Hilary Evans Cameron demonstrates how the law that governs fact-finding in refugee hearings is malfunctioning, and suggests a way forward.

At a time when many around the world are fleeing their homes, seeking refugee protection has become a game of chance. Partly to blame is the law that governs how refugee status decision-makers resolve their doubts. This long-neglected branch of refugee law has been growing in the dark, with little guidance from the Refugee Convention and little attention from scholars. By looking closely at the Canadian jurisprudence, Hilary Evans Cameron provides the first full account of what this law is trying to accomplish in a refugee hearing. She demonstrates how a hole in the law's normative foundations is contributing to the dysfunction of one of the world's most respected refugee determination systems, and may well be undermining refugee protection across the globe. The author uses her findings to propose a new legal model of refugee status decision-making.

Which mistake is worse: to deny a refugee claim that should have been granted, or to grant a claim that should have been denied? Canadian refugee law has not made up its mind. In any area of legal adjudication, the law's error preference lies at the root of the structures that allow decision-makers to resolve their doubts: its burdens of proof, standards of proof and presumptions. The Federal Court, where Canadian refugee law is made, is divided on the question of which kind of error Refugee Board members should prefer, and as a consequence, the law's fact-finding structures work at cross-purposes. Board members are therefore often free to choose whether to resolve their doubts in a claimant's favour or against her, and since refugee status determination is mainly about fact-finding, this helps to explain the infamous disparities in the Board's grant rates. These disparities could suggest that many members must be highly suspicious or highly trusting, or else deciding claims on a whim or in bad faith. But in order to make nothing but negative decisions, a member does not need to be cynical or biased. He simply needs doubt, along with access to the structures that allow him to resolve that doubt against the claimant. To make nothing but positive decisions, a member does not need to be highly credulous. She could, on the contrary, be full of doubt, and choosing to resolve that doubt in the claimant's favour. Doubt lurks around every corner in a refugee hearing, and so even if every member decided in good faith, such a system could be expected to have difficulty treating similar cases consistently. And of course, if members can make whichever decisions they prefer for whatever reason they want, the system is vulnerable to influence and abuse.

The Palestinian conflict has produced one of the most tragic refugee crises since World War II, with the number of refugees caused by the violence associated with the creation of the State of Israel numbering around 11 million in 2011. The much lauded first edition, in 1998, of The Status of Palestinian Refugees in International Law was the first book to comprehensively analyse the legal aspects of the Palestinian refugee crisis, yet the last two decades have seen multiple developments. New waves of conflict and displacement have affected Palestinian refugees in the Middle East, and there has been Israeli encroachment on Palestinian territory. Hamas has grown, and a schism has formed within the first Palestinian government. The so-called "Arab Spring" has impacted the life, fate, and legal status of thousands of Palestinian refugees. In international legal jurisprudence, change has been similarly rapid. In 2004, the International Court of Justice delivered a crucial advisory opinion on the Separation Wall, authoritatively elucidating the international legal framework applicable to the Israeli occupation. Numerous international human rights bodies and UN fact-finding missions have added their analysis to the mix. The possibility of the State of Palestine joining the International Criminal Court has spurred discussion relating to the applicability of international criminal law to Palestinian refugees. Clear, compelling, and authoritative, Lex Takkenberg and Francesca Albanese discuss the status quo both on the ground and in the courts, and pose future scenarios to come.

Refugee law faces a serious crisis in Europe. This crisis highlights the need to explain the following questions: What is the relationship between refugee law and immigration policy? How much immigration do States need to tolerate for moral and practical reasons even if they do not wish any immigration? The general legal principle of necessity offers a useful theoretical basis for refugee law. Necessity explains the conditions under which it would be unfair to fight off unwanted immigrants by deportation and punishment. Necessity also explains the conditions under which a restrictive immigration policy is not feasible at a reasonable cost versus desperate individuals. It follows that necessity overrules a restrictive immigration policy and qualifies as a robust explanation of the purpose of a fair refugee policy. This study explores the consequences of the theory of necessity for the interpretation of key concepts of refugee law (persecution, well-founded fear, reasons of persecution, asylum) and concludes that a generous refugee practice can be conceived and logically justified even if a restrictive immigration policy is a political reality.

Refugee law is going through momentous times, as dictatorships tumble, revolutions simmer and the 'Arab Awakening' gives way to the spread of terror from Syria to the Sahel in Africa. This compilation of topical chapters, by some of the leading scholars in the field, covers major themes of rights, security, the UNHCR, international humanitarianism and state interests and sets out to map new contours. The concerns over our security are replacing humanitarian concerns over the plight of others. Securitization, exclusion and the internal relocation of genuine refugees are now the favoured polices. Yet, while central idioms of protection, persecution and non-refoulement have changed, there are also new demands on refugee law. The contributors to this book ask whether there are new spheres of protection emerging, for which refugee law must find a clear space, such as the protection of child refugees, trafficked persons, gender-related asylum and conscientious objectors to military service. This timely and valuable book shows that in these uncertain times, refugee law still has an exciting and challenging future ahead. Contemporary Issues in Refugee Law will appeal to academics, researchers, students and practitioners.

In an age of ethnic nationalism and anti-immigrant rhetoric, the study of refugees can help develop a new outlook on social justice, just as the post-war international order ends. The global financial crisis, the rise of populist leaders like Trump, Putin, and Erdogan, not to mention the arrival of anti-EU parties, raises the need to interrogate the refugee, migrant, citizen, stateless, legal, and illegal as concepts. This insightful Research Handbook is a timely contribution to that debate.