Non-refoulement in International Refugee Law, Human Rights Law and Asylum Laws

Lülf, Charlotte

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-19087-7_12

Non-refoulement in International Refugee Law, Human Rights Law and Asylum Laws

Charlotte Lülf³

Chapter

2942 Accesses
8 Altmetric

Abstract

The twenty-first century has born witness to several armed conflicts leading to displacement within countries, regions or across the globe that underline the need for a solid legal framework. The principle of non-refoulement is a cornerstone of refugee protection and is codified in refugee law, human rights laws and asylum laws. In light of current State practices of migration control on one hand and the net of diverse non-refoulement obligations in international law on the other hand, it is essential to clarify and compare the scope of its protection for people fleeing armed conflicts.

Keywords

Supra Note
Asylum Seeker
Executive Committee
Refugee Status
Advisory Opinion

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Charlotte Lülf is a research associate at the Institute for International Law of Peace and Armed Conflict at the Ruhr-University Bochum.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 109.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 149.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 149.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Mid Year Trends 2014, p. 3.
2.
G. S. Goodwin-Gill/J. McAdam, The Refugee in International Law, Oxford 2007, p. 1.
3.
See for discussions of the treaty N. Ronzitti, The Treaty on Friendship, Partnership and Cooperation between Italy and Libya, in: Bulletin of Italian Politics 1 (2009), pp. 125–133. Practice of other European States, M.-T. Gil Bazo, The Practice of Mediterranean States in the Context of European Union’s Justice and Home Affairs External Dimension. The Safe Third Country Concept Revisited, in: International Journal of Refugee Law 18 (2006).
4.
F. Messineo, Non-Refoulement Obligations in Public International Law: Towards a New Protection Status?, in: S. S. Juss (ed.) Research Companion to Migration Theory and Policy, Farnham 2011, p. 3.
5.
R. Byrne/A. Shacknove, The Safe Country Nation in European Asylum Law, in: Harvard Human Rights Journal 187 (1996).
6.
G. S. Goodwin-Gill/J. McAdam, supra note 2, pp. 206–208; J. C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees under International Law, Cambridge 2005, pp. 315–317.
7.
K. Wouters, International Legal Standards for the Protection from Refoulement, Antwerp 2009, pp. 140–147.
8.
F. Messineo, supra note 4, p. 4.
9.
See in comparison Article 2 (3) of the 1969 OAU Refugee Convention or the Cartagena Declaration.
10.
UNHCR, Asylum Processes (Fair and Efficient Asylum Procedures), EC/GC/01/12, 31 May 2001, paras. 4–5.
11.
Executive Committee, Conclusion No 81 (XLVIII) “General” (1997), para h; Conclusion No 99 (LV), “General Conclusion on International Protection” (2004), para. 1.
12.
Para C, UNHCR ExCom No 6 (1977).
13.
UNHCR, Note on the Principle of Non-Refoulement, November 1997, at http://www.refworld.org (accessed on 22 April 2014).
14.
E. Lauterpacht/D. Bethlehem, The Scope and Content of the Principle of Non-Refoulement, in: E. Feller/V. Türk/F. Nicholson (eds.), Refugee Protection in International Law, Cambridge 2003, pp. 124–126.
15.
D. Gallagher, The Evolution of the International Refugee System, in: International Migration Review 23 (1989), p. 581.
16.
UNHCR, supra note 13.
17.
E. Lauterpacht/D. Bethlehem, supra note 14, p. 112.
18.
Conclusion No 6 XXVIII 1977, para c.
19.
Article 33 (2) 1951 Refugee Convention.
20.
European Court of Justice, Reg. vs Bouchereau, 27 October 1977, C-30/77, para. 35 ff.
21.
J. C. Hathaway, supra note 6, p. 352.
22.
UNHCR, supra note 13.
23.
See CAT, EA v Switzerland, Comm No 28/1995, UN Doc. CAT/C/19/1995, para. 11.5.
24.
For more details see N. Mole/C. Meredith, Asylum and the European Convention on Human Rights, Strasbourg 2010, pp. 19–80.
25.
“The decision by a Contracting State to extradite a fugitive may give rise to an issue under art. 3, and hence engage the responsibility of that State under the Convention, where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person concerned, if extradited, faces a real risk of being subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the requesting country. (….) In so far as any liability under the Convention is or may be incurred, it is liability incurred by the extraditing Contracting State by reason of its having taken action which has as a direct consequence the exposure of an individual to proscribed ill-treatment”, ECtHR, Soering v United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, Appl. No. 14038/88, para. 91.
26.
ECtHR, Soering v United Kingdom, supra note 25.
27.
ECtHR, Saadi v Italy (Merits) (GC), Appl. No. 37201/06, para. 138.
28.
ECtHR, D v United Kingdom, 2 May 1997, Appl. No. 30240/96, paras. 53 f.
29.
ECtHR, N v United Kingdom, 27 May 2008, Appl. No. 26565/05, paras. 42–51.
30.
Id., paras. 260 f.
31.
J. McAdam, Seeking Refuge in Human Rights? Qualifying for Subsidiary Protection in the European Union, Forced Migration Online, at http://www.forcedmigration.org/pdf/events/prague2004/mcadam-paper.pdf/view.
(accessed on 12 April 2014), p. 2.
32.
Mediterranean ‘a Cemetery’ – Maltese PM Muscat, BBC News Europe, 12 October 2013, at http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-24502279 (accessed on 25 April 2014).
33.
Justice AM North, Extraterritorial Effect of Non-Refoulement, International Association of Refugee Law Judges World Conference, 7–9 September 2011, Bled, Slovenia, at p. 2.
34.
The Death Toll in the Mediterranean Rises While Europe Looks the Other Way, Amnesty International, at http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/death-toll-mediterranean-rises-while-europe-looks-other-way-2014-09-30 (accessed on 2 December 2014).
35.
Mediterranean the Deadliest Sea for Refugees and Migrants, Says UN Agency, UN News Center, 31 January 2012, at http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=41084&#.U2pVW1e7UmM (accessed on 25 April 2014).
36.
G. S. Goodwin-Gill/J. McAdam, supra note 2, pp. 206–208.
37.
Permanent Court of International Justice, S. S. Lotus (France vs Turkey), 7 September 1927, at p. 19.
38.
Executive Order 12887 “Interdiction of Illegal Aliens”, at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg531/amio/eo12807.pdf (accessed on 17 November 2014).
39.
United Nations Supreme Court, Chris Sale, Acting Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service, et al v Haitian Center Council, Inc, et al, 509 US 155, 21 June 1993, p. 158.
40.
United Kingdom House of Lords (Judicial Committee), Regina v Immigration Officer at Praque Airport and Another, Ex parte European Roma Rights Centre and Others (2204), UKHL 55, 9 December 2004.
41.
J. C. Hathaway, supra note 6, pp. 336–339; G. S. Goodwin-Gill/J. McAdam, supra note 2, pp. 247–248.
42.
UNHCR, Advisory Opinion on the Extraterritorial Application of Non-Refoulement Obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, at http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/45f17a1a4.pdf (accessed on 2 April 2014).
43.
ILC, Report 58th session, 1 May – 9 June and 3 July – 11 August 2006, UN Doc. A/61/10, pp. 414–415.
44.
International Court of Justice, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, ICJ Reports 2003, p. 109.
45.
ECtHR, Al-Sadoon and Mufdhi v United Kingdom, 2 March 2010, Appl. No. 61498/08, p. 162.
46.
International Court of Justice, North Sea Continental Shelf Case, 20 February 1969, ICJ Rep. 1969, paras. 70 ff.
47.
F. Messineo, supra note 4, p. 18.
48.
Executive Committee, Conclusion No 6 on Refoulement.
49.
International Court of Justice, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua vs United States of America) (merits), 27 June 1986, ICJ Rep. 1986, 14, para. 186, para 77. Nicaragua.
50.
J. C. Hathaway, Leveraging Asylum, in: Texas International Law Journal 45 (2010), pp. 515–527.
51.
Ibid.
52.
See among others UNGA Resolution 37/95 of 18 December 1982, 48/116 of 21 December 1993.
53.
A. Duffy, Expulsion to Face Torture? Non-Refoulement in International Law, in: International Journal of Refugee Law 20 (2008), p. 388.
54.
G. S. Goodwin-Gill/J. McAdam, The Refugee in International Law, 2nd ed., Oxford 1996, pp. 166–167; J. Allain, The Jus Cogens Nature of Non-Refoulement, p. 538.
55.
L. Hannkainen, Preemptory Norms (Jus Cogens) in International Law, Helsinki 1988, pp. 261–263.
56.
Executive Committee, Conclusion No. 25 para. b; UN Docs. A/AC.96/694 para. 21; A/AC.96/660 para. 17; A/AC.96/643 para. 15; A/AC.96/609/Rev.1 para. 5.
57.
Executive Committee, supra note 56.
58.
Executive Committee, Conclusion No 79 “General Conclusion on International Protection”, 1996; Executive Committee, supra note 49, para. (c).
59.
J. Fitzpatrick, Temporary Protection of Refugees: Elements of a Formalized Regime, in: American Journal of International Law 284 (2000); H. Koh, The Haitian Center Council Case: Reflections on Refoulement and Haitian Center Council, in: Harvard International Law Journal 30 (1994).
60.
International Court of Justice, supra note 49, para. 98.
61.
Ibid.
62.
F. Messineo, supra note 4, p. 22.
63.
Ibid.
64.
UN SC, Resolution 688 (1991) of April 1991.
65.
F. Teson, Collective Humanitarian Intervention, in: Michigan Journal of International Law 17 (1996), p. 344.
66.
G. S. Goodwin-Gill/J. McAdam, supra note 54, p. 289.
67.
International Court of Justice, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Yugoslavia), Order, 13 September 1993, Separate Opinion of Judge Lauterpacht, p. 286.
68.
Id., p. 440.
69.
J. Allain, supra note 54, pp. 540 ff.
70.
1999–2004.
71.
2005–2010.
72.
UNHCR, Asylum Trends, p. 2.
73.
Application and Granting of Protection Status at First and Second Instance 2012, Asylum Information Database, at www.asylumineurope.org (accessed on 29 April 2014).
74.
J. McAdam, The European Union Qualification Directive: The Creation of a Subsidiary Protection Regime, in: International Refugee Journal 17 (2005), p. 466.
75.
ECtHR, supra note 27, para 137.
76.
ECtHR, MSS v Belgium and Greece, Appl. No. 30696/09 (2011), 108 (21 January 2011) and Council of the European Union; Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003.
77.
A. Hurwitz, The Collective Responsibility of States to Protect Refugees, Oxford 2009, p. 202.
78.
CAT, Avedes Hamayak Korban v Sweden, Communication No 88/1997, UN Doc. CAT/C/21/D88/1997, 16 November 1998.
79.
A. Hurwitz, supra note 77, p. 203.
80.
ECJ, C-465/07 Elgafaji v Staatssecretaris van Justitie, Opinion of AG Maduro, para. 22.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Institute for International Law of Peace and Armed Conflict, Ruhr-University Bochum, Bochum, Germany
Charlotte Lülf

Authors

Charlotte Lülf
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charlotte Lülf .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Institute for International Law of Peace and Armed Conflict, Ruhr-University Bochum, Bochum, Germany
Hans-Joachim Heintze
Institute for International Law of Peace and Armed Conflict, Ruhr-University Bochum, Bochum, Germany
Pierre Thielbörger

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lülf, C. (2016). Non-refoulement in International Refugee Law, Human Rights Law and Asylum Laws. In: Heintze, HJ., Thielbörger, P. (eds) From Cold War to Cyber War. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19087-7_12

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19087-7_12
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-19086-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-19087-7
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)