La matière de l'expulsion évolue fréquemment tant dans les ordres juridiques nationaux qu'internationaux. L'internationalisation du droit, et plus particulièrement celle des droits de l'Homme, a modifié la nature de la problématique de l'expulsion et a permis le développement de règles de plus en plus protectrices des personnes expulsées. En effet, le droit international, et notamment le droit européen, tendent à encadrer progressivement cet acte éminemment politique qu'est l'expulsion. Ainsi, la motivation et la mise en oeuvre de mesures d'éloignement doivent être conciliées avec le respect des droits individuels et des libertés fondamentales. Cependant, cette conciliation apparaît instable : les changements d'ordre essentiellement sécuritaire, constatés dans les législations nationales et communautaire depuis les attentats du 11 septembre 2001, montrent que cette matière est particulièrement sensible aux évolutions des contextes socio-politiques.<br />Le phénomène de l'expulsion est, par définition, transnational et pousse à une coopération accrue des Etats. Dès lors, la mise en place d'un corpus minimal de droits, assorti des garanties procédurales permettant d'en assurer l'effectivité, est une nécessité d'autant plus pressante. Les organes internationaux de contrôle, à l'instar de la Cour européenne des droits de l'Homme, cherchent ainsi à interpréter favorablement les conventions applicables à cette matière afin de répondre à ce besoin.<br />Un dépassement de cette approche initiale, attachée au concept de nationalité, semble toutefois aujourd'hui nécessaire. A cet égard, l'Union européenne pourrait constituer un cadre juridique idéal pour la création d'un statut de “quasi-national” et l'autonomisation de la notion de citoyenneté européenne.

<p>I attempt to analyze South Africa&rsquo / s legal position pertaining to torture, in relation to the international legal framework. Since it has been established that torture and cruel inhuman and degrading treatment (CIDT) usually occur in situations where persons are deprived of personal liberty, I examine legislation, policies and practices applicable to specific places of detention, such as correctional centres, police custody, repatriation centers, mental health care facilities and child and youth care centers. I establish that although South Africa has ratified the UNCAT and is a signatory to the OPCAT, our legal system greatly lacks in structure and in mechanisms of enforcement, as far as the absolute prohibition and the prevention of torture and other forms of cruel and degrading treatment or punishment are concerned. I submit that South Africa has a special duty to eradicate torture, since many of its citizens and several of its political leaders are actually victims of torture, who suffered severe ill treatment under the apartheid regime. I argue that the South African legal system is sufficiently capable of adopting a zero-tolerance policy toward torture and to incorporate this with the general stance against crime. In many respects, South Africa is an example to other African countries and should strongly condemn all forms of human rights violations, especially torture, since acts of torture are often perpetrated by public officials who abuse their positions of authority. I conclude by making submissions and recommendations for law reform, in light of the obstacles encountered within a South African context.</p>

Eritrean refugees are compelled to flee their country mainly to avoid forced conscription into indefinite military service, arbitrary arrest and detention for prolonged periods without trial. The majority of Eritrean refugees are young people, who leave their country in search of a better life and sources of livelihoods. The mass migration of Eritrean refugees has started to have adverse effects on the country’s socio-economic landscape. The main destination and country of refuge for the majority of Eritrean refugees is Ethiopia. Although no serious violations of human rights have been reported among Eritrean refugees living in Ethiopia, it a well-known fact that the Ethiopian Government has not fully extended the internationally accepted rights of those who have been forced to flee their own states, to refugees. For example, freedom of movement for refugees is restricted, which is obviously compounded by the encampment policy, which requires that all refugees should be confined to designated refugee camps. This situation seriously undermines the UNHCR’s efforts to enhance refugees’ self-reliance, independence, and chances of local integration. There has not been much research undertaken regarding the Ethiopian Government’s legal framework on refugees and its impact on the protection of the rights of refugees. In 2014, Ethiopia hosted the largest number of refugees in Africa. This phenomenon was largely attributed to the Ethiopian Government’s ‘open door’ policy towards refugees. The present study is an attempt to critically examine Ethiopian refugee law and determine the extent to which the national laws protect the rights of refugees. Although the study is limited in scope to the situation of Eritrean refugees, the principles and standards of treatment discussed apply to all refugees living in Ethiopia. / Public, Constitutional and International Law / LL. M.

Magister Legum - LLM / I attempt to analyze South Africa's legal position pertaining to torture, in relation to the international legal framework. Since it has been established that torture and cruel inhuman and degrading treatment (CIDT) usually occur in situations where persons are deprived of personal liberty, I examine legislation, policies and practices applicable to specific places of detention, such as correctional centres, police custody, repatriation centers, mental health care facilities and child and youth care centers. I establish that although South Africa has ratified the UNCAT and is a signatory to the OPCAT, our legal system greatly lacks in structure and in mechanisms of enforcement, as far as the absolute prohibition and the prevention of torture and other forms of cruel and degrading treatment or punishment are concerned. I submit that South Africa has a special duty to eradicate torture, since many of its citizens and several of its political leaders are actually victims of torture, who suffered severe ill treatment under the apartheid regime. I argue that the South African legal system is sufficiently capable of adopting a zero-tolerance policy toward torture and to incorporate this with the general stance against crime. In many respects, South Africa is an example to other African countries and should strongly condemn all forms of human rights violations, especially torture, since acts of torture are often perpetrated by public officials who abuse their positions of authority. I conclude by making submissions and recommendations for law reform, in light of the obstacles encountered within a South African context. / South Africa