scholarly journals The Handling Impact Of Foreigners Seeking Protection According To Australian Policies And Its Impact On Indonesia

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 49-58
Author(s):  
Faridh Al Wajidi ◽  
M. Alvi Syahrin
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
International Law ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
The State ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Human ◽  
The Republic

The existence of a conflict that occurs in a country makes the citizens of the country feel uncomfortable with their country so that some of them decide to run for protection. The flight has an influence on the State of Australia because it is one of the countries that are the destination countries for Asylum Seekers and so on. This then made the State of Australia make a policy in terms of maintaining sovereignty and fighting human rights crimes such as trafficking and people smuggling. The policy is Operation Sovereign Borders which turns out to experience a conflict harvest because it is not in accordance with the requirements of international law. The ratification of this policy aims at how to handle protection seekers in accordance with the requirements of International Law and law enforcement in the event of a violation based on the Operation Sovereign Borders policy. Writing KTI uses the normative juridical method. The specifications used are descriptive-analytic. Then the data used is secondary data. In its implementation, Operation Sovereign Borders is still inappropriate so that it violates the sovereignty of the Republic of Indonesia and violates the ethics of neighboring countries (good neighborliness), besides that it also violates the principles of international law contained in the 1952 Convention and instruments of International Human Rights (non-refoulement principle)

Diplomatic Assurances Against Torture – An Effective Strategy? A Review of Jurisprudence and Examination of the Arguments

2008 ◽  
Vol 77 (4) ◽  
pp. 319-364 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lena Skoglund
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
War On Terror ◽  
The State ◽  
Security Threats ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Actual Risk ◽  
Substantial Risk ◽  
International Human ◽  
Controversial Area

AbstractHuman rights organisations have warned repeatedly that basic human rights are being challenged in the so-called 'War on Terror'. One particularly controversial area is the use of diplomatic assurances against torture. According to international human rights instruments, the state shall not return anyone to countries in which they face a substantial risk of being subjected to torture. In the 'War on Terror', an increasing number of non-citizens are being deemed 'security threats', rendering them exempt from protection in many Western states. To be able to deport such 'threats' without compromising their duties under international law, states are increasingly willing to accept a diplomatic assurance against torture – that is, a promise from the state of return that it will not subject the returnee to torture. There is wide disagreement as to whether and/or when diplomatic assurances can render sufficient protection to satisfy the obligations of non-refoulement to risk of torture. Whereas the human rights society label such assurances as 'empty promises', others view them as effective, allowing states to retain their right to remove non-citizens without violating international law. This article reviews international and selected national jurisprudence on the topic of diplomatic assurances against torture and examines if and/or when such assurances might render sufficient protection against torture to enable removals in accordance with international law. The courts and committees that have reviewed the use of diplomatic assurances against torture have identified essential problems of using them, thus rejecting reliance on simple promises not to torture. However, they have often implied that sufficient protection might be rendered by developing the assurances. I argue that this approach risks leading the governments into trying to perfect a system that is inherently flawed – whilst, incidentally, deportations to actual risk of torture continue. Even carefully modelled assurances render only unreliable protection against torture. For this, and reasons connected to undesirable side-effects of their use, I argue that the practice should be rejected.

scholarly journals Rescuing Asylum-Seeker Stranded at Sea: Malaysia’s Duty under International Law

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (3.30) ◽  
pp. 182
Author(s):  
Syafiq Sulaiman ◽  
Salawati Mat Basir ◽  
Mohd Zamre Mohd Zahir
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Human ◽  
The Right

The protection of the right to life and the duty to rescue persons in distress at sea are the fundamental obligations under two specialized international law regimes which are the international human rights law and the law of the sea. These rules when read together form a strong protection of the human rights of the asylum-seekers stranded at sea. However, often states failed to honour this obligation for various reasons ranging from national security to economic reasons. This article will analyse Malaysia’s responsibilities as regards the right to life and the duty to rescue of these asylum-seekers. It will also identify the existing international and domestic legal framework relevant to the application of these obligations upon Malaysia and whether it has acted in breach of such obligations. The article then proceeded with suggestions for further improvement that Malaysia can adopt in order to better perform its obligations. This study is a pure doctrinal legal research which is qualitative in nature. The data used in this research is collected from library-based resources. These data were then analyzed by using methods of content analysis as well as critical analysis. The article found that Malaysia has a duty to protect the right to life under international human rights law. Additionally, Malaysia is also bound under the law of the sea to perform its duty to rescue. In view of Malaysia’s failure to perform these duties in two occasions in the past consequently had resulted in a violation of international law. Therefore, it is suggested that Malaysia should initiate a revision of its national laws and policies regarding treatment of asylum-seekers stranded at sea to be in line with Malaysia’s duty under international law. Besides, the Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency is call upon to comply with the international standards of treatment of persons in distress at sea which includes the asylum-seekers.  

Jurisdictional Immunities of the State for Serious Violations of International Human Rights Law or the Law of Armed Conflict

2013 ◽  
Vol 50 ◽  
pp. 243-287 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul David Mora
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
The State ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Law Of Armed Conflict ◽  
International Human

SummaryIn its recent decision in Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v Italy: Greece Intervening), the International Court of Justice (ICJ) held that Italy had failed to respect immunities enjoyed by Germany under international law when the Italian courts allowed civil actions to be brought against Germany for alleged violations of international human rights law (IHRL) and the law of armed conflict (LOAC) committed during the Second World War. This article evaluates the three arguments raised by Italy to justify its denial of immunity: first, that peremptory norms of international law prevail over international rules on jurisdictional immunities; second, that customary international law recognizes an exception to immunity for serious violations of IHRL or the LOAC; and third, that customary international law recognizes an exception to immunity for torts committed by foreign armed forces on the territory of the forum state in the course of an armed conflict. The author concludes that the ICJ was correct to find that none of these arguments deprived Germany of its right under international law to immunity from the civil jurisdiction of the Italian courts.

Implementing Decisions of International Human Rights Institutions – Evidence from the United Nations Human Rights Committee

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 753-777
Author(s):  
Vera Shikhelman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
The State ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
International Human ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Internal Capacity

Abstract In recent years, there has been an increasing amount of research about the implementation of international law. However, there has been almost no empirical research about implementing decisions of international human rights institutions. The decisions of those institutions are usually regarded as soft law, and states do not have a clear legal obligation to implement them. In this article, I bring original empirical data about how and when states implement decisions of the United Nations Human Rights Committee (HRC) in individual communications. I hypothesize that the following factors influence the readiness of states to implement the views of the HRC: (i) the level of democracy and human rights protection in the state; (ii) internal capacity; (iii) strength of civil society; (iv) type of remedy; (v) representation on the HRC; (6) subject matter of the communication. I find that the most important factor for implementing remedies granted by the Committee is the high human rights score of the state. The internal capacity of the state is also significant but to a lesser extent than found in previous studies. Also, I find a certain connection between the state being represented on the HRC and its willingness to implement the remedies.

Sovereign Rights of the State and the Scope of their Implementation in the Context of Development of the International Human Rights Law

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 164
Author(s):  
Iryna PROTSENKO ◽  
Кostiantyn SAVCHUK
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Adequate Treatment ◽  
International Human ◽  
The Right

In the contemporary science of international law, the state sovereignty issue lacks adequate treatment. In particular, the list and essence of sovereign rights and duties of the state are not defined, although these are referred to in some international legal instruments and resolutions of international courts and arbitrations. In addition, particular circumstances are being under development, which require if not precise outlining of the catalogue of fundamental rights of states, then at least determining the essence of some of these rights and the scope of their implementation. It goes about developing the practice to limit specific sovereign rights of the state to ensure the implementation of human rights (notably, the ones not directly related to the respective rights of the state). In this very way, the state is limited in its right to determine its own immigration policy. The fact is that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has ruled in some of its judgments that by implementing this right, the state violates the right to respect for private and family life provided for by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 (ECHR). This resulted in ECtHR`s practice to be somewhat considered in the draft articles on the expulsion of aliens elaborated by the International Law Commission (ILC) in 2014. The examples from ECtHR`s practice analyzed in this paper provide the basis for the conclusion that the development of the International Human Rights Law is gradually narrowing the scope of the internal sovereign rights of the state.

scholarly journals Human rights implications of the NonRefoulement & Development

2018 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Imrul Sheikh
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Protection ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
International Human ◽  
Human Rights Norms ◽  
Refugees And Asylum Seekers

States are obliged for protection of refugees under international law on account of their membership of United Nations and signature or accession to International Refugee Instruments as well as International Human Rights Instruments. The legal basis for this international protection may either be customary international law or conventional international law. The basic customary international laws applicable to them are those pertinent fundamental human rights found in the International Bill of Human Rights. Hence, it is submitted that all states should protect the fundamental human rights of refugees under customary international law. Principle of non-refoulement is one of them. The refugee regime has generated a serious body of law that elaborates basic human rights norms and has important implications in and beyond the refugee context. There are a number of universal, regional and domestic human rights instruments and mechanisms which can be employed to enhance the protection of refugees and asylum seekers. This research aims at finding out the role of principle of non-refoulement in protecting refugees and asylum seekers under international human rights law.

scholarly journals Global laws for a global economy: A case for bringing multinational corporations under international human rights law

SURG Journal ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 14-23
Author(s):  
Alicia Grant
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Multinational Corporations ◽  
The State ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
International Level ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Host State ◽  
International Human

Economic globalization has created a governance gap, often leaving powerful corporations largely unregulated. The result has been frequent and gross violations of human rights that too often go unpunished. This article outlines the mechanisms that currently exist for regulating the activities of multinational corporations including: (i) corporate self-regulation; (ii) regulation within the state where a company is operating (the host state); (iii) regulation within the state where a parent company is incorporated (the home state); and (iv) codes of conduct at the international level. The advantages and insufficiencies of each level are highlighted, and an argument is subsequently made that the governance gap will only be filled if firms are subjected to binding international law. The article then turns to an examination of international human rights law and discusses the place of non-state actors within this framework. It finds that corporations do have obligations under international human rights law despite the fact that systems for enforcing these duties do not currently exist. The final section discusses the difficulties that might be associated with creating enforcement mechanisms. The article ultimately argues that binding regulation at the international level is necessary in the long run; however, due to the difficulties in achieving this objective, regulation should also continue to be improved at the company, industry, host-state, and home-state levels. Keywords: multinational corporations; international law; human rights; corporate activity (regulation of)

scholarly journals Features of the status and protection of the rights of persons living on the occupied territories

2021 ◽  
pp. 433-446
Author(s):  
Oleksiy Kresin ◽  
Iryna Kresina
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Private Property ◽  
The State ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Human

Based on the concluded study, the authors demonstrate that international law recognizes the unconditional responsibility of the power occupying or exercising effective (overall, general, de facto) control over the territory for the human rights of its population, and in particular the civilian population as protected persons. Such liability exists independently of the personal liability of the representatives (agents) of that State. In this case, the state, which exercises control over the territory, is automatically responsible for any actions of organizations under its control. At the same time, it is quite difficult to determine the share of responsibility of a sovereign state for the implementation of human rights on a territory over which that state does not exercise control. The legislation of Ukraine imposes responsibility for the protection and violations of human rights in the ORDLO on Russia under both international humanitarian law and international human rights law. International humanitarian law imposes on the occupying state the obligation to ensure all the minimum humanitarian needs of the population, its basic rights related to the preservation of life, health and dignity (with special emphasis on the rights of women and children), private property, effective protection of these rights and protection from any unlawful violence, preservation of the infrastructure of the territory. The occupying State cannot be absolved of responsibility for serious human rights violations, including war crimes and crimes against humanity. Decisions of international courts unequivocally extend these obligations, as well as obligations under international human rights law, to all forms of illegal control of the territory of another state. At the same time, the Constitution and legislation of Ukraine do not provide for the refusal of the state to ensure and protect human rights on its territory, even in conditions of state of emergency or war. Ukraine ensures the realization of the rights of the ORDLO population on the territory of other regions of Ukraine. Ukraine also protect and restore human rights in the territory of the ORDLO with the means provided by international law.

scholarly journals Pemenuhan Hak Asasi Manusia kepada Etnis Rohingya di Myanmar

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Dewa Gede Sudika Mangku
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Ethnic Group ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Human

The occurrence of human rights violations against the Rohingya ethnicity in Myanmar has become an international concern. The Rohingya, who have lived for generations in this part of Myanmar, are not getting justice from the Myanmar government. The various human rights violations that have occurred are of course against the basic instruments of international law. This study aims to describe and analyze international human rights arrangements with regard to the protection of the Rohingya ethnicity, as well as any obstacles in providing protection for the Rohingya ethnic group so that no solution has been achieved in resolving these human rights violations. In this study, using a normative legal research method with a statutory approach, a case approach and an analysis approach. The type of legal material in this research is secondary data consisting of primary, secondary and non-legal materials. Then processed and analyzed using prescriptive methods. Based on the research results, it is known that legal protection of the Rohingya ethnicity in accordance with international human rights instruments has not been fulfilled because there are various obstacles in resolving the root of the conflict on human rights violations in Myanmar. Some of them are the reluctance of the Myanmar government to resolve cases of Rohingya ethnic human rights violations. In view of the lack of willingness of the Myanmar government to resolve cases of human rights violations, the UN criticized and attempted to carry out humanitarian intervention to resolve gross human rights violations against the Rohingya ethnic group. For this reason, this paper seeks to elaborate on what responsibilities the Myanmar government should provide for protection according to international human rights as well as what obstacles have caused cases of human rights violations against ethnic Rohingya to be resolved.

scholarly journals Is All Fair in Distancing Human Rights from Customary International Law Rule on State of Necessity?

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 53
Author(s):  
Dmitry V. Krasikov ◽  
Nadezhda N. Lipkina
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Basic Research ◽  
The State ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Rfbr Grant ◽  
International Human

The international human rights law theory and practice traditionally follow the path of distancing human rights from the state of necessity under general international law. The existence of derogation clauses contained in major human rights treaties excludes the possibility for States parties to invoke the customary rule on necessity to excuse non-compliance with the obligations under such treaties (the narrow distancing approach). Presently, a broader distancing approach, covering human rights obligations outside the treaties’ derogation regimes, is evolving employing certain alternative grounds for departure from human rights obligations. The article argues that the way the broader distancing approach evolves raises doubts as to its conformity with its intrinsic rationale. To address this concern a due account should be taken of the pro homine reasoning for distancing human rights from the state of necessity. The present paper is a part of a larger project “Circumstances precluding wrongfulness of conduct: the analysis of functional role and applicability parameters in the framework of International Human Rights Law” supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR Grant No. 18-011-00660).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document