A Consideration on Legality of Border Barriers: The Principle of Non-refoulement and It’s Extra-territorial Effect

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 68 Sayı: 4, 893 - 912, 17.04.2020

Beyza Özturanlı Nasıh Sarp Ergüven

https://doi.org/10.33629/auhfd.721949

Öz

It is a common practice for states to build walls and similar structures on their borders primarily for security but also for a variety of reasons. The fact that the principle of non-refoulement as part of customary international law and regulated by the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees is deemed valid not only for those who gain the status of refugee but also for everyone who seeks asylum and that it is interpreted in a way to cover all kinds of deportation acts such as expulsion, return, transfer or rejection on the border for those who have a well-founded fear of being persecuted is a requirement of the developments in both international law and humanitarian law. Various border walls and fences completed by Balkan states with the purpose of preventing mass population movement arising from reasons such as civil wars, failed states, drought and climate change in different parts of the world and relevant activities bring into question of whether the principle of non-refoulement has an extra territorial effect or not. The border policies of states are the result of their sovereignty; however, current precautions taken within the framework of the protection of borders can result in the state’s violation of the obligations arising from international law.

Anahtar Kelimeler

International Refugee Law, Non-Refoulement, State Sovereignty, Effective Control, Border Policies

Sınır Engellerinin Hukukiliği Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme: Geri Göndermeme İlkesi ve Ülke Dışı Etkisi

Öz

Devletlerin, başta güvenlik olmak üzere pek çok gerekçeye dayanarak sınırlarına duvar ve benzer yapılar inşa etmeleri genel bir uygulamadır. Uluslararası mülteci hukukunun bir parçası olan ve 1951 Birleşmiş Milletler Mültecilerin Hukuki Statüsüne İlişkin Sözleşme ile de düzenlenen geri göndermeme ilkesinin, sadece mülteci statüsü kazanan kişiler için değil, zulme uğrayacağından haklı sebeplerle korkan ve sığınma arayan herkes bakımından geçerli olacak şekilde ve ülke dışına çıkarma, iade etme, nakletme ve sınırda reddetme gibi her türlü sınır dışı fiillerini de içine alacak biçimde yorumlanması, uluslararası hukuk ve insancıl hukuk alanındaki gelişmelerden kaynaklanan bir gerekliliktir. Dünyanın çeşitli bölgelerindeki iç savaşlar, başarısız devletler, kuraklık ve iklim değişikliği gibi nedenlerden kaynaklanan kitlesel insan hareketliliğini engellemek amacıyla Balkan devletleri tarafından tamamlanan muhtelif sınır duvarları ve telleri ile buna ilişkin faaliyetler, geri göndermeme ilkesinin ülke dışı bir etkisinin olup olamayacağı sorununu gündeme getirmektedir. Sınır politikaları, devletlerin egemenliklerinin bir sonucudur; ancak sınırların korunması çerçevesinde alınan bu tedbirler, devletin uluslararası hukuktan kaynaklanan yükümlülükleri ihlal etmesiyle sonuçlanmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Uluslarası Mülteci Hukuku, Geri Göndermeme İlkesi, Devlet Egemenliği, Etkin Kontrol, Sınır Politikaları

Kaynakça

• Kaynakça
• Kitaplar
• Agnes Hurtwitz, The Collective Responsibility of States to Protect Refugees, Oxford, 2009.
• Ann Vibeke Eggli, Mass Refugee Influx and The Limits of Public International Law, Kluwer Law, New York, 2001.
• Atle Grahl-Madsen, The Status of Refugees in International Law Vol. II, Leiden: A. W. Sijthof, 1972.
• Cornelis Wolfram Wouters, International Legal Standards for The Protection From Refoulement, Intersentia, 2009.
• Daniel Ghezelbash, Lessons in Exclusion: Interdiction And Extraterritorial Processing of Asylum Seekers in The United States and Australia, in Exploring The Boundaries of Refugee Law Brill, 2015.
• Guy Goodwin-Gill &Jane Mcadam, The Refugee in International Law, 3th ed. Oxford University Press, 2007.
• Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, Oxford University Press, (2003).
• James Crawford, The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility: Introduction, Text And Commentaries, Cambridge University Press,2002.
• James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees Under International Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005.
• Leanne Weber & Sharon Pickering, Globalization And Borders: Death At The Global Frontier, Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.
• Maarten Den Heijer, Europe and Extraterritorial Asylum, Bluumsbury, 2011.
• Manfred Nowak, U.N. Covenant On Civil And Political Rights: Ccpr Commentary, Kehl am. Rhein: Engel, 2005.
• Nehemiah Robinson, Convention Relating to The Status of Refugees; Its History, Contents and Interpretation; A Commentary, Institute of Jewish Affairs, New York, 1953.
• Roberta Mungianu, Frontex and Non-Refoulement: The International Responsibility of The EU, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2016.
• Valsamis Mitsilegas, The Criminalisation of Migration in Europe Challenges For Human Rights and The Rule of Law, Springer,2015.
• Makaleler
• Barry A. Feinstein, Justud Reid Weiner, Israel’s Security Barrier: An International Comparative Analysis and Legal Evaluation, 37 GEO. WASH. INT’L. L. REV. 318-346 (2005).
• Boldizsár Nagy, Rolling Back the Rule of Law-Hungarian Border Policy and Practice, Presentation at the International Conference: Borderline Decisions, University of Lucerne, 9 March 2017.
• Christopher Daase & Oliver Kessler, Knowns and Unknowns in the War on Terror and the Political Construction of Danger, 38 SECUR. DIALOGUE 411-434 (2007).
• Claire Inder, International Refugee Law, ‘Hyper-Legalism’ and Migration Management: The Pacific Solution, in The Politics of International Migration Management, Martin Geiger & Antoine Pécoud (eds) 220-246 (2017)
• Edith Brown Weiss, Invoking State Responsibility in the Twenty-First Century, 96 AM. J. INT’L L.798-816 (2002).
• Franz Matscher, Methods of Interpretation of the Convention, in THE EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS 64-66 (Ronald St. J Macdonald, Franz Matscher, Herbert Petzold eds., 1993).
• Gregor Noll, Seeking Asylum at Embassies: A Right to. Entry Under International Law?, 17 INT’L J. REFUGEE L. 542-573, (2005).
• Guy S. Goodwin-Gill, The Haitian Refoulement Case: A Comment, 6 INT’L J. REFUGEE L. 103-109 (1994).
• Guy S. Goodwin-Gill, Current Challenges in Refugee Law, in Exploring The Boundaries of Refugee Law: Current Protectıon Challenges, Brill, 2015.
• Iain Scobbie, The Invocation of Responsibility for the Breach of Obligations Under Peremptory Norms of General International Law, 13 EUR. J. INT’L L. 1201-1220 (2002).
• Iain Scobbie, The Wall and International Humanitarian Law, Presentation at the UN International Meeting on the Impact of the Construction of the Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, on 15-16 April 2004.
• International Law Commission, Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with Commentaries, 2 Y.B. INT’L L. COMM’N (2001).
• Mariagiulia Giuffre, State Responsibility Beyond the Borders; What Legal Basis for Italy’s Push backs to Libya?, 24 INT’L J. REFUGEE L. 692-704 (2012).
• Robert L. Newmark, Non-Refoulement Run Afoul: The Questionable Legality of Extraterritorial Repatriation Programs, 71 WASH. U. L. REV. 833-870 (1993).
• Robert J. Williams, Sale v. Haitian Centers Council and its Aftermath: A Problematic Gap in International Immigrant Law, 9 TEMP. INT’L & COMP. L.J. 55-82 (1995).
• Sadako Ogata, Foreword in UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), The Refugee Convention, 1951: The Travaux préparatoires analysed with a Commentary by Dr. Paul Weis, 1990, available at http://www.unhcr.org/ 4ca34be29.pdf.
• Samantha Besson, The Extraterritoriality of the European Convention on Human Rights: Why Human Rights Depend on Jurisdiction and What Jurisdiction Amounts to, 25 LEIDEN J. INT’L L. 857-884 (2012).
• Seline Travizanut, The Principle of Non-Refoulement at the Sea and the Effectiveness of Asylum Protection, 12 MAX PLANCK Y.B.U.N. L. 205-246- (2008).
• Tilman Rodenhäuser, Another Brick in the Wall: Carrier Sanctions and the Privatization of Immigration Control, 26 INT’L J. REFUGEE L. 223-247 (2014).
• Thomas Gammeltoft-Hansen, Private Actor Involvement in Migration Management in The Practice of Shared Responsibility in International Law, A Nollkaemper & I Plakokefalos (eds), 527-555 (2017).
• Thomas Spijkerboer, Moving Migrants, States, and Rights Human Rights and Border Deaths, 7 L. & ETHICS HUM. RTS. (2013).
• Volker Türk, Security and International Refugee Protection – UNHCR's Perspective, available at http://www.unhcr.org/573c8e987.pdf.
• Walter Kälin, Aliens, Expulsion and Deportation, MPEPIL, (2010).
• Internet adresleri
• AMNESTY INT’L, EUROPE’S BORDERLANDS: VIOLATIONS AGAINST REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS IN MACEDONIA, SERBIA AND HUNGARY (2017), available at https://www.amnestyusa. org/files/ser-mac_migration_report_final.compressed.pdf
• ESCOR, Ad Hoc Committee on Statelessness and Related Problems, Status of Refugees and Stateless Persons- Memorandum by the Secretary General Comments on Article 24 of the Preliminary Draft 3 (1950), available at http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae68c280.html.
• EUROSTAT, Asylum Statistics, available at https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Asylum_statistics
• HRW, Prohibited Persons: Abuse of Undocumented Migrants, Asylum-seekers, and Refugees in South Africa 29-35 (1998), available at https://www.hrw.org/report/1998/03/01/prohibited-persons/abuse-undocumented-migrants-asylum-seekers-and-refugees-south.
• International Law Commission, Articles on the Responsibility of states for Internationally Wrongful Acts 2001, art. 42, 48, G.A. RES. 56/83, (Jan. 28, 2002), available at http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp? symbol=A/RES/56/83
• Preethi Nallu, Europe’s Outsourced Refugees, Europe’s Refugee Frontier: Pushbacks and Border Closures in Serbia, REFUGEES DEEPLY, 24th March 2017, available at https://www.newsdeeply.com/refugees/articles/2017/03/24/europes-refugee-frontier-push backs-and-borderclosures-in-serbia-2
• ECCHR, Case Report, Push-backs at the Greek-Macedonian Border Violating Human Rights (2016), available at https://www.proasyl.de/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/CaseReport_Idomeni_ECtHR_20160914.pdf
• HRC, General Comment No. 20, Article 7 (Prohibition of Torture, or Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment) 9 (1992), available at http://www.refworld.org/docid/453883fb0.html.
• HRW, Bulgaria: Pushbacks, Abuse at Borders, Halt Summary Returns, Beatings, Robbery of Asylum Seekers, 20th January 2016, available at https://www.hrw.org/ news/2016/01/20/bulgaria-pushbacks-abuse-borders.
• UN, A Study of Statelessness 49 (1949), available at http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/ 3ae68c2d0.pdf.
• UNHCR, The Refugee Convention, 1951, The Travaux Preparatoires Analysed with a Commentary by Dr. Paul Weis 9 (1990), available at http://www.unhcr.org/protection/travaux/4ca34be29/refugee-convention-1951-travaux-preparatoires-analysed-commentary-dr-paul.html.
• UN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE, The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant Human Rights Committee, General Comment 31, (2004), available at https://www.refworld.org/docid/478b26ae2.html
• UNHCR, Interception of Asylum-Seekers and Refugees: The International Framework and Recommendations for a Comprehensive Approach 10 (2000), available at http://www. unhcr.org/4aa660c69.pdf.
• UNHCR, Note sur la protection internationale (présentée par le Haut Commissaire), 14 (1990) available at http://www.unhcr.org/fr/excom/excomrep/4b30a56be/note-protection-internationale-presentee-haut-commissaire.html.
• UNHCR, THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S REFUGEES 2006: HUMAN DİSPLACEMENT IN THE NEW MILLENNIUM (2006), available at https://www.unhcr.org/publications/sowr/4a4dc1a89/state-worlds-refugees-2006-human-displacement-new-millennium.html
• UNHCR, HANDBOOK ON PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING REFUGEE STATUS UNDER THE 1951 CONVENTION AND THE 1967 PROTOCOL RELATING TO THE STATUS OF REFUGEES (1992), available at http://www.unhcr.org/excom/scip/3ae68cc04/note-determination-refugee-status-under-internation al instruments.html;
• UNHCR, Advisory Opinion on the Extraterritorial Application of Non-Refoulement Obligations under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and Its 1967 Protocol (2007), available at http://www.refworld.org/docid/45f17a1a4.html.
• UNHCR, Advisory Opinion on the Scope of the National Security Exception Under Article 33(2) of the 1951 Convention 1, 4 (2006), available at http://www.refworld.org/docid/43de2da94.html.
• U.N. GAOR, NOTE ON INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION (2016), available at http://www.refworld.org/docid/595e1f684.html.
• Yargı Kararları
• Case of Soering v. U.K, App. No. 14038/88, Eur. Ct. H.R. 99-111 (1989).
• M.S.S. v. Belgium & Greece, App. No. 30696/09, Eur. Ct. H.R. 344-360 (2011).
• Babajanov v. Turkey, App. No. 49867/08, Eur. Ct. H.R. 41-49 (2016).
• Loizidou v. Turkey (Preliminary Objections), App. No. 15318/89, Eur. Ct. H.R. 62 (1995).
• Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy, App. No. 27765/09, Eur. Ct. H.R. 196-206 (2012).
• Othman (Abu Qatada) v. UK, App. No. 8139/09, Eur. Ct. H.R. 258-285 (2012).
• Issa and Ors v. Turkey, App. No. 3821/96, Eur. Ct. H.R. 81 (2004).
• Al-Skeini v United Kingdom, App. No. 55721/07, Eur. Ct. H.R. 127 (2011).
• J.K. and Others v. Sweden, App. No. 59166/12, Eur. Ct. H.R. 77-123 (2016)
• Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc. 509 U.S. 156-157 (1993).
• Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion 2004 I.C.J. 109.
• Rankin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, Award No. 326-10913-2, Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, 17 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 141 (1987).
• Archer Daniels Midland Company and Tate & Lyle Ingredients Americas, Inc. v. the United Mexican States, ICSID, Case No. ARB(AF)/04/05, Award 116 (2007).
• Corn Products International Inc., v. The United Mexican States, ICSID, Case No. ARB(AF)/04/01 (2004).
• Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v. United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID, Case No. ARB/05/22, Award 773, 774 (2008).