Beyond Persecution: A Moral Defence of Expanding Refugee Status (original) (raw)
Related papers
It is widely accepted that the principle of non-refoulement is the fundamental principle deep rooted in the conventional international practice for the protection of refugees. The influx of refugees can not be managed even by strict observance of the non-refoulement principle if the influx gets so gigantic form that it becomes a trans-boundary crisis of the world. Recent refugee crisis in Middle East and Europe caused by war in Syria and Iraq shows blatantly the limitation of the current laws and mechanisms to protect refugees. Over the centuries, societies have been welcoming the victims of persecution frightened and weary strangers. The protection of persecuted people has been of paramount concern to the world community since the establishment of the United Nations. The legal basis of international protection may be either the conventional international law or customary international law. This research, however, intends to explore the deeper meaning of persecution to get a better understanding of the refugee protection under the non-refoulement principle. It further seeks to scrutinize the formation of the principle of non-refoulement, find out the universal meaning of the prohibition of refoulement, to identify, analyze and compare in a systematic way the common features contained in the prohibitions of refoulement, to assess the human rights implication of this principle and to search the reformulation of the definition of non-refoulement principle in finding out the keys to the solution of big refugee crises.
Refugees and responsibilities of justice
This essay develops, within the terms of the recent New York Declaration, an account of the shared responsibility of states to refugees and of how the character of that responsibility effects the ways in which it can be fairly shared. However, it also moves beyond the question of the general obligations that states owe to refugees to consider ways in which refugee choices and refugee voice can be given appropriate standing with the global governance of refuge. It offers an argument for the normative significance of refugee's reasons for choosing states of asylum and linked this to consideration of a refugee matching system and to refugee quota trading conceived as responsibility-trading, before turning to the issue of the inclusion of refugee voice in relation to the justification of the norms of refugee governance and in relation to the institutions and practices of refugee governance through which those norms are given practical expression. " We commit to a more equitable sharing of the burden and responsibility for hosting and supporting the world's refugees. "
Looking Back, Moving Forward: The History and Future of Refugee Protection
Chicago-Kent journal of international and comparative law, 2009
The origins of refugee protection are commonly associated with the aftermath of the Second World War and the huge outpouring of refugees that it sparked. The 1951 Refugee Convention, however, was in fact a revision and consolidation of previous international agreements relating to the status of refugees. In their own ways, all of the Convention’s predecessors responded to the refugee crises by facilitating the movement of refugees to safe states. With the 1951 Convention, in contrast, non-refoulement – the promise not to send people back to persecution – has come to be considered the core of refugee protection. While resettlement is indeed part of many countries’ current refugee schemes, it is voluntary, and therefore secondary, to the international legal obligation of non-refoulement. In a period when the fear of terror translates into a fear of foreigners and borders are turning into barriers, it is becoming increasingly difficult for refugees to reach safe states and trigger the ...
NON-REFOULMENT AS A JUS-COGEN: THE CHASM BETWEEN HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES AND REFUGEE CONVENTIONS
Though this paper concedes that the Non-refoulment principle as espoused under the auspices of the 1951 Refugee Convention comprehends exceptions, it makes a stern point that such exceptions are incongruent with the emergent jus-cogens nature of this principle. Moreover, this paper makes the point that as seen in evolving state practice and as enshrined in various human rights treaties, the principle of non-refoulment is emerging as a new jus cogens norm contrary to the provision in refugee conventions. As such, the non-refoulment principle may not be permissive of any exceptions whatsoever. As a result therefore, this paper is conclusive that in fact, refugees should not be returned to their countries of origin if such will subject them to threats of persecution on account of any of the protected grounds as perceived under the auspices of Article 33(1) of the 1951 Refugee Convention.2 2. Re-examination of the exceptions to the non-refoulment principle
The Journal of Human Rights, 2019
The right to freedom of religion or belief has been well-established in human rights instruments since the inception of the modern era of international law. However, while inner freedom of belief has been uncontested, the ability to manifest those beliefs publicly has been made subject to limitations for certain purposes which include public safety and order, health, morality and the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. The degree to which such restrictions on religious practice may be permissible under the rubric of international human rights law has been and continues to be under debate. International refugee law has played an important role in safeguarding religious freedom, as persecution for reasons of religion is one of the five grounds enumerated in the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. To what degree are restrictions on religious practice permissible and at what point do such restrictions rise to the level of persecution meriting international protection? An examination of the refugee jurisprudence of States adjudicating religion-based claims will help illustrate the nebulous boundaries of the definition of persecution in the context of religious practice and identify some of the factors and trends which influence refugee decision-making. Part I will provide an overview of international refugee law as it relates to religion and describe the Westphalian context under which it was constructed. The modern era of international law was strongly influenced by wars of religion and the principle of cuius regio, eius religio-whose the rule, his the religion-which emphasized respect for national sovereignty and non-interference in religious affairs of the state as essential to international stability. International refugee law, developed largely in response to World War II and the Holocaust, attempts to balance respect for national sovereignty with humanitarian protection concerns by only applying to persons outside their country of origin. Part II will discuss refugee jurisprudence interpreting the point at which religious restrictions * Senior Protection Cluster Coordinator at UNHCR.