The Extent and Content of the Non-Refoulement Principe

Öz

With the Syrian refugee crisis after the civil war, which broke out in Syria in 2011, the attention of the international community has once again turned to the international refugee law. In this context, it is possible to claim that the refugee influx from Syria has brought important and problematic areas in refugee law to daylight. In this framework, especially precautions taken by unwilling states for not allowing refugees to step in and worsening situation of the refugees in front of the closed borders have made the non-refoulement principle an important subject in the agenda of the international community. Since regulations concerning the principle in different treaties and state practice vary, some important points of the principle remain vague and as a result of this vagueness unwilling states interpret the principle accordingly with their political and economic interests. This paper critically outlines the important points of the principle and evaluates the principle by referring treaty law, the decisions of different international courts and treaty bodies and to the doctrine. Furthermore, in line with these evaluations, in this paper, some reform proposals with regards to defining the non-refoulement principle are presented.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• UNHRC,non-refoulement principle,Syrian refugee crisis

Geri Göndermeme İlkesinin Kapsamı ve Esasları

Öz

2011 yılında Suriye'de patlak veren çatışmalar sonrasında yaşanan mülteci krizi ile birlikte uluslararası toplumun dikkati bir kez daha uluslararası mülteci hukukuna döndü. Bu çerçevede, Suriye topraklarından gelen mülteci akını, bu alandaki problem sahalarını tekrar gündeme getirdi. Bu kapsamda; bazı isteksiz devletlerin mültecileri kabul etmemek için aldıkları tedbirler ile mültecilerin kapalı sınırlar önündeki kötüleşen yaşam şartları, geri göndermeme ilkesini uluslararası toplumun gündemine taşımıştır. Antlaşma ve uygulamalardaki farklılıklar neticesinde, bu ilkenin bazı önemli noktaları belirsiz kalmakta ve bu belirsizliğin bir sonucu olarak bazı devletler ilkeyi ve bu ilkenin gereklerini politik ve ekonomik çıkarları çerçevesinde yorumlamaktadır.Bu makale, geri göndermeme ilkesinin önemli noktalarını eleştirel bir şekilde özetlemekte ve ilkeyi uluslararası sözleşmeler, içtihatlar ve doktrin ışığında değerlendirmektedir. Ayrıca bu eleştiri ve değerlendirmeler neticesinde “geri göndermeme ilkesi”nin tanımlanması hususunda bazı reform önerileri sunulmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• BMMYK,geri göndermeme ilkesi,Suriye mülteci krizi

Kaynakça

1. Allain, J. (2001). The Jus Cogens Nature Of Non-Refoulement. International Journal of Refugee Law 13 (4)
2. Black, H. (1999) Black’s Law Dictionary. West Publishing
3. Chan, P. (2006). The Protection of Refugees And Internally Displaced Persons: Non-Refoulement Under Customary International Law?. The International Journal of Human Rights 10 (3)
4. Ciğer, M. I. (2016), Uluslararası Hukuka Uygun Geçici Koruma Rejiminin Unsaurları Üzerine. Göç Araştırmaları Dergisi. Volume: 2. No: 3 (62-92)
5. D'angelo, E. (2009). Non-Refoulement: The Search for a Consistent Interpretation of Article 33. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 42 (1)
6. Gatten, E. (2016). Jordan Blocks Syrian Border to Leave Thousands of Refugees Stranded. http:// www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/jordan-blocks-syrian-border-to-leave-thousands-of- refugees-trapped-in-the-desert-including-hundreds-a6828471.html (07.05.2018)
7. Hamdan, E. (2016). The principle of non-refoulement under the ECHR and the UN Convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Brill Nijhoff Publishing
8. Hathaway, J. (2005). The Rights of Refugees Under International Law. Cambridge University Press Human Rights Watch. (2001). Refugee Summit: States Must Reaffirm Commitments. https://www.hrw.org/hr/node/226430 (07.05.2018)

9. International Committee of the Red Cross. (2016). Customary IHL – Introduction. https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_in_asofcuin (07.05.2018)
10. International Organization for Migration. (2014). Information Note on the Principle of Non Refoulement. https://www.iom.int/files/live/sites/iom/files/What-We-Do/docs/IML-Information-Note-on-the-Principle-of-non-refoulement.pdf (07.05.2018)
11. International Law Commission. (2001). Report on the work of its fifty-third session. Supplement No. 10- A/56/10
12. Joseph, S., Schultz, J. & Castan, M. (2000). The International Covenant On Civil And Political Rights. Oxford University Press
13. Lauterpacht, E. & Bethlehem, D. (2003). The Scope And Content Of The Principle Of Non-Refoulement: Opinion. Cambridge University Press
14. Pirjola, J. (2007). Shadows in Paradise - Exploring Non-Refoulement as an Open Concept. International Journal of Refugee Law 19 (4)
15. Rodger, J. (2001). Defining the Parameters of the Non-Refoulement Principle. LLM Research Paper. University of Wellington Statewatch. (2016). Statewatch News Online: Belgium Found Guilty of Mass Expulsion of Roma. http://www.statewatch.org/news/2002/feb/05belgium.htm (07.05.2018)
16. Tokuzlu, L. (2006). Non-Refoulement Principle in a Changing European Legal Environment with Particular Emphasis on Turkey, a Candidate Country at the External Borders of the EU (Ph.D. Thesis, Marmara University)
17. United Nations. (2012). Book 25: Materials on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts-UN Legislative Series. United Nations Press
18. United Nations. (2018a). "UNTC - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights". https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-4&chapter=4&lang=en (07.05.2018)
19. United Nations. (2018b). UNTC - Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetailsII.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=V-2&chapter=5&Temp=mtdsg2&lang=en (07.05.2018)
20. UNHCR. (1977). Note on Non-Refoulement (Submitted by the High Commissioner). http://www.unhcr.org/3ae68ccd10.html (07.05.2018)
21. UNHCR. (2006). Note on Diplomatic Assurances and International Refugee Protection
22. UNHCR. (2016a). “UNHCR - EU says world facing worst refugee crisis since WWII". http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refdaily?pass=52fc6fbd5&id=55d17e7b5 (07.05.2018)
23. UNHCR. (2016b). UNHCR - Refugees Daily- Syrians accuse Greece of 'pushing back' migrant boats. http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refdaily?pass=52fc6fbd5&id=522972b95 (07.05.2018)
24. UNHCR. (2016c). The Legislation That Underpins Our Work. http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49da0e466.html (07.05.2018)
25. UNHCR. (2016d). Compilation of Conclusions Adopted by the Executive Committee on the International Protection of Refugees: 1975 - 2004
26. UNHCR. (2018a). “Total Persons of Concern”. https://data2.unhcr.org/en/situations/syria#_ga=2.86421720.139258279.1525604100-775672873.1525604100 (07.05.2018)
27. UNHCR. (2018b). “Syrian Emergency”. http://www.unhcr.org/syria-emergency.html (07.05.2018)
28. Whitehouse. (2015). "What You Need To Know About The Syrian Refugee Crisis And What The U.S. Is Doing To Help". https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2015/09/15/what-you-need-know-about-syrian-refugee-crisis-and-what-us-doing-help (07.05.2018) Wouters, C. (2009). International Legal Standards For The Protection From Refoulement (Intersentia)
29. Ahmad v Austria. (1996). European Court of Human Rights. 71/1995/577/663
30. ARJ v Australia. (1997). Human Rights Committee. Communication No. 692/1996 CPR/C/60/D/692
31. Chahal v United Kingdom. (1996). European Court of Human Rights. 23 EHRR 413
32. Familia Pacheco Tineo v Bolivia. (2013). Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Report Series:C No. 272
33. Hirsi Jamaa and others v Italy. (2012). European Court of Human Rights. App. No.:27765/09
34. Louzidou v Turkey. (1996). European Court of Human Rights. 40/1993/435/514
35. Mutombo v Switzerland. (1994). Committee Against Torture. Communication no. 13/1993 A/49/44
36. Soering v United Kingdom. (1989). European Court of Human Rights. Report Series: A-169
37. The Haitian Centre for Human Rights et al v United States. (1997). Inter-American Court of Human Rights. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.95 Doc. 7 rev. at 550 Report No 51/96
38. Vilvarajah and Others v The United Kingdom. (1991). European Court of Human Rights. 45/1990/236/302-306
39. 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). UNHCR
40. Conclusion No:15. (1979). UNHCR Executive Committee.
41. General Comment 15-the Position of Aliens Under the Covenant. (1986). (Human Rights Committe). UN Doc HRI/GEN/1/Rev1
42. Declaration on Territorial Asylum. (1967). (UNGA). A/RES/2312(XXII)
43. General Comment 1-Communications concerning the return of a person to a State where there may be grounds he would be subjected to torture (article 3 in the context of article 22). (1998). (Committee Against Torture) UN Doc A/53/44
44. General Comment 20- Article 7. (1994). (Human Rights Committee). UN Doc HRI/GEN/1/Rev1
45. General Comment 31-Nature of the General Legal Obligation on States Parties on the Covenant. (2004). (Human Rights Committee). U.N.Doc. CCPR/c/Rev.1/Add.13 Resolution 55/74. (2001). (UN General Assembly). UN Doc A/RES/55/74
46. American Convention on Human Rights. (1969). 1144 U.N.T.S. 123
47. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. (1951). 189 UNTS 137
48. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. (1966). 999 UNTS 171 . (1969). 1001 UNTS 45(OAS)
49. The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel. Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. (1984). 1465 UNTS 85
50. Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties. (1980). 1155 UNTS 331