The usage of pre-border control in order to prevent migration flows outside a state’s territory is a common phenomenon. Extraterritorial migration regulation and management is a top priority within the EU today and often settled through different kinds of bilateral agreements between receiving states and third countries. The results of these agreements, that allow interception of migrant boats in the Mediterranean Sea and different kinds of push-back measures, are however deeply concerning. Due to the violations of human rights and abuses of migrants in Libya the UNHCR has underlined that the country cannot be considered a safe place for the disembarkation of these people. In light of the state responsibility to protect human life at sea and respect the prohibition of refoulement, these extraterritorial measures may constitute violations of international refugee law and human rights law. The aim of this essay is to explore the extent of the principle of non-refoulement with regard to the obligation of states to rescue people in distress at sea and deliver them to a place of safety. In particular I examine the possible ways of extra-territorial jurisdiction in the high seas to determine whether states can be held responsible for returning – or more commonly in recent years for providing financial, technical and operative support in order to return – migrants to Libya. The study shows that Italy, through its cooperation with the Libyan coastguard, may be in breach of the principle of non-refoulement despite the lack of direct and physical control over the people concerned. Further it affirms that the prohibition on refoulement may have substantial significance in the assessment of the concept “place of safety”.

Idag befinner sig över 50 miljoner människor på flykt runt om i världen. De har behövt lämna sina hem till följd av väpnade konflikter, förföljelse eller andra grova människorättskränkningar. Flera av dem behöver få skydd i andra länder. Dock är det svårt för många att få det. Inte minst gäller det de skyddsbehövande som försöker finna en fristad inom EU. Unionens yttre gränser har de senaste åren stärkts och blivit allt mer ogenomträngliga för tredjelandsmedborgare på flykt. De riskerar därmed att hindras från att få tillgång till skydd. Syftet med denna studie är att lyfta den här frågan ur ett rättighetsperspektiv och att undersöka det nuvarande rättighetsskyddet för de människor som behöver få tillgång till skydd inom EU. Delar av gällande folkrätt och EU-rätt undersöks för att se vad dessa rättssystem idag innebär för skyddsbehövandes tillgång till skydd. Vidare granskas den gällande rätten utifrån ett moraliskt och kritiskt perspektiv som utgår ifrån principen om skyddsbehövandes rätt till rättigheter. Principen grundas på de mänskliga rättigheternas grundtanke om att alla människor har lika och inneboende rättigheter samt Hannah Arendts analys om att människor på flykt riskerar att hamna utan rättighetsskydd i praktiken. Studien visar att skyddsbehövande som kommit till EU:s fysiska gränser eller möter medlemsstaterna till havs under vissa omständigheter har, i alla fall rent formellt, rätt att få komma in i unionen och erhålla skydd där. Detta enligt vissa bestämmelser inom både folkrätten och EU-rätten. Studien visar dock att skyddsbehövande som fortfarande befinner sig i ursprungslandet riskerar att i praktiken hamna utan skydd av sina rättigheter under gällande rättssystem. Folkrättens skydd når inte riktigt dit på ett tydligt sätt och EU:s extraterritoriella gränskontroll, i form av regler kring visum och transportöransvar, riskerar att stänga flera av dem ute från det skydd som de har rätt till när de väl kommit fram till unionens territoriella gränser. Flera skyddsbehövande blir således nekade sin rätt till rättigheter idag. / Today, over 50 million people are forcibly displaced worldwide. They have been forced to leave their homes due to armed conflicts, persecution or other human rights violations. Numerous people need protection in another state. However, for many of them it is difficult to get that kind of protection. This is true for many refugees and other people in need of international protection who are trying to find refuge within the EU. The union has in recent years strengthened the external borders which has made it increasingly difficult for third-country nationals to get access to the EU. This is affecting people in need of protection and their access to asylum. The purpose of this thesis is to highlight this issue from a human rights perspective and study how the rights of those people who need access to protection within the EU are safeguarded today. Parts of international law and EU law are examined to see what different rules mean for people’s access to protection. The existing law is then reviewed from a moral and critical point of view that revolves around the understanding that people in need of international protection have a right to have rights. This theoretical approach is partly based on the core principle of human rights which emphasizes the equal and inherent rights of all people and partly based on Hannah Arendt’s thoughts about the fact that people who are forcibly displaced risk being denied their rights. The study shows that people in need of international protection who have arrived at the EU’s physical borders or who the member states encounter at sea have, under certain circumstances, a right to enter the union and receive protection there through parts of both international law and EU law. However, people in need of protection who are still in the country of origin risk being denied their rights. This is because of possible gaps in international law and certain EU rules concerning visas and carrier sanctions which can exclude them from the protection that they are entitled to once they have arrived to EU territory. Thus, many people in need of international protection are today being denied their right to have rights.

No description available.

Mémoire numérisé par la Division de la gestion de documents et des archives de l'Université de Montréal

This study aims to analyze if the assessment of the European Court of Human Rights and Committee Against Torture in cases concerning women alleging violation of the principle of non-refoulement takes gender into consideration. Therefore, this study compares four cases from the Court and the other four cases from the Committee with feminist legal theory analysis. The method chosen for this study is a comparative legal method and textual analysis to investigate the research problem. The findings of this study are that the Committee's evaluation is more in line with the intersectionality perspective than the Court's. Further, the Court showed stereotypes and gender discrimination with their assessments. Although the Committee is also lacking in considering gender as far as the observed cases the Committee is more advanced with the intersectionality lens. The Court frequently depends on the "male or social network," which is another distinction between the two monitoring organizations. Because the Court does not mention "male network" to European women alleging domestic violence, this contributes to the already discriminations refugee and asylum seeker women experience. The thesis concludes that women seeking asylum or refugee cases experience the most discrimination before the Court, though occasionally before the Committee as well. The refugee law still has a long way to go before it can assist women who claim that private actors have abused them.

[pt] O presente estudo tem o objetivo de compreender o desenvolvimento do conceito de safe third country (terceiro país seguro) e suas consequências para a proteção internacional dos refugiados, a partir do princípio do non-refoulement (princípio da não devolução). Busca-se analisar de que forma esta ideia está sendo aplicada pelos Estados, através dos tratados internacionais com a finalidade de transferência de solicitantes de refúgio a terceiros países supostamente seguros. Além disso, a pesquisa analisa a jurisprudência dos Sistemas Interamericano e Europeu de Direitos Humanos sobre as devoluções de refugiados e migrantes, assim como o diálogo entre as cortes internacionais sobre este tema, especialmente à luz das especificidades regionais do continente americano. Portanto, o trabalho demonstra que as políticas dos países com base na noção de safe third country são mecanismos para transferir suas responsabilidades em relação ao refúgio e representam obstáculos para a garantia dos direitos humanos de refugiados. / [en] The present study aims to understand the development of the concept of safe third country and its consequences for the international protection of refugees, based on the principle of non-refoulement. It seeks to analyze how this idea has been applied by States, through international treaties with the purpose of transferring asylum seekers to supposedly safe third countries. Moreover, the research analyzes the jurisprudence of the Inter-American and European Human Rights Systems on the returns of refugees and migrants, as well as the dialogue between international courts on this topic, especially considering the regional specificities of the American continent. Therefore, this research demonstrates that countries policies based on the notion of safe third country are mechanisms to transfer their responsibilities in relation to refuge and represent obstacles to guaranteeing the human rights of refugees. / [es] El presente estudio tiene como objetivo comprender el desarrollo del concepto de safe third country (tercer país seguro) y sus consecuencias para la protección internacional de los refugiados, a partir del principio de non-refoulement (principio de no devolución). Se busca analizar cómo dicha idea está siendo aplicada por los Estados, a través de tratados internacionales con el propósito de trasladar solicitantes de refugio a terceros países supuestamente seguros. Además, la investigación analiza la jurisprudencia de los Sistemas Interamericano y Europeo de Derechos Humanos sobre las devoluciones de refugiados y migrantes, así como el diálogo entre cortes internacionales sobre este tema, especialmente a la luz de las especificidades regionales del continente americano. Por lo tanto, el trabajo demuestra que las políticas de los países basadas en la noción de safe third country son mecanismos para transferir sus responsabilidades con relación al refugio y representan obstáculos para garantizar los derechos humanos de los refugiados.

La relecture des travaux de Freud et Lacan suivie de l'interprétation du travail d'écriture de deux jeunes adultes psychotiques rencontrés par le biais d'un dispositif clinique nous conduit à formuler l'hypothèse suivante : chez des sujets structurés sur le mode de la psychose, peut exister une pratique de l'écriture qui n'est pas création littéraire, mais qui soutient l'inscription sociale de ces mêmes sujets, sans les désagréments causés par la formation de substituts psychotiques et ce qu'ils sont seulement comme tentatives d'inscriptions. Nous montrons alors que d'une manière générale, de telles pratiques de l'écriture réinscrivent dans l'appareil psychique l'élément affectif et/ou l'élément représentation au départ rejeté par la problématique psychotique.

States are routinely confronted with conflicting duties of maintaining full respect for human rights, on the one hand, and protecting national security and public safety, on the other. This is not least noticeable when States’ sovereignty and the right to control who enters and leaves their territories clash with the obligation to afford protection to refugees fleeing persecution. Some refugees are bound to be dangerous criminals, presenting a serious threat to national security and public safety in the host State. Refugee law prescribe that allegedly serious criminals must be excluded from refugee protection. However, the principle of non-refoulement, as developed and interpreted under international and regional human rights law, prohibits removal of persons if there is risk for torture or ill-treatment in the country of origin. This thesis explores the fact that a person can be considered fundamentally undeserving of protection under refugee law, while protected against removal under human rights law. Persons like this have fittingly been coined undesirable but unreturnable.      The relationship between the relevant provisions on refoulement and exclusion from refugee protection is examined and analyzed, followed by a recount of the effects that this clash of legal regimes and legitimate interests has on the individuals concerned, on the States, and on the integrity of refugee law. Possible solutions to adverse effects are identified and discussed, including the question of whether the principle of non-refoulement, as understood today, is viable in light of the challenges presented to national security and public safety.

The dissertation investigates South Africa’s legal aspects pertaining to voluntary repatriation of refugees. The repatriation of Mozambican and Angolan refugees was referred to in order to examine the loopholes in the process of repatriating them. This study moreover examines whether the application of the cessation clause is in contravention of the principle of non-refoulement, which is intrinsically the cornerstone for voluntariness of repatriation. The analysis of international, regional and South Africa’s refugee protection framework demonstrates that South Africa affords refugees the protection required by international law. This has been compared with states’ practice and case law with regards to refugee protection in countries including Canada and the United Kingdom. Although South Africa, Canada and the United Kingdom have comprehensive legal framework governing refugees’ protection, refugees’ rights have been violated on numerous occasions. The dissertation consequently concludes that notwithstanding the presence of international, regional and domestic legislations, the rights of refugees are violated due to their vulnerability and the repatriation process ignores the principle of voluntariness on several occasions. / Public, Constitutional, and International Law / LLM

The dissertation investigates South Africa’s legal aspects pertaining to voluntary repatriation of refugees. The repatriation of Mozambican and Angolan refugees was referred to in order to examine the loopholes in the process of repatriating them. This study moreover examines whether the application of the cessation clause is in contravention of the principle of non-refoulement, which is intrinsically the cornerstone for voluntariness of repatriation. The analysis of international, regional and South Africa’s refugee protection framework demonstrates that South Africa affords refugees the protection required by international law. This has been compared with states’ practice and case law with regards to refugee protection in countries including Canada and the United Kingdom. Although South Africa, Canada and the United Kingdom have comprehensive legal framework governing refugees’ protection, refugees’ rights have been violated on numerous occasions. The dissertation consequently concludes that notwithstanding the presence of international, regional and domestic legislations, the rights of refugees are violated due to their vulnerability and the repatriation process ignores the principle of voluntariness on several occasions. / Public, Constitutional, and International Law / LLM