Nonrefoulement and “Humanitarian” Refugees: Customary International Law or Wishful Legal Thinking?

Hailbronner, Kay

doi:10.1007/978-94-017-6389-9_9

Cited by 19 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…179 Hailbronner has likewise conceded a customary law principle of non-refoulement in the case of humanitarian refugees who would be subject to torture if they were returned. 180 Frowein and Kiihner go further, seeing the fundamental right to protection from torture as a jus cogens norm, which thus limits a State's right to expel or extradite aliens. 181 State action such as refoulement which exposes individuals to torture by another State effectively results in that State becoming a party to these actions.…”

Section: Obligations Under Customary International Lawmentioning

confidence: 96%

Implementation of the Immigration (Carriers’Liability) Act 1987: Privatising Immigration Functions at the Expense of International Obligations?

Nicholson¹

1997

ICLQ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is now a decade since the United Kingdom, along with Germany and Belgium, followed the policy of traditional countries of immigration, such as the United States, Canada and Australia, and introduced legislation which provides for the imposition of fines on carriers for bringing in passengers with incorrect papers.1The Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 (“the Act”)2imposed fines on carriers of £1,000 for each illegal entrant brought to the United Kingdom. This fine was doubled in August 1991 and two years later extended to cover passengers without transit visas where these were required.3

show abstract

Section: Obligations Under Customary International Lawmentioning

confidence: 96%

Implementation of the Immigration (Carriers’Liability) Act 1987: Privatising Immigration Functions at the Expense of International Obligations?

Nicholson¹

1997

ICLQ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Esta afirmação radical (que contrasta com maior tibieza face ao entendimento que era tradicionalmente veiculado pela Comissão e pelo Tribunal (Pulido et al, 2004)) é especialmente valiosa num tempo em que se vêm manifestado incertezas quanto ao valor e ao alcance deste princípio, já que os Estados se manifestam cada vez menos dispostos à adesão a este princípio, quando sentem existir razões de segurança pública que apontem para o afastamento da pessoa em risco para outro Estado. Estas situações ocorrem, sobretudo, quando há suspeitas de que os estrangeiros em causa, apesar de correrem sérios riscos em caso de devolução, estão ligados a organizações terroristas (Hailbronner, 1988;Bruin et al, 2003;Bourgon, 2003;Okafor et al, 2003).…”

Section: Em Conclusão: Uma Proposta De Leitura Invertida Do Parecerunclassified

Sobre la dimensión extraterritorial de las obligaciones estatales en materia de protección internacional - Reflexiones motivadas por el Dictamen Consultivo del Tribunal Interamericano de Derechos Humanos, de 30 de mayo de 2018

Oliveira¹

2019

Precedente

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

En este breve comentario al Dictamen Consultivo OC-25/18, emitido a petición de la República del Ecuador, defendemos que, ante la amplitud que el Tribunal Interamericano reconoce a los efectos extraterritoriales que se derivan para el Estado de su compromiso con el principio del non-refoulement, el instituto del asilo diplomático es, de alguna forma, superado por la doctrina de la eficacia extraterritorial de los derechos humanos.

show abstract

“…Non-refoulement's torture strand is generally accepted as being embedded in CIL. 242 Due to this and the considerable structural similarities between, and reasoning behind, the two nonrefoulement strands, an examination of non-refoulement to torture provisions assists in addressing the norm-creating character of non-refoulement to persecution.…”

Section: B Relevance Of Torture Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Extraterritorial Application and Customary Norm Assessment of NonRefoulement: The Legality of Australia's 'Turn-Back' Policy

Mansfield¹

2015

UNDALR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article considers whether the Commonwealth Government's border protection policy of turning back asylum seeker boats breaches its international obligation not to refoule refugees, as imposed under the Refugee Convention art 33(1). In addressing this issue the article examines whether art 33(1) applies extraterritorially, and whether a similar obligation has become embedded in customary international law. The conclusions reached are applied to specific situations where Australia has returned refugees.

show abstract

Nonrefoulement and “Humanitarian” Refugees: Customary International Law or Wishful Legal Thinking?

Cited by 19 publications

References 7 publications

Implementation of the Immigration (Carriers’Liability) Act 1987: Privatising Immigration Functions at the Expense of International Obligations?

Implementation of the Immigration (Carriers’Liability) Act 1987: Privatising Immigration Functions at the Expense of International Obligations?

Sobre la dimensión extraterritorial de las obligaciones estatales en materia de protección internacional - Reflexiones motivadas por el Dictamen Consultivo del Tribunal Interamericano de Derechos Humanos, de 30 de mayo de 2018

Extraterritorial Application and Customary Norm Assessment of NonRefoulement: The Legality of Australia's 'Turn-Back' Policy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About