Ett barns möjlighet till asyl vid särskilt ömmande omständigheter
(2016) LAGF03 20162Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Migrationsrätten är ett område som till stor del är styrt av politiska intressen, och är därmed ett rättsområde som förändras ofta. Möjligheten för en asylsökande att beviljas uppehållstillstånd ställs mot samhällets intressen av reglering av invandring. Bestämmelsen om synnerligen ömmande omständigheter infördes i svensk lag år 2005. Den åsyftade att ge fler människor möjligheten till asyl, genom att pröva alla tänkbara omständigheter.
År 2014 förändrades bestämmelsen, lagstiftaren ville lyfta fram barnrättsperspektivet genom att barnets omständigheter enbart behövde vara ”särskilt ömmande”. Tanken var att fler barn nu skulle omfattas av bestämmelsen, och förenkla för rätten att tillämpa den i enlighet med barnets bästa. Frågan kan... (More) - Migrationsrätten är ett område som till stor del är styrt av politiska intressen, och är därmed ett rättsområde som förändras ofta. Möjligheten för en asylsökande att beviljas uppehållstillstånd ställs mot samhällets intressen av reglering av invandring. Bestämmelsen om synnerligen ömmande omständigheter infördes i svensk lag år 2005. Den åsyftade att ge fler människor möjligheten till asyl, genom att pröva alla tänkbara omständigheter.
År 2014 förändrades bestämmelsen, lagstiftaren ville lyfta fram barnrättsperspektivet genom att barnets omständigheter enbart behövde vara ”särskilt ömmande”. Tanken var att fler barn nu skulle omfattas av bestämmelsen, och förenkla för rätten att tillämpa den i enlighet med barnets bästa. Frågan kan dock uppstå huruvida principen i samband med bestämmelsen om särskilt ömmande omständigheter, verkligen bidragit till att fler barn beviljats uppehållstillstånd.
Syftet med uppsatsen är att utreda huruvida barnrättsperspektivet fått större betydelse i asylärenden, och om lagändringen fått den önskade effekten. Vidare är syftet även att belysa lagändringen som skedde 2016, som vänder upp och ner på syftet med 2014 års ändring. I 2016 års ändring ser vi hur samhällets intressen får större utrymme, dvs. intresset av att reglera invandringen kan tyckas ha övertrumfat den asylsökandes intresse av skydd.
Utredningen visar att 2014 års ändring knappast fått det genomslag som var tänkt, exempel på detta är rättsfallet MIG 2015:4 som behandlas i uppsatsen. Vidare kan nämnas att 2016 års lagändring kan anses svår att tillämpa, och dess förenlighet med Barnkonventionen kan ifrågasättas. Genom remissyttranden från bl.a. Röda korset, visar uppsatsens resultat på att lagen kan ha varit framhastad. I verkligheten innebär lagändringen att Sverige stänger sina dörrar för människor i nöd, vilket står i kontradiktion med 2014 års ändring som hade till syfte att öppna dem. (Less) - Abstract
- The immigration law is a field, which is largely controlled by political interests, and is thereby a field of law that changes often. The possibility for an alien to be granted a residence permit stands against general interests, such as regulation of immigration.
In the year of 2005 the provision of exceptionally distressing circumstances was introduced to Swedish law. The provision aimed to give more people the possibility for a residence permit, by assessing all possible circumstances.
The provision changed in the year of 2014. The legislature wanted to enhance the child rights perspective by changing the law so that the child’s circumstances only needed to be “particularly distressing”. The idea behind the change was to make... (More) - The immigration law is a field, which is largely controlled by political interests, and is thereby a field of law that changes often. The possibility for an alien to be granted a residence permit stands against general interests, such as regulation of immigration.
In the year of 2005 the provision of exceptionally distressing circumstances was introduced to Swedish law. The provision aimed to give more people the possibility for a residence permit, by assessing all possible circumstances.
The provision changed in the year of 2014. The legislature wanted to enhance the child rights perspective by changing the law so that the child’s circumstances only needed to be “particularly distressing”. The idea behind the change was to make sure that more children would fall under the provision and to simplify for the court to apply the provision in accordance with the principle of the best interests of the child. Here, the question may arise to whether the principle, together with the provision of particularly disserting circumstances, really did contribute to more children being granted residence permits.
The purpose of the thesis is to investigate if the child rights perspective has gotten a larger meaning in asylum cases, and if the legislative change achieved the desired effect. Furthermore the aim is to clarify the legislative change that happened in 2016, which turns the purpose of the 2014 legislative change, upside down. In the 2016 change, we can see how the society’s interests to regulate immigration overtrump the alien’s interest of protection.
The study demonstrates that the 2014 legislative change did not achieve the desired effect, an example of that is the case MIG 2015:4 that is covered in this thesis. Furthermore might be mentioned that 2016 legislative change could be considered hard to apply and its’ compatibility with the Childs right convention can be questioned. By statements of, for example, the Red Cross, the thesis results show that the law was overhasty. In reality the legislative change of 2016, means that Sweden closes it’s doors to people in need, which stands in contradiction to the 2014 change, which had the purpose to open them. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8896437
- author
- Sörensen, Petronella LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20162
- year
- 2016
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- särskilt ömmande omständigheter, uppehållstillstånd, förvaltningsrätt, migrationsrätt, barnets bästa
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8896437
- date added to LUP
- 2017-02-13 20:31:27
- date last changed
- 2017-02-13 20:31:27
@misc{8896437,
abstract = {{The immigration law is a field, which is largely controlled by political interests, and is thereby a field of law that changes often. The possibility for an alien to be granted a residence permit stands against general interests, such as regulation of immigration.
In the year of 2005 the provision of exceptionally distressing circumstances was introduced to Swedish law. The provision aimed to give more people the possibility for a residence permit, by assessing all possible circumstances.
The provision changed in the year of 2014. The legislature wanted to enhance the child rights perspective by changing the law so that the child’s circumstances only needed to be “particularly distressing”. The idea behind the change was to make sure that more children would fall under the provision and to simplify for the court to apply the provision in accordance with the principle of the best interests of the child. Here, the question may arise to whether the principle, together with the provision of particularly disserting circumstances, really did contribute to more children being granted residence permits.
The purpose of the thesis is to investigate if the child rights perspective has gotten a larger meaning in asylum cases, and if the legislative change achieved the desired effect. Furthermore the aim is to clarify the legislative change that happened in 2016, which turns the purpose of the 2014 legislative change, upside down. In the 2016 change, we can see how the society’s interests to regulate immigration overtrump the alien’s interest of protection.
The study demonstrates that the 2014 legislative change did not achieve the desired effect, an example of that is the case MIG 2015:4 that is covered in this thesis. Furthermore might be mentioned that 2016 legislative change could be considered hard to apply and its’ compatibility with the Childs right convention can be questioned. By statements of, for example, the Red Cross, the thesis results show that the law was overhasty. In reality the legislative change of 2016, means that Sweden closes it’s doors to people in need, which stands in contradiction to the 2014 change, which had the purpose to open them.}},
author = {{Sörensen, Petronella}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Ett barns möjlighet till asyl vid särskilt ömmande omständigheter}},
year = {{2016}},
}