Search results

1

The Principle of Non-refoulment within the Deportation Procedure, Admission to the Country, Right to Life and the Freedom of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment According to the Turkish Legislation on Temporary Protection Regime

100%

Kuruçaylıoğlu J.

Studia Administracyjne

|

2021

|

vol. 14

|

issue 2

31-44

EN

This article elaborates on the non-refoulement principle regarding deportation procedure, security, and entry to the country (Turkey) under the 2014 Temporary Protection Regulation, and the 2013 Law on Foreigners and International Protection. According to the document presented by the United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner “(…) the principle of non-refoulement guarantees that no one should be returned to a country where they would face torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment and other irreparable harm. This principle applies to all migrants at all times, irrespective of migration status”.1 The rights of refugees and asylum seekers in mass influx situations are recognized by UNHCR Executive Committee resolutions and general international law.2 Thus, it is necessary to analyze the non-refoulement rule as inseparable part of globally accepted principles: the right to life and the freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The article describes the development and violations of the said rule, focusing on the pertinent current Turkish legislation.

2

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

71%

Zaręba S.

Border and Regional Studies

|

2018

|

vol. 6

|

issue 1

31-49

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.

3

Transpozycja zasady non-refoulement do polskiego systemu ochrony uchodźców

71%

Grześkowiak M.

Studia Iuridica

|

2018

|

vol. 76

199-217

PL

The paper aims at examining the influence of international legislations on the scope and content of the non-refoulement principle as articulated in the Polish law. Its shape on the Polish national ground is in fact a sum of influences stemming from external law systems. The article is based on the determination of three major sources of the refugee law that shape the content of the principle: public international law, European Union law and Polish national law. The Author first scrutinises the scope and content of the principle as laid down in crucial legislations belonging to these three sources which later enables their comparison and examination of the impact they make on one another in terms of conceptualisation of the principle of non-refoulement. The EU law reflects and specifies mechanisms established in the public international law which are further specified on a national ground. The final product is a national structure of the principle which is far more specific than the one known from the 1951 Refugee Convention that first stipulated it. The Author concludes with pointing at flaws and inaccuracies in a national articulation of the principle.

Refine search results

1 Border and Regional Studies

1 Studia Administracyjne

1 Studia Iuridica

1 2021

1 2019

1 2018

1 Grześkowiak M.

1 Kuruçaylıoğlu J.

1 Zaręba S.

The Principle of Non-refoulment within the Deportation Procedure, Admission to the Country, Right to Life and the Freedom of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment According to the Turkish Legislation on Temporary Protection Regime

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

Transpozycja zasady non-refoulement do polskiego systemu ochrony uchodźców