"Astoundingly, the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR) does not contain [a] derogation clause. Furthermore, it has been established by the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (the Commission) in the case of Commission Nationale des Droits de l'Homme et des Libertes v Chad (Commission Nationale case) that a member state of teh ACHPR cannot derogate human rights in case of emergencies. Hence, the Commission's view may lead to a conclusion that all rights under the ACHPR are non-derogable. This raises the issue of whether it is tenable to conclude that a state facing a situation that endangers the nation, should not at all derogate from the provisions of the ACHPR. Emergency clauses, which permit derogation of human rights in times of emergencies, are also found in most domestic legal instruments. Most African states also encompass this clause in their constitutions. Although the levels of compliance by states are questionable, some of these constitutions also include a list of non-derogable rights. The constitutions of Ethiopia and Mozambique also provide for a derogation clause and a list of non-derogable rights. The aim of the study is to make a critical analysis of the African derogation system. Firstly, the study will analyse the concept of derogation and non-derogable rights in general. Secondly, the jurisprudence and the law of the African system with regard to derogation and non-derogable rights will be examined. In analysing the jurisprudence of the Commission effort will be made to critically study the cases that have been examined by the Commission in relation to derogation and non-derogable rights. Lastly, the compatibility of the Ethiopian and Mozambique constitutions in light of the African system and international standards will be discussed. ... Chapter one highlights the basis and structure of the entire study. Chapter two presents a brief historical evolution as well as conceptual framework of the system of derogation and non-derogable human rights in state of emergency. Chapter three focuses on the ACHPR and the jurisprudence of the Commission with regard to derogation and non-derogable rights in state of emergency. Chapter four assesses the compatibility of the non-derogable rights provided in the constitutions of African states with African and international standards. This chapter will [analyse], in particular, the constitutions and the practices of Ethiopia and Mozambique. Chapter five is a conclusion of the overall study stating specific recommendations." -- Introduction. / Thesis (LLM (Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa)) -- University of Pretoria, 2005. / Prepared under the supervision of Mr. Leopoldo Amaral, Faculty of Law, Universidade Eduardo Mondlane, Maputo, Mozambique / http://www.chr.up.ac.za/academic_pro/llm1/dissertations.html / Centre for Human Rights / LLM

La France a mis en place en juillet 2015 une réforme en vue de transposer le nouveau « paquet asile » européen alors que le Canada a renforcé depuis décembre 2012 ses procédures d’asile en adoptant des changements ayant essentiellement pour objet de lutter contre les abus du système d’asile canadien. En s’orientant vers des politiques dissimulées visant les expulsions expéditives des demandeurs d’asile déboutés et des personnes indignes de la protection, la France et le Canada, connus en tant que terre d’asile, respectent-ils toujours leur obligation international du non-refoulement ? Cette thèse s’appuie sur les lois en vigueur des deux États notamment le Code de l’entrée et du séjour des étrangers et du droit d’asile (France) et la Loi sur l’immigration et la protection des réfugiés (Canada), les jurisprudences nationales et internationales, et les textes internationaux. Elle met en lumière les pratiques et législations nationales relatives à l’octroi de l’asile et à l’éloignement des demandeurs d’asile et des réfugiés qui peuvent ou pourraient porter atteinte au principe de non-refoulement, tel que consacré par le droit international des réfugiés ainsi que par le droit international des droits de l’homme / In July 2015, France adopted an asylum reform bill in order to transpose the EU asylum legislative package. In comparison, Canada has, since 2012, strengthened its national asylum procedures by introducing a number of changes with the objective of preventing the abuse of Canada’s inland refugee determination system. In moving towards hidden policies aimed at the efficiency of removals of failed refugee claimants and persons unworthy of international protection, are France and Canada, known as safe havens, respecting their international obligations of Non-Refoulement ? This thesis focuses on the laws in force in both States in particular the Code of the Entry and Stay of Foreigners and Asylum Law (France) and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Canada), national and international jurisprudence, and other relevant international documents. The present study aims at highlighting the national legislations and practices relating to the grant of asylum and the expulsion of asylum seekers and refugees which violate or could violate the Principle of Non-Refoulement as enshrined in both International Refugee Law and International Human Rights Law