Australia was to pay all the costs associated with the arrangement. In effect, it applied to almost all irregular arrivals rather than to a particular group, as in the case of the US arrangements. The obligation of non-refoulement in relation to protection elsewhere arrangements How does the obligation of non-refoulement apply in the situation where an asylum seeker has entered the territory of a State but that State the Sending State wishes to transfer the asylum seeker to another State the Receiving State for protection to be provided there?
The drafters of the Convention probably did not envisage that States would send asylum seekers away for protection elsewhere. Click here to send InSight Crime your comments. The Belgium authorities sent him back to Greece under Dublin 2 for processing there.
The second is where Extra territorial jurisdiction seekers, having arrived in the territory of a State, are sent away to a third country for their asylum claims to be assessed in that third country. I will broadly follow that scheme. Between and 25, people had been intercepted, but it was not Extra territorial jurisdiction practice to return asylum seekers to Haiti without some, albeit cursory, examination of their claims.
Article 27 of the Asylum Procedures Directive and paragraphs 3, 4, 8, 12 and 16 of the Michigan Guidelines. This is a monumental achievement. Thank you for your kind attention. In Australia the government successfully resisted legal challenges by resort to the act of State doctrine.
I have written and spoken about such Extra territorial jurisdiction concept at previous conferences. Current practice dates from United States v. The discussion therefore has centred on the means by which the Sending State can discharge its duties when the asylum seeker is no longer in its territory.
They will not be deterred by being sent elsewhere. UNHCR has been a very active voice against this potential. Maybe the success of UNHCR intervention in the MSS case, and the result in the recent Australian case of M70, are positive signs for future developments whereby States may be more constrained in sending their non-refoulement obligations offshore.
Criminal codes in certain countries assert jurisdiction over crimes committed outside the country: What then are the consequences for the international protection regime?
An Afghan asylum seeker first arrived in Greece but then travelled to Belgium where he made an asylum application. Sale  The case involved Haitians fleeing to the US by sea.
Can US jurisdiction reach too far? Check the Creative Commons website for more details of how to share our work, and please send us an email if you use an article. The reflection which comes with the celebration of the 60th anniversary of the Convention, and this trend of States resorting to interception and protection elsewhere arrangements, and the jurisprudence of domestic courts which have sanctioned a narrow view of the extraterritorial effect of the non-refoulement obligation might suggest that it is time for a redraft of the Convention to make explicit provision for the circumstances in which interception and protection elsewhere would or would not be permissible.
However, the Advisory Opinion expands the debate in ways not considered by those authorities. He quoted Nehemiah Robinson at : He particularly agreed with the textual arguments adopted by the majority.
The 60th anniversary is a time to recognise the high quality of UNHCR leadership in the attempt to develop principled jurisprudence. This is hard to accept. Decisions were made by reference to non-binding administrative guidelines. We encourage readers to copy and distribute our work for non-commercial purposes, provided that it is attributed to InSight Crime in the byline, with a link to the original at both the top and bottom of the article.
It may however be that these circumstances demonstrate the desirability of some strengthening of the supervisory role of the UNHCR. The obligation of non-refoulement lies at the heart of the international protection system.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union  includes, in effect, the non-refoulement obligation contained in Article 33 1 of the Convention. Why do some States seek to remove their non-refoulement obligations offshore? Witness the thousands who have perished in dangerous sea journeys.
In each case, the steps have been taken by nations most able to address protection needs. I thank the Organising Committee for the invitation to address this Conference. SHARE The sentencing of a Zetas cartel assassin in Texas is the latest example of US prosecutors applying extraterritorial jurisdiction to foreign nationals for crimes they committed abroad, and which on the surface do not directly affect the United States.
In the proper development of the principles applicable to the extraterritorial application of the obligation of non-refoulement such a body could contribute to the rule of law in a way which may be missing in the present international protection system.
The House was referred to no judicial authority to contrary effect.
The inadequacy of the Greek determination system meant that the applicant was in danger of refoulement.“In days gone by the assertion of extra-territorial jurisdiction was described as ‘exorbitant’. But But following the globalisation (and digitalisation) of the world economy that attitude can now be seen as.
Sarah Miller, Revisiting Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: A Territorial Justification for Extraterritorial Jurisdiction under the European Convention, 20.
Sep 07, · Jurisdiction. Judges.
Registrars. Courts & Tribunals Administered by the Federal Court. International Programs. Electronic Court File. In Januarythe UNHCR published the Advisory Opinion of the Extraterritorial Application of Non-Refoulement Obligations under the Convention.
. The third factor examined by the Second Circuit is Congress’ intent to limit extraterritorial jurisdiction. This intent is best demonstrated by the legislative history of.
Universal jurisdiction - Wikipedia, the free - Universal jurisdiction allows "Widespread agreement that human rights unless a specific statute enables the UK to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction. possibility that extraterritorial jurisdiction might be asserted under the statute where ‘the claims touch and concern the territory of the United States with sufficient force to displace the pre- sumption against extraterritorial application’ (slip opinion, 14).
The minority suggested instead an.Download