Cookies Policy
X

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

The Relationship between Safeguarding Internal Security and Complying with International Obligations of Protection. The Unresolved Issue of Excluded Asylum Seekers

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of Nordic Journal of International Law

In the wake of the terrorist attacks of 11 September Article 1F, the 'exclusion clause', of the Refugee Convention attracted renewed attention. The exclusion clause obliges states to exclude individuals suspected of certain crimes from obtaining status as a refugee. Recently,the European Commission has adopted a proposal for a Council Directive introducing the exclusion clause as a central feature in the eligibility test for protection under the Common European Asylum System. Still, not all excluded asylum seekers can be expelled. Central human rights treaties prohibit refoulement that would put the individual at risk of being subjected to torture or cruel or inhuman treatment.Although this may apply to a considerable part of this group the fate of these individuals still remains unresolved. The Commission apparently puts faith in the principle of aut dedere aut judicare: if states are unable to expel excluded individuals they are obliged as a matter of international law to prosecute them under their own jurisdiction. Refugee law scholars, however, have been remarkably reluctant to venture into the realms of international criminal law and until today the extent to which the principle of aut dedere aut judicare is applicable to 1F-crimes has not been determined.This article examines the recent attempts to base an argument of aut dedere aut judicare in customary international law and on an erga omnes obligation, concluding that neither approach satisfies the demand of state practice. Using the example of the European Union and Germany it further argues that regional regimes may have no or inadequate strategies of addressing the issue of the post-exclusion phase.

Loading

Full text loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/157181004323056392
Loading

Data & Media loading...

http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1163/157181004323056392
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/157181004323056392
2004-02-01
2016-12-07

Sign-in

Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
     
    Nordic Journal of International Law — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation