Exclusion Law and International Law: Sui Generis or Overlap?

in International Journal on Minority and Group Rights
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

There exists a strong synergy between the regulation at the international level of minority rights, asylum and criminal prosecutions of violations of human rights. The aspirations of minorities as a human right are recognised in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights while the violation of such a right can confer on a victim the status of refugee in a third country. As well, persons who are responsible for causing very serious disruptions to the rights of minorities and other groups can be brought to justice for the commission of genocide and crimes against humanity, particularly persecution. While in general there has been a clear distinction between the granting of asylum or refugee status to victims of persecution one hand and the prosecution of perpetrators of persecution on the other, these two notions have been brought together into the concept of exclusion in order to address the phenomenon of persons with a criminal background being part of the refugee stream arriving in a third country. Exclusion is an essential part of refugee law to ensure that persons who have committed criminal acts will not benefit from the benefits set out in the Refugee Convention. This article will discuss the parameters of exclusion as determined by the jurisprudence in six countries in North America and Europe where this issue has been at the forefront in the last decade.

Exclusion Law and International Law: Sui Generis or Overlap?

in International Journal on Minority and Group Rights

Sections

References

8)

UN Doc A/CN.4/L.682 13 April 2006International Law Commission Fifty-Eighth session 1 May to 9 June and 3 July to 11 August 2006 Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission finalized by Martti Koskenniemi p. 11 para. 8; p. 18 para. 22; p. 130 para. 254.

18)

Rikhofsupra note 14 at pp. 272–273.

28)

CCE No. 80 570 2 May 2012para. 2.1.4.2.

33)

CCE No. 79.794 20 April 2012.

34)

CCE No. 76.004 28 February 2012.

64)

Rikhofsupra note 14 at pp. 235–236.

67)

AbRS 29 February 2012nr. 201106216/1/V1 on appeal from the District Court Rb The Hague Awb 09/299074 May 2011 which had come to the opposite conclusion; this case dealt with the Hezb-i-Wahdat designation in Afghanistan.

73)

AbRS 9 December 2011nr. 201104671/1/V1.

74)

Rikhofsupra note 14 at p. 240 footnote 765.

75)

AbRS 1 June 2011nr. 201005191/V1.

110)

CCE No. 63.606 21 June 2011.

125)

CE Ofpra c/ M.A. 320910 4 May 2011.

131)

Rikhofsupra note 14 at pp. 333–334.

138)

Rikhofsupra note 14 at p. 331.

156)

Rikhofsupra note 14 at 353 footnote 1319.

157)

CCE No. 64 356 1 July 2011.

159)

CNDA 30 November 201111005411M. S.

160)

CNDA 17 October 201110005838M. A.

161)

CNDA 21 April 201110014066M. R. alias H.

162)

CNDA 6 September 201110005808M. E.

168)

Rikhofsupra note 14 at pp. 170–171 and 181–182.

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 20 20 4
Full Text Views 77 77 55
PDF Downloads 5 5 3
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0