Book Review: The Grounds of Refugee Protection in the Context of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law: Canadian and United States Case Law Compared

The operation of military courts is clearly allowed for and, in some cases, mandated by international humanitarian law (IHL). Nevertheless, the use of military courts has been one of the most controversial and hotly debated areas of human rights. Despite the ostensibly exclusive military domain, many human rights bodies have registered significant scepticism towards this type of justice. Consequently, they have sought actively to regulate this ‘IHL space’ with scant attention to the requirements of IHL itself. The article examines comments, case law, draft rules and other measures taken by two human rights frameworks: the United Nations Human Rights Council and the African Commission on Human and People's Rights. It will analyse how, since 2000, these bodies have approached the issue of IHL when assessing the legitimacy and operation of military courts. For instance, do they consider IHL as a source of law guiding their efforts and rely on IHL instruments? How do they resolve conflicts between IHL and international human rights law? Additionally, the article will consider the validity, legality and effectiveness of these efforts. It concludes that, in reviewing military courts, there exists significant neglect of IHL in human rights frameworks. Through overlooking IHL or relegating it to a sub-specialty of international human rights law, these bodies not only ignore applicable law, they deprive themselves of the wealth of expertise found in commentary, debate, jurisprudence and practice in the IHL sphere. Instead, integrating IHL analysis and theory and affording it its appropriate respect within relevant human rights discussions will allow for greater legal and policy coherence, and human rights bodies will be better placed to fulfil their mandates.

Get full-text (via PubEx)

Sex, Gender, and Refugee Protection in Canada under Bill C-11: Are Additional Protections Required in Light of In re R-A-?

Refuge ◽

10.25071/1920-7336.21239 ◽

2001 ◽

pp. 54-64

Author(s):

Chantal Tie

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Human Rights ◽

Social Group ◽

The United States ◽

International Human Rights ◽

Refugee Protection ◽

Refugee Claimants ◽

International Human ◽

Gender Based ◽

Women's Human Rights

This case comment takes a critical Canadian look at gender-based refugee claims in light of the recent United States Board of Immigration Appeals decision in re R-A-. The author points out that many of the obstacles for women who are refugee claimants in the United States, which are highlighted in re R-A-, also exist in Canada. She argues that when we are forced to define women’s gender persecution as persecution on account of “membership in a particular social group,” analytical problems are inevitable. These problems arise because our refugee definition does not acknowledge that women are persecuted worldwide simply because of their gender. The author urges that gender persecution be specifically included in the Canadian refugee definition, to bring the definition in line with other domestic and international human rights instruments, which already recognize the importance of women’s human rights.

Get full-text (via PubEx)