Helene Lambert
Hélène Lambert (PhD, Exeter; Maitrise de Droit Public, Strasbourg) is Professor of International Law in the Law School, University of Westminster.
She was previously a Reader at Westminster (2007-2010), a Senior Lecturer at Brunel University (2006-2007), and a Lecturer at the University of Exeter (1993-2005) and the University of the West of England, Bristol (1991-1993). She worked as a Protection (legal) Officer for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (1996). She was also a stagiaire ad hoc at the Council of Europe (1997) and a visiting fellow at the Refugee Studies Centre, University of Oxford (1999). She has acted as a consultant for the UNHCR and for the Council of Europe on numerous occasions. In this capacity, she wrote a study on 'Refugee Status, Arbitrary Deprivation of Nationality, and Statelessness' recently published by the UNHCR, Legal and Protection Policy Research Series, Division of International protection (October 2014); she also wrote the study that formed the basis of Recommendation 99(23) adopted by the Council of Ministers, and she advised the Governments of Moldova, Ukraine and Serbia-Montenegro on their draft asylum legislation. She also participated in the training of officials on behalf of the Council of Europe and UNHCR in Poland, Slovenia, Moldova, Romania and Serbia-Montenegro. In 2008, she wrote (with Professor Rebecca Wallace) an Expert submission to the Israeli Supreme Court on the right to family reunification and non-discrimination in UK law (an e-copy is available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1338759) in the case H.C. 830/07, Adalah (Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel) v. The Minister of the Interior and others; judgment of the Israeli Supreme Court of 11 January 2012 (https://www.adalah.org/eng/pressreleases/12_1_12.html)
She is a member of the AHRC’s peer review college, co-case editor for the' International Journal of Refugee Law', a member of the Editorial Board, ‘International Refugee Law’ Book Series, published by Martinus Nijhoff, and a member of the Editorial Board of the Refugee Law Reader, published by the Hungarian Helsinki Committee. She is also a member of the SLSA and was the Convenor for the Migration Section of the SLS (2004-2007). She is a Deputy Chief Examiner for external students (LLM) at the University of London.
She is currently working on the interface between statelessness and refugee status. She is also working in the inter-disciplinary area of international law and international security on a project that looks at the impact of armed conflict on refugee protection.
Phone: [email protected]
Address: Law School
University of Westminster
4-12 Little Titchfield Street
London W1W 7UW
United Kingdom
She was previously a Reader at Westminster (2007-2010), a Senior Lecturer at Brunel University (2006-2007), and a Lecturer at the University of Exeter (1993-2005) and the University of the West of England, Bristol (1991-1993). She worked as a Protection (legal) Officer for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (1996). She was also a stagiaire ad hoc at the Council of Europe (1997) and a visiting fellow at the Refugee Studies Centre, University of Oxford (1999). She has acted as a consultant for the UNHCR and for the Council of Europe on numerous occasions. In this capacity, she wrote a study on 'Refugee Status, Arbitrary Deprivation of Nationality, and Statelessness' recently published by the UNHCR, Legal and Protection Policy Research Series, Division of International protection (October 2014); she also wrote the study that formed the basis of Recommendation 99(23) adopted by the Council of Ministers, and she advised the Governments of Moldova, Ukraine and Serbia-Montenegro on their draft asylum legislation. She also participated in the training of officials on behalf of the Council of Europe and UNHCR in Poland, Slovenia, Moldova, Romania and Serbia-Montenegro. In 2008, she wrote (with Professor Rebecca Wallace) an Expert submission to the Israeli Supreme Court on the right to family reunification and non-discrimination in UK law (an e-copy is available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1338759) in the case H.C. 830/07, Adalah (Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel) v. The Minister of the Interior and others; judgment of the Israeli Supreme Court of 11 January 2012 (https://www.adalah.org/eng/pressreleases/12_1_12.html)
She is a member of the AHRC’s peer review college, co-case editor for the' International Journal of Refugee Law', a member of the Editorial Board, ‘International Refugee Law’ Book Series, published by Martinus Nijhoff, and a member of the Editorial Board of the Refugee Law Reader, published by the Hungarian Helsinki Committee. She is also a member of the SLSA and was the Convenor for the Migration Section of the SLS (2004-2007). She is a Deputy Chief Examiner for external students (LLM) at the University of London.
She is currently working on the interface between statelessness and refugee status. She is also working in the inter-disciplinary area of international law and international security on a project that looks at the impact of armed conflict on refugee protection.
Phone: [email protected]
Address: Law School
University of Westminster
4-12 Little Titchfield Street
London W1W 7UW
United Kingdom
less
InterestsView All (12)
Uploads
Books by Helene Lambert
This volume adopts a structured, focused comparison approach to examining a key element of the dialogue between refugee law judges, namely, the use of foreign law by national judges when making their own decisions on asylum, as an indication of transnational legal activity. It does so by examining nine EU member states (Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom) in separate chapters, and by focussing on specific aspects of each case. Each case analysis is structured around a common set of empirical and jurisprudential research questions.
This volume finds that despite the existence of transnational judicial activities through networks, judges rarely use each others’ decisions within the EU. It suggests two basic accounts to explain it.
• A key textbook bridging the disciplines of International Relations and International Law • Develops three interdisciplinary lenses: realist, liberal and constructivist • Each chapter contains discussion questions and suggestions for further reading
Contents
Part I. The Foundations: 1. The nature of international law; 2. The evolution of international law; 3. Three lenses: realism, liberalism, constructivism; Part II. The Law in World Politics: 4. Use of force; 5. Human rights; 6. International crimes; 7. International trade; 8. The environment; Part III. Conclusions: 9. International law in a unipolar age.
Reviews
'Succinct, highly readable and intellectually stimulating. This volume provides the perfect introduction to the complex interface between international relations and international law.' Michael Byers, Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law, University of British Columbia
‘An essential introduction to international law and relations, this excellent text combines the fields of expertise of its respective authors to offer core and critical insights into international law's function and its daily worth. Its expositions are as lucid as they are nuanced and poignant; its analyses and conclusions always judiciously and confidently made. A certain triumph of interdisciplinary endeavour.’ Dino Kritsiotis, Reader in Public International Law, University of Nottingham and Visiting Professor of Law, University of Michigan
‘This book is exactly what the doctor ordered - a smart, systematic, and comprehensive introduction to the complexities of international law in the contemporary global order. It is also one of the few introductions pitched at students of international relations as well as lawyers. An excellent addition to the burgeoning literature on the relationship between international politics and law!’ Chris Reus-Smit, Australian National University
‘… this is an excellent introduction that sets out the field’s parameters and its history and outlines the key problems and dilemmas with rigour and clarity.’ Political Studies Review
Protocol No.11 has reformed the convention control bodies and mechanisms in order to accommodate the increasing case-load. Further major amendments are foreseen by Protocol No. 14 to improve the effective operation of the ECHR faced with an ever-increasing volume of applications, whereas Protocol No.12 has enlarged the non-discrimination clause contained in Article 14 of the ECHR to “any rights set forth by law”.
At the same time, important demographic changes have taken place. The growing integration of the states of the European Union has created greater mobility for its citizens; and political and economic pressures have given rise to an increasing number of refugees and asylum-seekers from Europe and beyond.
It is against this backdrop that the position of aliens in relation to the European Convention on Human Rights is re-examined in a third edition.
Papers by Helene Lambert
This volume adopts a structured, focused comparison approach to examining a key element of the dialogue between refugee law judges, namely, the use of foreign law by national judges when making their own decisions on asylum, as an indication of transnational legal activity. It does so by examining nine EU member states (Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom) in separate chapters, and by focussing on specific aspects of each case. Each case analysis is structured around a common set of empirical and jurisprudential research questions.
This volume finds that despite the existence of transnational judicial activities through networks, judges rarely use each others’ decisions within the EU. It suggests two basic accounts to explain it.
• A key textbook bridging the disciplines of International Relations and International Law • Develops three interdisciplinary lenses: realist, liberal and constructivist • Each chapter contains discussion questions and suggestions for further reading
Contents
Part I. The Foundations: 1. The nature of international law; 2. The evolution of international law; 3. Three lenses: realism, liberalism, constructivism; Part II. The Law in World Politics: 4. Use of force; 5. Human rights; 6. International crimes; 7. International trade; 8. The environment; Part III. Conclusions: 9. International law in a unipolar age.
Reviews
'Succinct, highly readable and intellectually stimulating. This volume provides the perfect introduction to the complex interface between international relations and international law.' Michael Byers, Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law, University of British Columbia
‘An essential introduction to international law and relations, this excellent text combines the fields of expertise of its respective authors to offer core and critical insights into international law's function and its daily worth. Its expositions are as lucid as they are nuanced and poignant; its analyses and conclusions always judiciously and confidently made. A certain triumph of interdisciplinary endeavour.’ Dino Kritsiotis, Reader in Public International Law, University of Nottingham and Visiting Professor of Law, University of Michigan
‘This book is exactly what the doctor ordered - a smart, systematic, and comprehensive introduction to the complexities of international law in the contemporary global order. It is also one of the few introductions pitched at students of international relations as well as lawyers. An excellent addition to the burgeoning literature on the relationship between international politics and law!’ Chris Reus-Smit, Australian National University
‘… this is an excellent introduction that sets out the field’s parameters and its history and outlines the key problems and dilemmas with rigour and clarity.’ Political Studies Review
Protocol No.11 has reformed the convention control bodies and mechanisms in order to accommodate the increasing case-load. Further major amendments are foreseen by Protocol No. 14 to improve the effective operation of the ECHR faced with an ever-increasing volume of applications, whereas Protocol No.12 has enlarged the non-discrimination clause contained in Article 14 of the ECHR to “any rights set forth by law”.
At the same time, important demographic changes have taken place. The growing integration of the states of the European Union has created greater mobility for its citizens; and political and economic pressures have given rise to an increasing number of refugees and asylum-seekers from Europe and beyond.
It is against this backdrop that the position of aliens in relation to the European Convention on Human Rights is re-examined in a third edition.
However, the judgment of the House of Lords contains also weaknesses. Firstly, the House of Lords deliberately chose not to refer to the risk of serious harm and the well-foundedness of the fear when assessing the sufficiency (or effectiveness) of state protection. Yet these considerations form the test applied by the European Court of Human Rights. The House of Lords’ position therefore opens the possibility of further challenge to the European Court of Human Rights. Rather, the House of Lords chose to apply a more practical standard based on the availability of a system of protection of the citizen and a reasonable willingness by the state to operate that system. It follows that, in the UK, an individual can be returned to his/her country of origin notwithstanding the fact that s/he has a well-founded fear of persecution on a Refugee Convention ground, simply because the state did its best to operate the system of protection for the basic rights of its nationals. Secondly, the House of Lords endorsed, albeit obiter dictum, the meaning of persecution as the failure of state protection against a serious and persistent harm. Yet, as recently demonstrated by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal in Mustafa Doymus v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, the general view is that this should be understood to mean serious or persistent harm.
The Court distinguishes between cases of entry of aliens in the territory of a contracting state for family reunion purposes, and cases of removal of aliens from the territory of a contracting state resulting in the break up of family life. In cases of entry, the Court’s approach to the question whether it is reasonable to expect aliens to develop family life elsewhere is particularly restrictive, i.e., the obstacle must amount to an article 3 violation. This is because it proceeds to balance the applicant’s right against the state’s interest at the early stage of establishing an interference under article 8(1). As a result, no interference has yet been found by the Court in such cases. In cases of removal, on the other hand, the Court will usually balance the individual’s rights against the community’s interests at the later stage of considering whether or not the interfering measure was ‘necessary in a democratic society’ under article 8(2). Recent cases suggest that the Court is now scrutinising more closely the seriousness of offences and looking predominantly at elements of family life. This being the case, in situations where a refugee or a person in need of protection has committed serious offences and can show no strong family ties in the country of residence, s/he may only be protected against removal on the ground of article 3. However, in a situation where the person in need of protection has not committed a serious offence, the balance of interest would most likely weigh in her/his favour.