Part II Sources, Ch.9 The Architecture of the UN Refugee Convention and Protocol

Author(s):  
Hathaway James C

The architecture of the Refugee Convention and Protocol is unique in the world of international human rights law. Rather than being framed in absolutist terms, these treaties embody a principled compromise between attention to the needs of refugees, on the one hand, and recognition of the legitimate interests of host countries, on the other. Refugees are advantaged not only by the attribution of rights on the basis of a non-reservable and flexible definition of refugee status, but also by a commitment to declaratory rather than constitutive status assessment, non-exclusivity of rights accrual, and the existence of no more than constrained exceptions and derogation authority. The legitimate concerns of host countries are catered for by the structure of incremental rights acquisition through attachment and the conceptualization of most rights on a contingent basis. Sadly, the workability of the compromise embedded in the architecture of the Refugee Convention and Protocol is today threatened by critical failures at the level of implementation: specifically, that these treaties continue to rely on ad hoc, State-by-State efforts rather than coordinated action, and that States have failed to allocate protection responsibilities and burdens on the basis of relative capacities and resources. The challenge is thus not to renegotiate the foundational refugee treaties, but rather to change the way in which protection is operationalized.

2015 ◽  
Vol 84 (3) ◽  
pp. 482-514 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle Farrell

The prohibition on torture in international human rights law seems a fairly straightforward candidate for productive use in international criminal law. The Convention against Torture contains an elaborate definition of torture and human rights institutions have developed substantial jurisprudence on the prohibition and definition of torture. Indeed, the ad hoc Tribunals and the drafters of the Rome Statute have employed the human rights law approach to torture to varying degrees. But the conception of torture reached by human rights bodies is problematic and unsuitable for usage where individual criminal responsibility is sought. It is unsuitable because the human rights law understanding of torture is subjective and victim-derived. Human rights bodies do not scrutinize intent, purpose and perpetration, central aspects of international criminal legal reasoning. The communication on torture between these bodies of law to date shows that cross-fertilisation, without detailed reasoning, is inappropriate - because rights are different to crimes.


2005 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 541-556 ◽  
Author(s):  
SANDESH SIVAKUMARAN

In seeking to define torture in international humanitarian law, the ICTY and ICTR have turned to the definition of torture contained in the UN Convention against Torture for guidance. The Convention definition contains a requirement that the actor be a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. The ad hoc tribunals have put forward various views as to whether this is an element of the definition of torture in international humanitarian law. This article examines these views. Potentially more significant are the pronouncements of the tribunals on the actor element of the definition of torture in international human rights law. This article also explores these pronouncements. It compares them with the drafting history of the Convention against Torture and with the jurisprudence of the Committee against Torture, the European Court of Human Rights and the UN Human Rights Committee. It questions whether the approach of the ad hoc tribunals is part of a trend towards a wider reading of ‘the actor’ in international human rights law.


Author(s):  
Alice Edwards

This chapter first explains the purpose and scope of international refugee law. It then identifies the five fundamental elements of the Refugee Convention, and discusses other important parameters of international refugee law more broadly. The chapter explores the relationship between international refugee law and human rights law at the macro-level. It analyses specific aspects of refugee law—namely, the definition of a refugee, the prohibition of refoulement, refugee rights, and the ending of refugee status and solutions—and analyses how international human rights law informs them.


2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kinnari Bhatt

AbstractOne way of understanding the exile of the Chagos Islanders and their inability to return to their ancestral land is through a reading of the case from a perspective of post-colonial legal scholarship. Chagossians have strong legal rights to land and remedies of compensation and return through a purposive application of the international legal definition of Indigenous, Magna Carta right to abode and international human rights law that could address their dispossession. Yet, the inability of those rights to be meaningfully applied has been constrained because of the post-colonial way they are legally interpreted, creating a legal vacuum in which basic fairness and substantive equality have been routinely compromised. Drawing attention to the continued legal denial of return in the context of decolonisation, ongoing colonialism and the rule of law makes sense of the legal record and explains the expulsion of the islanders despite the moral merits of return.


Author(s):  
Juan Pablo Bohoslavsky ◽  
Franz Christian Ebert

This chapter examines the relation between economic adjustments, on the one hand, and labour standards, on the other. Section I reviews how labour standard issues have been addressed in different economic adjustment programmes, often initiated at the behest of international financial institutions, or the institutions of what was formerly known as the ‘Troika’. Subsequently, Section II analyses the legal and practical implications thereof. It explains how several labour law reforms required by international financial institutions in the context of economic adjustment have, on a number of occasions, driven countries into violations of international human rights law and international labour law in particular. Section III goes on to examine the economic case of deregulatory labour law reforms in the context of economic adjustment. It shows that the empirical evidence for negative economic effects of labour law in general and in the context of financial and economic crises in particular is at best highly controversial and cannot justify the highly problematic social effects and breaches of international law these reforms have often entailed.


Author(s):  
Geoff Gilbert ◽  
Anna Magdalena Rüsch

This chapter explores the definition of refugee status in international law, its scope and limitations and consequent protection gaps for those forcibly displaced, including internally displaced persons (IDPs), who have crossed no international border. There is no equivalent definition for migrants, but like refugees, asylum-seekers, and IDPs, international human rights law provides a framework for their protection. The chapter explains the difference between refugee status and asylum, focusing on non-refoulement in international law. It discusses the rights that are guaranteed during displacement, particularly those pertaining to detention and humanitarian relief. Given that refugee status is intended to be temporary, the final section looks at cessation and durable solutions, either following voluntary return, through local integration, or resettlement in some third State.


Author(s):  
Manfred Nowak ◽  
Giuliana Monina

Torture is one of the most severe and violent human rights violations and is absolutely prohibited under international law. As we also know from experience, most cases of torture occur during interrogations by law enforcement officials for the purpose of extracting a confession. After elaborating on the legal definition of torture under international human rights law and how torture can be distinguished from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, the authors reflect on the need to address the root causes of torture. While Juan Méndez’ call for a Universal Protocol for non-coercive interviews is an important initiative in this direction, this contribution focuses on the obligation of systematic review of interrogation rules under Article 11 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). This article of the treaty requires States parties to systematically review their interrogation rules, instructions, methods, and practices. Although it has not received much attention in the literature and seems—at first sight—to only establish a formal obligation to keep interrogation and detention rules under systematic review, over the years the CAT Committee has given a broad interpretation to this provision, making it an important safeguard for the prevention of torture and other forms of ill-treatment. The authors provide an overview of the CAT Committee’s practice and discuss how Article 11 of CAT, acting as a guarantee of minimum standards of interrogation, could represent an important provision for ensuring the implementation of the CAT’s preventive obligations, laying the basis for bridging the gap between law and practice.


2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 409-441
Author(s):  
Céline Bauloz

While non-refoulement is an absolute principle of international human rights law, its application to seriously ill individuals exposed to premature death and physical and mental suffering because of the substandard medical system in their country of origin seems to have followed a double standard in Europe. On the one hand, medical cases are increasingly treated at the margin of the non-refoulement principle by the European Court of Human Rights, being only covered in highly exceptional cases. On the other hand, seriously ill individuals have been excluded from the scope of subsidiary protection in the European Union as confirmed by the Court of Justice of the European Union. Against such restrictive interpretations, the present article calls for an integrated approach where all non-refoulement claims, including those on medical grounds, are to be assessed along the same criteria so as to ensure seriously ill individuals a genuine right to live in dignity.


2000 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 949-984 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stuart Beresford ◽  
Hafida Lahiouel

While the Statute of the International Criminal Court guarantees to suspects and accused the right to be defended in person or through legal assistance, it contains little guidance as to the extent to which this most fundamental right will be provided. In order to ascertain how broadly it should be applied, the authors examine the application of the right by the ad hoc international criminal tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. The authors note that the defence-orientated approach taken by the ad hoc Tribunals to the right to be defended in person or through legal assistance not only conforms with international obligations, but also in many respects goes beyond that required by international human rights law. It is, therefore, crucial that the ICC listens to the experience of the ad hoc Tribunals and adopts similar, if not identical, rules and regulations relating to the qualifications, conduct and assignment of counsel.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document