NON-REFOULEMENT PRINCIPLE IN THE 1951 REFUGEE CONVENTION AND HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

Abstract

The principle of non-refoulement has acquired a vital importance in international law with the enforcement of the Refugee Convention in particular which provides a protection by prohibiting states to return people to territories where they may be in danger of being subjected to persecution. A great deal of achievement has been secured through the Refugee Convention as it set standards for the treatment of refugees in the host country. However, it needs to be stated that the 1951 Convention does not guarantee non-refoulemet as it permits derogations and exceptions. Since there remains to be disagreement related to jus cogens status of the Convention, people may face the risk to be returned to territories where they may face persecution or to be suspended their rights. Thus, despite its pioneering position, the Convention has attracted some criticism mainly based upon the implementation of the non-refoulement principle. However, it is well established that international human rights instruments have also created some obligations on states related to the status of the refugees beyond the 1951 Refugee Convention. In this article, the protection of refugees with regard to non-refoulement principle will be discussed in relationship with other three human rights instruments namely the European Convention on Human Rights, the Convention against Torture and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The absolute protection against refoulement in these three instruments will be analysed. For that reason, the human rights law which are perceived as a secondary source of law will be assessed in comparison with the Refugee Convention, and it will be claimed that international human rights law has overtaken the 1951 Geneva Convention as the main source of protection for refugees and asylum-seekers from refoulement. 

Keywords

• 1951 Geneva Convention
• Refugees
• Human Rights Instruments
• Non-Refoulement Principle

1951 MÜLTECİ SÖZLEŞMESİ VE İNSAN HAKLARI HUKUKUNDA GERİ GÖNDERMEME İLKESİ

Abstract

Geri göndermeme ilkesi, özellikle insanların zulümle karşı karşıya kalabilecekleri bölgelere dönmelerini engelleyerek koruma sağlayan Mülteci Sözleşmesi'nin yürürlüğe girmesiyle birlikte uluslararası hukukta yaşamsal önem kazanmıştır. Geri göndermeme ilkesi, insanları zulüm görebilecekleri topraklara göndermekten devletleri engelleyen Mülteci Sözleşmesinin yürürlüğe girmesiyle birlikte uluslararası hukukta hayati bir önem kazanmıştır. Bununla birlikte, 1951 Sözleşmesi’nin, istisnalara ve muafiyetlere izin verdiği için geri göndermemeyi garanti etmediği belirtilmelidir. Sözleşmenin ‘jus cogens’ niteliği taşıyıp taşımadığına dair anlaşmazlıklar var olduğu için, insanlar zulme uğrayabilecekleri yerlere geri gönderilme veya haklarının askıya alınması riskleri ile karşı karşıya kalabilirler. Bu nedenle, Sözleşme, öncü konumuna rağmen, ağırlıklı olarak geri göndermeme ilkesinin uygulanmasına dayanan bazı eleştirileri çekmiştir. Bununla birlikte, uluslararası insan hakları belgelerinin, 1951 Mülteci Sözleşmesi'nin ötesinde mültecilerin statüsüyle ilgili olarak devletler üzerinde bazı yükümlülükler yarattığı da iyi bilinmektedir. Bu makalede geri göndermeme ilkesiyle ilgili olarak mültecilerin korunması; Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi, İşkenceye Karşı Sözleşme ve Kişisel ve Siyasal Haklar Uluslararası Sözleşmesi gibi diğer üç insan hakları belgesi ile bağlantılı olarak ele alınacaktır. Bu üç belgede geri göndermeme konusundaki mutlak koruma analiz edilecektir. Bu bağlamda, ikincil bir hukuk kaynağı olarak algılanan insan hakları hukuku, Mülteci Sözleşmesi ile karşılaştırmalı olarak değerlendirilecek ve uluslararası insan hakları hukukunun, mültecilerin ve sığınmacıların geri gönderilmeleri ile ilgili temel korunma kaynağı olarak 1951 Cenevre Sözleşmesi kadar önemli kaynaklar olduğu vurgulanacaktır.

Keywords

• 1951 Cenevre Sözleşmesi
• Mülteciler
• İnsan Hakları Sözleşmeleri
• Geri Göndermeme İlkesi

References

1. Allain, J. (2001). “The Jus Cogens Nature of Non-Refoulement”. 13 International Journal of Refugee Law 533
2. Bailey, Bruce C. (1989). Conflicting Trends in Western European Refugee Policies in Ved P. Nanda (ed.) Refugee Law and Policy, International and U.S. Responses. New York: Greenwood Press. Bruin, R., Wouters. K. (2003). “Terrorism and the Non-Derogability of Non-Refoulement” International Journal of Refugee Law Vol.5 No.1
3. Case of M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, European Court of Human Rights, (2011) 23 No.2 International Journal of Refugee Law 288
4. Chimni, B. S. (2000). International Refugee Law: A Reader. London: Sage Publications
5. Convention against Torture and Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 189 UNTS 150
6. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, (1954) 189 UNTS 137
7. Crock, M. (2003) The Refugees Convention at 50: Mid-life Crisis or Terminal Inadequacy? An Australian Perspective in Susan Kneebone (ed.) The Refugees Convention 50 Years On: Globalisation and International Law. Aldershot: Ashgate.
8. Duffy, A. (2008). “Expulsion to Face Torture? Non-Refoulement in International Law” 20 International Journal of Refugee Law 373

9. Durieux, J- F., McAdam, J. (2004) “Non-Refoulement through Time: The Case for a Derogation Clause to the Refugee Convention” 16 No.1 International Journal of Refugee Law 4
10. European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Rome, 4 Nov. 1950
11. Goodwin-Gill, G. S., McAdam, J. (2007). The Refugee in International Law. New York: Oxford University Press.
12. Gorlick, B. (2000). “Human Rights and Refugees: Enhancing Protection through International Human Rights Law” 69 No.2 Nordic Journal of International Law 117
13. Hathaway, J. C., Neve, R. A. (1997) “Making International Refugee Law Relevant Again: A Proposal for Collectivized and Solution-Oriented Protection” 10 Harvard Human Rights Law Journal 115
14. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, (1976) 999 UNTS 171
15. Lambert, H. (2005). “European Convention on Human Rights and the Protection of Refugees: Limits and Opportunities” 24 No. 2 Refugee Survey Quarterly 39
16. Lambert, H. (1999) “Protection against Refoulement from Europe: Human Rights Law Comes to the Rescue” 48 No.3 International and Comparatively Law Quarterly 515
17. Mandal, R. (2005). “Protection Mechanisms Outside of the 1951 Convention (Complementary Protection)” UNHRC Legal and Protection Policy Research Series. http://www.unhcr.org/protection/globalconsult/435df0aa2/9-protection-mechanisms-outside-1951-convention-complementary-protection.html. (accessed 10.02.2018)
18. Poynder, N. (2003). Mind the Gap: Seeking Alternative Protection under the Convention against Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. in Susan Kneebone (ed.) The Refugees Convention 50 Years On: Globalisation and International Law. Aldershot: Ashgate.
19. Soering v. United Kingdom, 7 July 1989 Ser. A, No.161. and protection against refoulement 24
20. UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Advisory Opinion on the Extraterritorial Application of Non-Refoulement Obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, 26 January 2007, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/45f17a1a4.html (accessed 10.02.2018)
21. Weissbrodt, D., Hortreiter, I. (1999) “The Principle of Non-Refoulement: Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in Comparison with the Non-Refoulement Provisions of Other International Human Rights Treaties.” 5 Buffalo Human Rights Law Review 1