Refugee Non-Refoulement in Customary International Law: An Asian Perspective

Human Rights in Ireland welcomes guest contributor, Sonya Donnelly. Sonya is currently working as a Staff Attorney with the Hong Kong Refugee Advice Centre Limited (HKRAC.) HKRAC is the only NGO that provides pro-bono legal aid for asylum seekers undergoing the UNHCR refugee status determination process in Hong Kong. Sonya has written extensively on human rights issues and co-wrote a legal text for first year barristers, The Devil’s Handbook.

The week sees an important case on international refugee law argued before the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal. Central to the case is whether non-refoulement of refugees has attained the status of jus cogens. C, KMF and BF v Director of Immigration and Secretary for Security (FACV Nos. 18/19/20 2011) (the C case) opened in the Court of Final Appeal on Tuesday and is due to run until today with the UNHCR acting as an intervener in the case.

Article 33(1) of the Refugee Convention contains a prohibition against refoulement, which is a prohibition against returning a refugee to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened. The article states that:

No contracting State shall expel or return (‘refouler’) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

The four main issues before the court in the Court of Final Appeal are:

Is there a norm of customary international law (CIL) requiring non-refoulement of refugees?
If this is so, is it a part of the domestic law of Hong Kong?
If it is not part of the domestic law of Hong Kong, has the Director of Immigration (the Director) as a matter of practice exercised his discretion such that it has de facto recognised that concept?
If it is part of the law of Hong Kong, is the Director obliged to determine the claims for refugee status, or are they delegable to the UNHCR?

As a brief background note, Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of China (HKSAR). China resumed sovereignty over Hong Kong in Continue reading “Refugee Non-Refoulement in Customary International Law: An Asian Perspective” →

The removal of support for integration in the Netherlands: the case of the refugee

April 19, 2012 Anne NeylonForced migration, integration, Nationality, nationality law, Naturalization, refugee, refugees, Right of asylum, The NetherlandsLeave a comment

The Dutch government announced last week that from 2013, it will no longer finance integration and language classes for newly arrived immigrants in the state. Despite an amendment proposed by opposition parties, it appears that there will be no exception for refugees in the Netherlands. The new measure is introduced as part of bill amending the Integration Act, which is currently being debated in parliament. Though under the proposed amendment, training will no longer be freely available to refugees, their ability to access a long term residence permit or citizenship status will still be dependent on whether they pass the state integration and language tests. This announcement signifies yet another obstacle for those attempting to gain long term residence and ultimately citizenship status in the state. However, it also reveals the ambivalent attitude that the Dutch Government has towards refugees living in the state. Continue reading “The removal of support for integration in the Netherlands: the case of the refugee” →

UNHCR #do1thing: Subsidiary Protection

October 17, 2011 Liam ThorntonEquality and Law Reform, European Union, Forced migration, hogan j, Ireland Subsidiary Protection Regulations, M.M. v Minister for Justice, Republic of Ireland, Right of asylum, subsidiary protectionLeave a comment

In an earlier post, I outlined the core meaning of the terms refugee and asylum seeker. In addition to refugee protection in Ireland, an asylum seeker who fails to fall within the terms of this definition may be entitled to subsidiary protection. Subsidiary protection came about as a result of European Union law. Where an asylum seeker can show that she will face a real risk of serious harm in her home country, she will be entitled to subsidiary protection. Serious harm is defined as the:

death penalty or execution;
torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; and/or
a serious and individual risk to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence Continue reading “UNHCR #do1thing: Subsidiary Protection” →

Minority Rights Summer School Highlights Plight of the Rohingyas

July 4, 2011 David KeaneAmal de Chickera, Bangladesh, Burma, Chris Lewa, Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Equal Rights Trust, Forced migration, International Human Rights Law, Irish Centre for Human Rights, Joseph Powderly, Joshua Cooper, Minority group, Minority Rights Summer School, Myanmar, Nancie Prud’homme, refugee, Rohingya people, Thailand, William SchabasLeave a comment

I was the organiser for this year’s Minority Rights Summer School, held at the Irish Centre for Human Rights, NUI Galway, from 13th-17th June. It was the eleventh year of the School, which always attracts an interesting group of academics, students, activists and lobbyists, as well as those with a general interest in minority and indigenous rights and the role of human rights law in promoting equality and diversity. The programme this year saw a range of speakers, including a full day of sessions dedicated to a forum on indigenous peoples’ rights with contributions from scholars and practitioners. Continue reading “Minority Rights Summer School Highlights Plight of the Rohingyas” →

Asylum Seekers Protest in Ireland and Australia

September 6, 2010 Máiréad EnrightAustralia, Forced migration, Hatch Hall, Immigration, Immigration detention, Irish Refugee Council, Ministerial Council on Integration, Northern Territory, refugee, Refugee Action Coalition, Right of asylum, Seaview, TampaLeave a comment

The Irish Times reported on Wednesday that asylum seekers have held demonstrations in towns across Ireland to protest delays in the asylum process and poor living conditions (on which see this article in the Irish Times, Liam’s posts on the ‘direct provision’ system here, here and here and a guest post from Saoirse Brady of FLAC here). Residents at the Mosney direct provision centre (see the trailer for the excellent Seaview documentary here) have also protested their living conditions and the government’s ‘value-for-money’ driven efforts to move some residents from Mosney to a hostel at Hatch Hall in Dublin. This is the second such protest – I blogged about the first here – and marks the new deadline for the removal of 70 asylum seekers to Dublin set at the time of the first protest. Concern has also been voiced about an audit visit by Department of Justice officials.

Continue reading “Asylum Seekers Protest in Ireland and Australia” →

Human Rights in Ireland

www.humanrights.ie

Menu

Forced migration

Refugee Non-Refoulement in Customary International Law: An Asian Perspective

The removal of support for integration in the Netherlands: the case of the refugee

UNHCR #do1thing: Subsidiary Protection

Minority Rights Summer School Highlights Plight of the Rohingyas

Asylum Seekers Protest in Ireland and Australia