Suchergebnisse

Introduction -- A human rights framework for interpreting the Refugee Convention -- Persecution and socio-economic deprivation in refugee law -- Rethinking the conceptual approach to socio-economic claims -- Economic deprivation as the reason for being persecuted -- Economic disadvantage and the Refugee Convention grounds -- Conclusions.

This article assesses the legality at international law of "protection elsewhere" policies, that is, policies whereby responsibility for refugees is transferred between states such as in the US-Canada Safe Third Country Agreement. An analysis of the operation of such policies in Europe, Australia, and North America raises serious concerns about the ability of such schemes to uphold their aims and objectives in conformity with international law. The paper concludes by recommending that states reconsider the utility and legality of such schemes with a view to developing policies that genuinely address the need for responsibility sharing. ; Cet article évalue la légalité en droit international des politiques dites « protection ailleurs », c.-à-d. les politiques sous le couvert desquelles la responsabilité envers les réfugiés est transférée entre états, comme c'est le cas avec l'Entente entre le Canada et les États Unis sur les tiers pays sûrs. Une analyse de l'opération de telles politiques en Europe, en Australie et en Amérique du Nord soulève de sérieuses questions sur la capacité de tels arrangements à respecter leurs buts et objectifs en conformité avec le droit international. L'article conclut avec la recommandation que les états reconsidèrent l'utilité et la légalité de tels arrangements avec comme objectif le développement de politiques qui répondent réellement au besoin de partage de la responsabilité.

AbstractThe UN Human Rights Committee's finding in Teitiota v New Zealand has garnered widespread global attention for its recognition that the effects of climate change may put people's lives at risk or expose them to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, thus triggering States' non-refoulement obligations. However, a secondary—and highly problematic—consequence of the decision has been its confusing and misplaced focus on 'imminence' of harm. This reflects a concerning, albeit uneven, trend in human rights cases generally (and cases concerning climate change and human rights, in particular) to recognize violations only where rights are immediately threatened. This short article reflects on the assumptions that Teitiota has triggered about the place of imminence in international protection claims, identifies the source of confusion, and suggests a more appropriate framework to guide a category of case that is likely to become the subject of intense litigation in the future.