Nuno Ferreira
Nuno joined the University of Sussex as a Professor of Law in 2016. Previously, he was a Senior Lecturer at the University of Liverpool (2012-2016) and Lecturer at the University of Manchester (2006-2012). He has also been a Visiting Professor at Wuhan University (China) and the School of Law of the University of Lisbon (Portugal), as well as a guest scholar at the University of Girona (Spain) and the Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (Sweden).
Nuno did his undergraduate law studies at the University of Coimbra (Portugal) and University of Bologna (Italy), and is a member of the Portuguese Bar. He worked as a legal consultant at the Legal Affairs and Litigation Department of the Portuguese Securities Market Commission (CMVM), and as a research fellow at the Centre of European Law and Politics at the University of Bremen (ZERP) (Germany). He carried out his doctoral studies at the University of Bremen, where he obtained his Dr. jur. title (summa cum laude).
Nuno is a Horizon 2020 ERC Starting Grant recipient, leading the project SOGICA - Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Claims of Asylum (2016-2020).
Nuno did his undergraduate law studies at the University of Coimbra (Portugal) and University of Bologna (Italy), and is a member of the Portuguese Bar. He worked as a legal consultant at the Legal Affairs and Litigation Department of the Portuguese Securities Market Commission (CMVM), and as a research fellow at the Centre of European Law and Politics at the University of Bremen (ZERP) (Germany). He carried out his doctoral studies at the University of Bremen, where he obtained his Dr. jur. title (summa cum laude).
Nuno is a Horizon 2020 ERC Starting Grant recipient, leading the project SOGICA - Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Claims of Asylum (2016-2020).
less
InterestsView All (14)
Uploads
Papers by Nuno Ferreira
SOGI asylum claims raise particular issues in the context of any legal system, including the role of private actors and widespread social stigma, the role of legislation criminalizing same-sex conduct in the country of origin, the assessment of credibility, and the assessment of internal relocation alternatives. In recent years there has been increasing research interest on SOGI asylum in Europe and beyond, and scholars from various disciplines have explored how SOGI claims are often treated in an inappropriate and stereotyped way in several jurisdictions, at legal, cultural and social levels, with particular repercussions in relation to claimants' proof of membership of a particular social group (PSG), risk of persecution and credibility. There has also been increasing interest in the social experiences of SOGI claimants and refugees, and their physical and mental health needs in their host countries.
Despite this growing body of literature on the topic of SOGI asylum, it is clear that many theoretical, geographical and practical challenges and gaps remain. This Research Topic aims to address some of those by addressing a range of aspects that have been offered insufficient attention. It does so by bringing together interdisciplinary and original contributions that push the boundaries of our knowledge and understanding of SOGI asylum.
I would have immense difficulties defining European values. I suspect one would get as many different answers as different people asked this question. I would like to think that amongst such European values we can include democracy, equality, human dignity, and so on. But that does not mean these values are only, mainly or particularly European in any sense, as many countries and societies around the world also cherish and share such values. There is nothing intrinsically European about these values, and even history can show this, despite pervasive narratives that try to convince us otherwise. Instead, what matters is that these are values that we espouse and protect.
European values inevitably have a personal value – in my particular case for several particular reasons. Having been born and grown up in Portugal, where democracy was only re-conquered in the 1970s and slowly solidified in the 1980s, cherishing the right to vote and freedom of speech was always crucial in my mind. And being gay has meant that I was always acutely aware of the importance of equality and the fight against discrimination, not only on grounds of sexual orientation, but on grounds of all other personal characteristics. Moreover, having had the privilege of taking part in several student exchange programmes and being yet another member of the ‘Erasmus generation’, I value immensely the right to education, the right to free movement, intercultural communication and respect for minorities. Despite the limits of cultural relativism and the need to hold on to human rights standards, we need to strive for much better knowledge and understanding of cultural differences. The private and the public are inextricably intertwined.
Indeed, the CoE has acquired a progressively significant role in the field of asylum. Although it does not have an asylum policy as such, several of its bodies have taken a noteworthy role in this field, such as the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT). The Strasbourg Court, above all, along with the now extinct European Commission of Human Rights, developed a strong line of jurisprudence that applies the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to asylum claimants, despite the ECHR not possessing any norm explicitly related to asylum.
More specifically, the Strasbourg Court was the first judicial instance at a European level to decide on cases relating to SMACs. It has so far dealt with at least 23 separate cases of asylum on grounds of sexual orientation. Many of these cases led to contentious and inadequate decisions, such as the 2014 judgment in M.E. v. Sweden, which gave legitimacy to the idea that applicants can be sent back to their countries of origin and asked to be ‘discreet’ about their sexuality. This approach reflects a worrying detachment from the realities of sexual minorities in many countries around the world and from their experiences when claiming international protection in Europe.
This contribution thus critiques the CoE policy and Court’s jurisprudence in this field, whilst advancing policy and legal recommendations that can adequately address the socio-cultural and sexual diversity of asylum claimants from a queer intersectional perspective.
SOGI asylum claims raise particular issues in the context of any legal system, including the role of private actors and widespread social stigma, the role of legislation criminalizing same-sex conduct in the country of origin, the assessment of credibility, and the assessment of internal relocation alternatives. In recent years there has been increasing research interest on SOGI asylum in Europe and beyond, and scholars from various disciplines have explored how SOGI claims are often treated in an inappropriate and stereotyped way in several jurisdictions, at legal, cultural and social levels, with particular repercussions in relation to claimants' proof of membership of a particular social group (PSG), risk of persecution and credibility. There has also been increasing interest in the social experiences of SOGI claimants and refugees, and their physical and mental health needs in their host countries.
Despite this growing body of literature on the topic of SOGI asylum, it is clear that many theoretical, geographical and practical challenges and gaps remain. This Research Topic aims to address some of those by addressing a range of aspects that have been offered insufficient attention. It does so by bringing together interdisciplinary and original contributions that push the boundaries of our knowledge and understanding of SOGI asylum.
I would have immense difficulties defining European values. I suspect one would get as many different answers as different people asked this question. I would like to think that amongst such European values we can include democracy, equality, human dignity, and so on. But that does not mean these values are only, mainly or particularly European in any sense, as many countries and societies around the world also cherish and share such values. There is nothing intrinsically European about these values, and even history can show this, despite pervasive narratives that try to convince us otherwise. Instead, what matters is that these are values that we espouse and protect.
European values inevitably have a personal value – in my particular case for several particular reasons. Having been born and grown up in Portugal, where democracy was only re-conquered in the 1970s and slowly solidified in the 1980s, cherishing the right to vote and freedom of speech was always crucial in my mind. And being gay has meant that I was always acutely aware of the importance of equality and the fight against discrimination, not only on grounds of sexual orientation, but on grounds of all other personal characteristics. Moreover, having had the privilege of taking part in several student exchange programmes and being yet another member of the ‘Erasmus generation’, I value immensely the right to education, the right to free movement, intercultural communication and respect for minorities. Despite the limits of cultural relativism and the need to hold on to human rights standards, we need to strive for much better knowledge and understanding of cultural differences. The private and the public are inextricably intertwined.
Indeed, the CoE has acquired a progressively significant role in the field of asylum. Although it does not have an asylum policy as such, several of its bodies have taken a noteworthy role in this field, such as the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT). The Strasbourg Court, above all, along with the now extinct European Commission of Human Rights, developed a strong line of jurisprudence that applies the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to asylum claimants, despite the ECHR not possessing any norm explicitly related to asylum.
More specifically, the Strasbourg Court was the first judicial instance at a European level to decide on cases relating to SMACs. It has so far dealt with at least 23 separate cases of asylum on grounds of sexual orientation. Many of these cases led to contentious and inadequate decisions, such as the 2014 judgment in M.E. v. Sweden, which gave legitimacy to the idea that applicants can be sent back to their countries of origin and asked to be ‘discreet’ about their sexuality. This approach reflects a worrying detachment from the realities of sexual minorities in many countries around the world and from their experiences when claiming international protection in Europe.
This contribution thus critiques the CoE policy and Court’s jurisprudence in this field, whilst advancing policy and legal recommendations that can adequately address the socio-cultural and sexual diversity of asylum claimants from a queer intersectional perspective.