COVID-19 Border Closures: A Violation of Non-Refoulement Obligations in International Refugee and Human Rights Law?

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-48
Author(s):  
Kate Ogg ◽  
Chanelle Taoi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Travel ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Refugee Protection ◽  
Travel Restrictions ◽  
Border Policy ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Travel Restriction

Abstract COVID-19 has presented a number of challenges for the international refugee protection regime. An issue that has received little attention is the relationship between states tightening their borders in an effort to reduce the spread of COVID-19 and their non-refoulement obligations. This raises the question of how international law responds when non-refoulement obligations may conflict with other international human rights such as the rights to life and health. Further, the legal analysis of whether a particular COVID-19 border policy is in violation of non-refoulement obligations must take into account how the travel restriction will be implemented. This article provides an overarching analysis of non-refoulement provisions in international refugee and human rights law and which COVID-19 international travel restrictions may be in breach of these obligations. We examine different types of COVID-19 travel restrictions and argue that many are undoubtedly violations of non-refoulement, but others raise unsettled questions of international law. Nevertheless, there is jurisprudence and scholarship to support the proposition that a state’s non-refoulement obligations can be triggered even in these more contested scenarios.

Part II Sources, Ch.14 National Constitutions and Refugee Protection

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lester Eve
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Critical Dimension ◽  
Methodological Framework ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Refugee Protection ◽  
Refugee Law ◽  
International Refugee Law ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter explores how national constitutional frameworks add a critical dimension to refugee protection. Given the variability in the protective value of national constitutions for refugees, it considers how States draw strength from their constitutions in response to refugee movements and why they do so in particular ways. The chapter seeks to elucidate some of the complexities in the relationship between constitutional law and international refugee and human rights law, considering the relevance of constitutional text and context, State perspectives on the place of international law, and the extent to which constitutional law has shaped, and continues to shape, international law. The chapter offers a taxonomy as a methodological framework for differentiating these complexities, which suggests that the relationship between constitutional law and international refugee law might be understood in one of three ways: as symbiotic, ambivalent, or antagonistic. It then applies this framework to three case studies. It suggests that this approach may help us to think more strategically about how to harness the protective possibilities of constitutional law as well as wrestle more productively with constitutional law’s limitations.

Part II Sources, Ch.11 Moving Towards an Integrated Approach of Refugee Law and Human Rights Law

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chetail Vincent
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Integrated Approach ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Refugee Convention ◽  
Refugee Protection ◽  
Refugee Law ◽  
Gradual Process ◽  
New Perspective ◽  
Human Rights Based Approach

This chapter highlights the interface between human rights law and refugee law. The broader evolution of international law reflects the changing pattern of refugee protection as initially grounded in the Refugee Convention and subsequently informed by human rights treaties. As a result of a gradual process of pollination, human rights law has shaped, updated, and enlarged refugee law. While revamping the basic tenets of the Refugee Convention, it has become the normative frame of reference. Refugee law and human rights law are now so interdependent that they are bound to work in tandem. Their intermingling paves the way for a human rights-based approach to refugee protection. Instead of regarding the two branches of international law as silos, this new perspective offers a broader vision of refugee protection. This comprehensive design acknowledges that refugee law and human rights law complement and reinforce each other within one single continuum of protection.

Title to Territory and JurisdictionThree and a Half Models

2020 ◽  
pp. 159-181
Author(s):  
Lea Raible
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Political Power ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Human ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship

The very term ‘extraterritoriality’ implies that territory is significant. So far, however, my argument focuses on jurisdiction rather than territory. This chapter adds clarifications in this area. It examines the relationship of jurisdiction in international human rights law, whether understood as political power or not, and title to territory in international law. To this end, I start by looking at what international law has to say about jurisdiction as understood in international human rights law, and territory, respectively. The conclusion of the survey is that the two concepts serve different normative purposes, are underpinned by different values, and that they are thus not the same. Accordingly, an account of their relationship should be approached with conceptual care.

14. The law of armed conflict

2019 ◽  
pp. 279-302
Author(s):  
Anders Henriksen
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
Law Of Armed Conflict ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter examines those parts of international law that regulate how military operations must be conducted—jus in bello. It begins in Section 14.2 with an overview of the most important legal sources. Section 14.3 discusses when humanitarian law applies and Section 14.4 examines the issue of battlefield status and the distinction between combatants and civilians. Section 14.5 provides an overview of some of the most basic principles governing the conduct of hostilities while Section 14.6 concerns belligerent occupation and Section 14.7. deals with the regulation of non-international armed conflict. Finally, Section 14.8 explores the relationship between international humanitarian law and human rights law in times of armed conflict.

14. The law of armed conflict

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anders Henriksen
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
Law Of Armed Conflict ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter examines those parts of international law that regulate how military operations must be conducted — jus in bello. It begins in Section 14.2 with an overview of the most important legal sources. Section 14.3 discusses when humanitarian law applies. Section 14.4 examines the issue of battlefield status and the distinction between combatants and civilians. Section 14.5 provides an overview of some of the most basic principles governing the conduct of hostilities while Section 14.6 deals with the issue of regulation of non-international armed conflict. Finally, Section 14.7 explores the relationship between international humanitarian law and human rights law in times of armed conflict.

14. The law of armed conflict

2021 ◽  
pp. 273-295
Author(s):  
Anders Henriksen
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
Law Of Armed Conflict ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter examines those parts of international law that regulate how military operations must be conducted jus in bello. It begins in Section 14.2 with an overview of the most important legal sources. Section 14.3 discusses when humanitarian law applies and Section 14.4 examines the issue of battlefield status and the distinction between combatants and civilians. Section 14.5 provides an overview of some of the most basic principles governing the conduct of hostilities while Section 14.6 concerns belligerent occupation and Section 14.7 deals with the regulation of non-international armed conflict. Finally, Section 14.8 explores the relationship between international humanitarian law and human rights law in times of armed conflict.

Introduction: The Phenomenon of Foreign Fighters and Foreign Terrorist Fighters

2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (5) ◽  
pp. 377-387 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elżbieta Karska ◽  
Karol Karski
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Legal Perspective ◽  
Narrow Definition ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Foreign Fighters

Modern international law defines a very narrow definition of mercenarism. It does not include all aspects of this phenomenon as it was known and understood for centuries. At the same time the emergence of new forms of mercenary-related activities is observed. The terms ‘foreign fighters’ and ‘foreign terrorist fighters’ should be analysed in this context inter alia from a legal perspective. A question needs to be answered if those existing regulations relating to mercenaries can apply to these terms. It is also important to note how both mercenaries and their activities are perceived under international law. The international legal analysis of factual and legal measures undertaken by states towards foreign fighters and foreign terrorist fighters is also interesting. Frequently these activities concern not just the fighters alone but apply also to all of us. This requires us to look at them in the context of international human rights law. These issues are the subject of current works undertaken within the scope of international organisations. un Security Council adopted resolution 2170 (2014) and 2178 (2014) regarding foreign terrorist fighters. The un General Assembly and un Human Rights Council also tackle these issues. The activity of foreign fighters and foreign terrorist fighters on one side and the activities of the states in reaction to this activity on the other side are also monitored inter alia by the un Working Group on the use of mercenaries.

Members of the Armed Forces and Human Rights Law

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Rowe
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Military Service ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Complex Issue ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Relationship

The national law of individual states is generally clear as to the criteria for defining which entities make up the armed forces, as well as who is entitled to be a member of the armed forces. Whether a state is bound by its human rights obligations while taking part in an international armed conflict outside its own territory, is a complex issue. This chapter examines the term ‘armed forces’, who are entitled to be called members of the armed forces, a state’s national law in relation to its international law obligations, and the role of human rights law from the standpoint of members of the armed forces and others who take an active part in an armed conflict. It also discusses the relationship between peacekeeping and human rights, the role of the United Nations, why members of the armed forces commit human rights violations, the human rights of soldiers, and the right to conscientious objection to military service.

17 International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sassòli Marco
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Human ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter assesses the relationship between international human rights law (IHRL) and international humanitarian law (IHL). While IHRL, unlike IHL, was not founded specifically to protect people affected by armed conflicts, both branches of international law apply simultaneously during such conflicts. This raises the question of how they interrelate and also how possible contradictions between them can be resolved. Today, genuine armed conflicts are mainly not of an international character. In such situations, the relationship between IHL and IHRL is particularly controversial and difficult to determine. Nevertheless, both IHL and IHRL lead, in most cases, to the same results. In the few instances where results differ, states could do a lot to harmonize their obligations under both branches, by resorting to derogations permitted under IHRL, one of the means offered by international law to harmonize their IHRL obligations with their IHL obligations. Beyond this, legal reasoning allows for differentiated solutions on when and on which issues one or the other branch prevails.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document