, R., ‘Review, Revenge and Retreat’, Modern Law Review, 68 (2005), 378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Raz, Joseph, ‘The Authority of Constitutions and the Authority of its Authors’ in Alexander, Larry (ed.), Constitutionalism: Philosophical Foundations (Cambridge University Press, 1988).Google Scholar

Robinson, V. and Coleman, C., ‘Lessons Learned? A Critical Review of the Government Program to Resettle Bosnian Quota Refugees in the United Kingdom’, International Migration Review, 34 (2000), 1217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Scanlan, J. A. and Kent, O. T., ‘The Force of Moral Arguments for a Just Immigration Policy in a Hobbesian Universe: The Contemporary American Example’ in Gibney, M. (ed.), Open Borders? Closed Societies? The Ethical and Political Issues (New York: Greenwood Press, 1988), pp. 61–107.Google Scholar

Schoenholtz, A. I., ‘Aiding and Abetting Persecutors: The Seizure and Return of Haitian Refugees in Violation of the UN Refugee Convention and Protocol’, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, 7 (1993), 67.Google Scholar

Schoenholtz, A. I., ‘Refugee Protection in the United States Post September 11’, Columbia Human Rights Law Review, 36 (2005), 323.Google Scholar

Schuck, P. H., ‘INS Detention and Removal: A White Paper’, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, 11 (1997), 667.Google Scholar

,Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Provisions of the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006 (Canberra: LCLC, June 2006).Google Scholar

,Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee, A Sanctuary Under Review: An Examination of Australia's Refugee and Humanitarian Processes (June 2000).

,Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee, Administration and Operation of the Migration Act 1958 (Canberra: LCRC, March 2006).Google Scholar

Shacknove, A., ‘Who is a Refugee?’, Ethics, 95 (1985), 274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Shacknove, A., ‘From Asylum to Containment’, Administration and Operation of the Migration Act 1958 (Canberra: LCRC, March 2006).Google Scholar

Shacknove, A., ‘Who is a Refugee?’, Ethics, 95 (1985), 274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Shacknove, A., ‘From Asylum to Containment’, International Journal of Refugee Law, 5 (1993), 516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Shapiro, Scott J., ‘What is the Internal Point of View?’, 14 October 2006, http://ssrn.com/abstract=937337 (accessed 1 May 2008).

Shaghaf, Sheikh, The Empire Strikes Back: A Critique of Ronald Dworkin's Law's Empire, April 2007, p. 15, http://ssrn.com/abstract=976312 (accessed 13 May 2008).

Showler, Peter, Refugee Sandwich (Montreal: McGill-Queen's Press, 2006).Google Scholar

Singer, P. and Singer, R., ‘The Ethics of Refugee Policy’ in Gibney, M. (ed.), Open Borders? Closed Societies? The Ethical and Political Issues (New York: Greenwood Press, 1988), Chapter 4.Google Scholar

Sridharan, Swetha, ‘Material Support to Terrorism: Consequenses for Refugees amd Asylum Seekers in the United States’, Migration Fundamentals, January 2008, www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?id=671 (accessed 16 March 2008).Google Scholar

Steinbock, D. J., ‘Interpreting the Refugee Definition’, UCLA Law Review, 45 (1998), 733.Google Scholar

Stevens, D., UK Asylum Law and Policy: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2004).Google Scholar

Sullivan, K., ‘The Year in Detention Law and Policy: Immigration Detention Developments May 2003–April 2004’, Bender's Immigration Bulletin, 9 (2004), 851.Google Scholar

Tamanaha, Brian Z., A General Jurisprudence of Lawand Society (Oxford University Press, 2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tamanaha, B. Z., A Concise Guide to the Rule of Law, Legal Studies Research Paper Series, Paper 07-0082, September 2007.

Tamanaha, B. Z., ‘The Contemporary Relevance of Legal Positivism’, Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy, 32 (2007), 1.Google Scholar

Taylor, M. H., ‘Symbolic Detention’, In Defense of the Alien, 20 (1998), 153.Google Scholar

Taylor, S., ‘The Right to Review in the Australian On-Shore Refugee Status Determination Process: Is It Adequate Procedural Safeguard Against Refoulement?’, Federal Law Review, 22 (1994), 300.Google Scholar

Taylor, S., ‘The Pacific Solution or a Pacific Nightmare? The Difference Between Burden Shifting and Responsibility Sharing’, Asian-Pacific Law and Policy Journal, 6 (2005), 1.Google Scholar

Teitgen-Colly, C., ‘The European Union and Asylum: An Illusion of Protection’, Common Market Law Review, 43 (2006), 1503.Google Scholar

Thomas, R., ‘The Impact of Judicial Review on Asylum’, Public Law, (2003), 479.Google Scholar

Thomas, R., ‘After the Ouster: Review and Reconsideration in a Single Tier Tribunal’, Public Law, (2006), 674.Google Scholar

Towle, R., ‘Processes and Critiques of the Indo-Chinese Comprehensive Plan of Action: An Instrument of International Burden-Sharing?’, International Journal of Refugee Law, 18 (2006), 537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

,UK Refugee Council, Asylum Seekers' Experiences of the New Asylum Model: Findings From a Survey With Clients at Refugee Council One Stop Services (London: UK Refugee Council, January 2008).Google Scholar

,UN High Commissioner for Refugees, UNHCR Revised Guidelines on Applicable Criteria and Standards Relating to the Detention of Asylum-Seekers (Geneva: UNHCR 1999), confirming UNHCR Executive Committee, ‘ExCom Conclusion 44 (XXXVII)’ (1986) Detention of Refugees and Asylum-Seekers.Google Scholar

,UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Note on International Protection: Report by the High Commissioner, Geneva, 29 June 2007, A/AC.96/1038.Google Scholar

,UNHCR, Extraterritorial Effect of the Determination of Refugee Status, 17 October 1978, No. 12 (XXIX) – 1978, para. (a), www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refworld/rwmain?docid=3ae68c4447 (accessed 10 April 2008).

,UNHCR, Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status (Geneva: UNHCR, 1979, re-edited 1992).Google Scholar

,UNHCR ExCom, ‘Conclusion no. 22 (XXXII)’ (1981) in Protection of Asylum Seekers in Situations of Large-scale Influx, UN doc. A/AC.96/601.

,UNHCR ExCom, ‘Conclusion no. 58 (XL)’ (1989) in The Problem of Refugees and Asylum Seekers Who Move in an Irregular Manner from a Country in Which They Have Already Found Protection, UN doc. A/AC.96/737, part N.

,UNHCR, ‘UN High Commissioner for Refugees Responds to US Supreme Court Decision in Sale v. Haitian Centers Council’, International Legal Materials, 32 (1993), 1215.Google Scholar

,UNHCR, ‘Flight from Indochina’ in The State of the World's Refugees 2000: Fifty Years of Humanitarian Action (Oxford University Press, 2000), Chapter 4.Google Scholar

,UNHCR, Statistical Yearbook 2002: Trends in Displacement, Protection and Solutions, July 2004, www.unhcr.org/home/STATISTICS/41206f790.pdf (accessed 16 April 2008).

,UNHCR, UNHCR Annotated Comments on the EC Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004, 28 January 2005, pp. 30–1, www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refworld/rwmain?docid=4200d8354 (accessed 1 April 2008).

,UNHCR, The State of the World's Refugees: Human Displacement in the New Millennium (Oxford University Press, 2006), Chapter 5.Google Scholar

,UNHCR, Quality Initiative Project: Fourth Report to the Minister (London: UNHCR, January 2007).Google Scholar

(,UNHCR) Statistical Yearbook 2006: Trends in Displacement, Protection and Solutions (Geneva: UNHCR, 2007).

(,UNHCR) ‘The Nansen Refugee Award Flash Presentation’, www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/events?id=3fb359bd4 (accessed 8 November 2007).

,UNHCR, Asylum Levels and Trends in Industrialized Countries 2007 (Geneva: UNHCR, 18 March 2008).Google Scholar

(,UNHCR) Basic Facts, www.unhcr.org/basics.html (accessed 14 April 2008).

,UNHCR, ‘Global Consultations’ in Summary Conclusions: Cessation of Refugee Status, www.unhcr.bg/global_consult/cessation_refugee_status_en.pdf (accessed 19 April 2008).

,US Immigration and Naturalization Service, 1994 Statistical Yearbook (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1994).Google Scholar

,US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, ‘Country Report: Australia 2007’ in World Refugee Survey, www.refugees.org/countryreports.aspx?id=1981 (accessed 13 March 2008).

,US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, ‘Country Updates: Australia’, World Refugee Survey, 2001, www.refugees.org (accessed May 2008).Google Scholar

,US Congressional Research Service, Review of US Refugee Resettlement Programs and Policies (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1980).Google Scholar

,US Department of State, ,US Department of Homeland Security and ,US Department of Health and Human Services, Proposed Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2008: Report to the Congress (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2007).Google Scholar

Selm-Thorburn, Joanne, “Exceptional Leave to Remain in the United Kingdom” in Refugee Protection in Europe: Lessons of the Yugoslav Crisis (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1998).Google Scholar

Vasquez, C. M., “The ‘Self-Executing’ Character of the Refugee Protocol's Non-Refoulement Obligation”, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, 7 (1993), 39.Google Scholar

Wadham, John, Mountfield, Helen, Edmundson, Anna and Gallagher, Caoilfhionn, Blackstone's Guide to the Human Rights Act 1998, 4th edn. (Oxford University Press, 2007).Google Scholar

Wallace, J. C., ‘An Essay on Independence of the Judiciary: Independence From What and Why’, New York University Annual Survey of American Law, 58 (2001), 241.Google Scholar

Walters, M. D., ‘The Common Law Constitution and Legal Cosmopolitanism’ in Dyzenhaus, D. (ed.), The Unity of the Public Law (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2004), Chapter 16.Google Scholar

Walters, M. D., Hercules as Legal Humanist: Historicising Dworkin's Jurisprudence, Queen's Faculty of Law, Legal Studies Research Paper Series WP No. 07-01 (September 2006), www.ssrn.com/abstract=989609 (accessed 9 May 2008).

Walzer, M., Spheres of Justice: A Defence of Pluralism and Equality (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1983), pp. 31–63.Google Scholar

Weiss, T. G. and Korn, D. A., Internal Displacement: Conceptualization and Consequences (London: Routledge, 2006).Google Scholar

Whelan, F., ‘Citizenship and Freedom of Movement: An Open Admission Policy?’ in Gibney, M. (ed.), Open Borders? Closed Societies? The Ethical and Political Issues (New York: Greenwood Press, 1988), pp. 3–39.Google Scholar

Wildes, L., ‘The Nonpriority Program of the Immigration and Naturalization Service Goes Public: The Litigative Use of the Freedom of Information Act’, San Diego Law Review, 14 (1976), 42.Google Scholar

Wishnie, M. J., ‘Immigrants and the Right to Petition’, New York University Law Review, 78 (2003), 667.Google Scholar

Zagor, M., ‘Uncertainty and Exclusion: Detention and Aliens and the High Court’, Federal Law Review, 34 (2006), 127.Google Scholar