Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 1
  • Print publication year: 2014
  • Online publication date: July 2014

Introduction

Summary

Refugee law may be the world’s most powerful international human rights mechanism. Not only do millions of people invoke its protections every year in countries spanning the globe, but they do so on the basis of a self-actuating mechanism of international law that, quite literally, allows at-risk persons to vote with their feet. This is because, as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (“UNHCR”) has insisted, refugee status is not a status that is granted by states; it is rather simply recognized by them:

A person is a refugee within the meaning of the 1951 Convention as soon as he fulfils the criteria contained in the definition. This would necessarily occur prior to the time at which his refugee status is formally determined. Recognition of his refugee status does not therefore make him a refugee but declares him to be one. He does not become a refugee because of recognition, but is recognized because he is a refugee.

A person who is a refugee at international law is thus entitled in any of the nearly 150 state parties to the refugee regime to claim a powerful catalog of internationally binding rights – including not only critical civil rights, but also socio-economic rights and rights that enable pursuit of a solution to refugeehood. Because refugee status inheres by virtue of facts rather than formalities, the entitlement to these rights persists until and unless an individual is found not to be a refugee.

The portal to this uniquely valuable protection regime is the definition of a refugee codified in the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, made both universal and applicable to contemporary refugees by the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (the “Convention refugee” definition). Article 1A(2) of the Convention provides that the term “refugee” shall apply to any person who

owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

UNHCR, Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, UN Doc. HCR/IP/4/Eng/REV.3 (2011)
Hathaway, J. C., The Rights of Refugees under International Law (2005)
Zimmermann, A. and Mahler, C., “Article 1A, para. 2 (Definition of the Term ‘Refugee’),” in A. Zimmermann (ed.), The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol: A Commentary (2011)
Németh v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [2010] 3 SCR 281 (Can. SC, Nov. 25, 2010)
Minister of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v. Savvin, (2000) 98 FCR 168 (Aus. FFC, Apr. 12, 2000), at 194–95, per Katz J. But for the overwhelming majority of states that are parties to the Protocol as well as or in lieu of the Convention, the refugee definition is now both universal and without temporal limitation (for the few exceptions to this principle, see Hathaway, supra n. 3, at 97–98)
McAdam, J., Complementary Protection in International Refugee Law (2007)
Fornah v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2007] 1 AC 412 (UKHL, Oct. 18, 2006)
R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department; Ex parte Adan, [2001] 2 AC 477 (UKHL, Dec. 19, 2000)
MPR v. Refugee Status Appeals Authority, [2012] NZHC 567 (NZHC, Mar. 28, 2012)
Canefe, N., “The Fragmented Nature of the International Refugee Regime and its Consequences: A Comparative Analysis of the Applications of the 1951 Convention,” in J. C. Simeon (ed.), Critical Issues in International Refugee Law: Strategies toward Interpretative Harmony (2010)
Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No. 2), (1979) 2 ALD 634 (Aus. AAT, Nov. 21, 1979)
NBGM v. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, (2006) 150 FCR 522 (Aus. FFC, May 12, 2006)
Zrig v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2003] 3 FC 761 (Can. FCA, Apr. 4, 2003)
Nadon J.A.; Fornah (UKHL, 2006)
Lord Brown; HJ (Iran) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2011] 1 AC 596 (UKSC, Jul. 7, 2010)
Sepet v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2001] Imm AR 452 (Eng. CA, May 11, 2001)
Foster, M., International Law and Socio-Economic Rights: Refuge from Deprivation (2007)
Fitzmaurice, G., “The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice, 1951–54: General Principles and Sources of Law,” (1950)
R (European Roma Rights Centre) v. Immigration Officer at Prague Airport, [2005] 2 AC 1 (UKHL, Dec. 9, 2004)
Rosenne, S., Developments in the Law of Treaties: 1945–1986 (1989)
Lauterpacht, H., The Development of International Law by the International Court (1958)
Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom v. Albania), [1949] ICJ Rep 4 (ICJ, Mar. 25, 1948)
Sorel, J.-M. and Boré-Eveno, V., “Article 31: General Rule of Interpretation,” in O. Corten and P. Klein (eds.), The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: A Commentary, Vol. I (2011) 804
Vanneste, F., General International Law Before Human Rights Courts: Assessing the Specialty Claims of International Human Rights Law (2010), at 243–44
Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) Notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, [1971] ICJ Rep 16 (ICJ, Jun. 21, 1971)
Gabčíkovo–Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), [1997] ICJ Rep 7 (ICJ, Sept. 25, 1997)
Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo), [2010] ICJ Rep 639 (ICJ, Nov. 30, 2010)
Islands of Palmas (Netherlands/USA), (1928) II UNRIAA 829 (PCA, Apr. 4, 1928)
R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department; Ex parte Adan, [1999] 3 WLR 1274 (Eng. CA, Jul. 23, 1999)
Sepet v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2003] 1 WLR 856 (UKHL, Mar. 20, 2003)
R v. Asfaw, [2008] 1 AC 1061 (UKHL, May 21, 2008)
Aust, A., Modern Treaty Law and Practice (2nd edn., 2007)
Golder v. United Kingdom, (1975) 1 EHRR 524 (ECtHR, Feb. 21, 1975)
Applicant A v. Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, (1997) 190 CLR 225 (Aus. HC, Feb. 24, 1997), at 231
Orakhelashvili, A., “The Recent Practice on the Principles of Treaty Interpretation,” in A. Orakhelashvili and S. Williams (eds.), 40 Years of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (2010), at 120–21
Abi-Saab, G., “The Appellate Body and Treaty Interpretation,” in G. Sacerdoti, A. Yanovich, and J. Bohanes (eds.), The WTO at Ten: The Contribution of the Dispute Settlement System (2006), at 458–59
Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, [2004] ICJ Rep 136 (ICJ, Jul. 9, 2004)
Adan v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [1999] 1 AC 293 (UKHL, Apr. 2, 1998)
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v. Khawar, (2002) 210 CLR 1
Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras), [1992] ICJ Rep 351 (ICJ, Sept. 30, 1990)
South West Africa (ICJ, 1971)
Hathaway, J. C., “The Relationship between Human Rights and Refugee Law: What Refugee Judges can Contribute,” in The Realities of Refugee Determination on the Eve of a New Millennium: The Role of the Judiciary (1999) 80
Bayatyan v. Armenia, (2012) 54 EHRR 15 (ECtHR, Jul. 7, 2011)
Demir and Baykara v. Turkey, Application No. 34503/97 (Nov. 12, 2008)
Goodwin-Gill, G. S., “The Search for the One, True Meaning …,” in G. S. Goodwin-Gill and H. Lambert (eds.), The Limits of Transnational Law: Refugee Law, Policy Harmonization and Judicial Dialogue in the European Union (2010)
R (Hoxha) v. Special Adjudicator, [2003] 1 WLR 241 (Eng. CA, Oct. 14, 2002)
R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department; Ex parte Adan, [1999] 3 WLR 1274 (Eng. CA, Jul. 23, 1999)
MM (Iran) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2011] INLR 206 (Nov. 17, 2010)
Case Concerning the Arbitral Award of 31 July 1989 (Guinea-Bissau v. Senegal), [1991] ICJ Rep 53 (ICJ, Nov. 12, 1991)
Golder v. United Kingdom, (1975) 1 EHRR 524 (ECtHR, Feb. 21, 1975)
R v. Immigration Appeal Tribunal; Ex parte Shah, [1999] 2 AC 629 (UKHL, Mar. 25, 1999)
Sinclair, I., The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (2nd edn., 1984), at 117
R v. Immigration Appeal Tribunal; Ex parte Shah, [1997] Imm AR 145 (Eng. HC, Oct. 25, 1996)
Simma, B., “Consent: Strains in the Treaty System,” in R. St. J. Macdonald and D. M. Johnston, The Structure and Process of International Law (1983) 485, at 497
Arato, J., “Subsequent Practice and Evolutive Interpretation: Techniques of Treaty Interpretation over Time and Their Diverse Consequences,” (2010) 9 The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals443
McGinley, G., “Practice as a Guide to Treaty Interpretation,” (1985) 9(1) Fletcher Forum of World Affairs211
Certain Expenses of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, [1962] ICJ Rep 151 (ICJ, Jul. 20, 1962)
Cruz Varas v. Sweden, (1991) 14 EHRR 1 (ECtHR, Mar. 20, 1991)
Soering v. United Kingdom, (1989) 11 EHRR 439 (ECtHR, Jul. 7, 1989)
Abdulla v. Germany, C-175/08, C-176/08, C-178/08, and C-179/08, [2010] ECR I-01493 (CJEU, Mar. 2, 2010)
Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, [1951] ICJ Rep 15 (ICJ, May 28, 1951)
Hathaway, J. C., The Law of Refugee Status (1991)
Sepet (UKHL, 2003)
Svazas v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2002]