Legalność i skuteczność muru granicznego jako instrumentu służącego ograniczeniu napływu uchodźców z punktu widzenia Konwencji genewskiej z 1951 r.

• Authors: Zaręba Szymon

Title variants

EN

The legality and effectiveness of a border wall as an instrument of reduction of influx of refugees under the 1951 Refugee Convention

• Languages of publication: PL

Abstracts

PL

Z punktu widzenia Konwencji genewskiej z 1951 r. legalność muru granicznego może być kwestionowana tylko wtedy, gdy konsekwencje jego istnienia są sprzeczne z wyrażoną w art. 33 tej konwencji zasadą non-refoulement. Taka sytuacja może mieć miejsce, gdy dojdzie do jednoczesnego spełnienia kilku warunków. Po pierwsze, przyjmie się liberalną interpretację zasady non-refoulement, zgodnie z którą wynikający z niej zakaz zawracania na granicę obejmuje także osoby próbujące wkroczyć na terytorium danego państwa po to, by skorzystać w nim z ochrony. Po drugie, wzniesiony mur stanie na granicy z państwem, w którym takim osobom grozi niebezpieczeństwo z jednego z powodów wskazanych w art. 33. Po trzecie, państwo, które zbudowało mur, będzie go wykorzystywać nie do regulacji ruchu granicznego, lecz jako środek mający w połączeniu z innymi praktykami służyć odstraszeniu potencjalnych uchodźców. Ocena skuteczności muru jako instrumentu służącego ograniczeniu napływu uchodźców wypada niezbyt korzystnie. Z jednej strony umożliwia on dużo bardziej skuteczną kontrolę ruchu granicznego i generalnie zapobiega przedostawaniu się osób szukających ochrony na terytorium państwa, umożliwiając temu państwu uniknięcie ciążących na nim zobowiązań, przynajmniej zgodnie z tradycyjnym rozumieniem zasady non-refoulement. Z drugiej strony nie może jednak zdjąć z państwa obowiązku rozpatrzenia wniosków o ochronę składanych przez osoby, które wkraczają na przejścia graniczne lub w inny sposób przedostają się na jego terytorium, przynajmniej na krótko.

EN

As a rule, international law does not prohibit building border walls. However, the consequences of construction or existence of a wall, when assessed from the point of view of some customary norms or a treaty, may indirectly affect its legality. One of such treaties is the 1951 Refugee Convention (the Convention). The analysis demonstrates that it is not possible to call a wall illegal in the light of Articles 26 (freedom of movement) and 31 para. 2 (refugees unlawfully in the country of refuge) of the Convention, since, inter alia, both apply to the people already present in the territory of a given State. The only provision of the Convention which under certain conditions may allow to question the legality of existence of a border wall is Article 33 of the Convention, which establishes the principle of non-refoulement. To make it possible, however, several conditions need to be fulfilled simultaneously. First, a broad interpretation of Article 33 para. 1 must be adopted, which covers also the people who come at the border but have not crossed it yet. Second, the wall must be placed on the border with a State where the life or freedom of at least some of the people seeking refuge in the State building the wall may be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. Third, the policy of the State which has built it must indicate that the State does not use the wall simply as a means of regulation of the mass influx of people seeking refuge but as a preventive measure combined with other measures aimed at deterring the would-be refugees. The assessment of the effectiveness of the wall as an instrument designed to curb the mass influx of refugees is not very favourable. Undoubtedly, as a manifestation of sovereign power of a State over its territory, the border fence allows the State to control its border traffic much more effectively. It also helps to keep a large number of people seeking refugee protection “from the procedural door”, by not allowing them to enter the territory of the State building the wall and preventing the rise of any obligations towards them on behalf of said State – at least according to a more traditional interpretation of the principle of non-refoulement. Still, the wall does not relieve the building State from the obligation to at least process the claims for refugee protection submitted by the people who enter border crossings or get to the other side of the border at least for a short time in another way. Thus, as such, it is not a fully effective measure which would completely absolve the State from any obligations towards the people coming at the border and trying to cross it.

Keywords

PL

mur graniczny; uchodźcy; Konwencja genewska; Konwencja dotycząca statusu uchodźców; non-refoulement

EN

border wall; fence; refugees; Refugee Convention; Geneva Convention; non-refoulement

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Opolski, Instytut Politologii
• Journal: Border and Regional Studies
• Year: 2018
• Volume: 6
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 31-49

Dates

published

2018

Contributors

author

Zaręba Szymon

References

• Boed, R. (1994). The State of the Right of Asylum in International Law, Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, t. 5, nr 1, s. 1-34.
• Cherubini, F. (2015). Asylum Law in the European Union. London-New York: Routledge.
• Czapliński, W., Wyrozumska A. (2004). Prawo międzynarodowe publiczne. Zagadnienia systemowe. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo C. H. Beck.
• European Court of Human Rights (2001). Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany. Judgment. Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2001-II, wnioski nr 34044/96,35532/97 i 44801/98.
• International Court of Justice (2004). Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Advisory Opinion. ICJ Reports 2004, s. 136-203.
• Goodwin-Gill, G. (2007). Asylum. W: G. Goodwin-Gill, J. McAdam (red.), The Refugee in International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Grahl-Madsen, A. (1972). The Status of Refugees in International Law. Vol. II: Asylum, Entry and Sojourn. Leiden: A. W. Sijthoff.
• Greig, D.W. (1978). The Protection of Refugees and Customary International Law. Australian Year Book of International Law, t. 8, nr 4, s. 108-141.
• Hailbronner, K. (1988). Nonrefoulement and “Humanitarian” Refugees: Customary International Law or Wishful Legal Thinking?. W: D. Martin (red.), The New Asylum Seekers: Refugee Law in the 1980s: The Ninth Sokol Colloquium on International Law. Dordrecht: Springer Science and Business Media.
• Hathaway, J.C. (2005). The Rights of Refugees under International Law. Cambrdige: Cambridge University Press.
• High Court of Australia (2002). Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v. Khawar v. Naima Khawar & Ors. High Court of Australia Bulletin, t. 14, s. 1-51.
• Kowalski, M. (2006). Pomiędzy uznaniowością a zobowiązaniem: podstawy prawnomiędzynarodowej ochrony uchodźców. Politeja, nr 5, s. 430-444.
• Molnár, T. (2016). The principle of non-refoulement under international law: Its inception and evolution in a nutshell. Corvinus Journal of International Affairs, t. 1, s. 51-61.
• Permanent Court of International Justice (1927). The case of the S.S. „Lotus”. Publications of the Permanent Court of International Justice, Series A, nr 10, s. 4-33.
• Schmahl, S. (2011). Article 1B. W: A. Zimmermann (red.), The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and Its 1967 Protocol: A Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Sorel, J.-M. (red.). (2010). Les murs et le droit international. Paris: Editions A. Pedone.
• Sorel, J.-M. (2014). Is the Wall Soluble into International Law?. W: A. Vallet (red.), Borders, Fences and Walls. State of Insecurity? London-New York: Routledge.
• Supreme Court of the United States (1993). Sale, Acting Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service, et al. v. Haitian Centers Council, inc., et al. United States Reports, t. 509, s. 153-208.
• Ruiz Fabri, H. (2010). Murs, accessibilité et libre circulation. W: J.-M. Sorel (red.), Les murs et le droit international. Paris: Editions A. Pedone.
• Tomuschat, Ch. (2010). Murs et responsabilité des États. W: J.-M. Sorel (red.), Les murs et le droit international. Paris: Editions A. Pedone.
• UNHCR (2011). United Nations Handbook and Guidelines on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. Geneva: UNHCR.
• United Kingdom House of Lords (2004). Immigration Officer at Prague Airport and another (Respondents) ex parte European Roma Rights Centre and others (Appellants). United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions, t. 55, s. 1-70.
• United Nations General Assembly (1967). Resolution 232. Declaration on Territorial Asylum. Adopted at the 1631st plenary meeting, 14 December 1967. UN Documents A/RES/2312 (XXII).
• United Nations General Assembly (1976). Resolution 31/6 A. Policies of apartheid of the Government of South Africa. The so-called independent Transkei and other bantustans. Adopted at the 42nd plenary meeting, 26 October 1976. UN Documents A/RES/31/6A.
• United Nations General Assembly (1979). Resolution 34/93G. Policies of apartheid of the Government of South Africa. Bantustans. Adopted at the 100th plenary meeting, 12 December 1979. UN Documents A/RES/34/93G.
• United Nations General Assembly (1981). Resolution 36/172A. Policies of apartheid of the Government of South Africa. Situation in South Africa. Adopted at the 102nd plenary meeting, 17 December 1981. UN Documents A/ RES/36/172A.
• United Nations Security Council (1976). Resolution 402 (1976) of 22 December 1976. Adopted at the 1982nd meeting by consensus. UN Documents S/RES/402(1976).
• Vallet, E. (red.) (2014). Borders, Fences and Walls. State of Insecurity? LondonNew York: Routledge.
• Vedsted-Hansen, J. (1999). Non-admission policies and the right to protection: refugees’ choice versus states’ exclusion?. W: F. Nicholson, P. Twomey (red.), Refugee Rights and Realities. Evolving International Concepts and Regimes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Weis, P. (1995). The Refugee Convention, 1951: The Travaux préparatoires analysed with a Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Wierzbicki, B. (red.) (2008). Prawo międzynarodowe. Materiały do studiów. Białystok: Temida 2.

Identifiers

ISSN

2545-160X

EISSN

2353-3781