Refugees and internally displaced persons
Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons
1. Refugees
Definition:
A refugee is someone who has fled their country of nationality or habitual residence due to a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. This is codified in the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol.
Key Points:
Refugees cross international borders.
They are entitled to international protection.
They cannot be forcibly returned (principle of non-refoulement).
Their rights and obligations are governed primarily by international law, including UNHCR guidelines.
2. Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs)
Definition:
IDPs are persons or groups forced to flee their homes but who remain within their country's borders. Unlike refugees, they have not crossed an international border and therefore are under the protection of their own government, even if that government is the cause of their displacement.
Key Points:
IDPs do not have a specific international treaty protecting them like refugees.
Protection mainly comes from international human rights law and humanitarian principles.
Their plight is often more precarious due to the lack of cross-border protections.
Important Case Laws
1. Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy (2012) - European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)
Summary:
This case concerned Somali and Eritrean migrants intercepted by Italian authorities on the high seas and returned to Libya without an assessment of their asylum claims.
Key Holdings:
Italy violated the non-refoulement principle under Article 3 (prohibition of torture) of the European Convention on Human Rights by returning migrants to Libya, where they faced ill-treatment.
States cannot simply push back migrants without proper evaluation of their refugee status and risk of persecution.
Significance:
This case affirms that the principle of non-refoulement applies extraterritorially (outside the state's borders) and that migrants intercepted at sea are entitled to protection from being returned to places of danger.
2. R (on the application of Quila and another) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (2009) - UK Supreme Court
Summary:
This case involved the UK government's immigration policies concerning family reunification of refugees.
Key Holdings:
The court emphasized the importance of family unity for refugees and held that immigration policies must consider the best interests of refugee children.
Decisions that restrict family reunification can violate human rights, particularly the right to family life (Article 8, European Convention on Human Rights).
Significance:
It highlights the human rights dimension of refugee protection beyond initial asylum recognition, focusing on the rights of refugees to maintain family unity.
3. East African Asians v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (1973) - UK
Summary:
This case arose during the expulsion of Asians from Uganda by Idi Amin’s regime in the early 1970s. Many sought asylum in the UK.
Key Holdings:
The UK government decided on immigration policy to allow entry to East African Asians who were British subjects.
This case is often referenced in discussions about state discretion in refugee admissions and balancing national interest against humanitarian obligations.
Significance:
It underscores the discretion states have in granting asylum, but also highlights the international obligation to provide refuge when lives and rights are at risk.
4. Limbuela v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (2005) - UK House of Lords
Summary:
This case involved destitute asylum seekers in the UK who were denied support after their asylum claims were refused.
Key Holdings:
The House of Lords held that denying basic needs (like shelter and food) to asylum seekers could amount to inhuman or degrading treatment, violating human rights.
The state has positive obligations to prevent destitution among asylum seekers.
Significance:
It establishes that states must respect human dignity in their treatment of asylum seekers and refugees, even in cases where claims are rejected.
5. Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC (2018) - US Supreme Court
Summary:
While not exclusively about refugees, this case concerns liability of corporations for human rights abuses linked to armed conflicts, which often cause displacement.
Key Holdings:
The Court limited the scope of the Alien Tort Statute for lawsuits against foreign corporations.
It reflects the complexities of addressing violations of displaced persons’ rights through legal mechanisms against third parties.
Significance:
It indirectly impacts the protection of displaced persons by shaping accountability mechanisms for abuses contributing to displacement.
Summary
Refugees are protected under international law with rights including asylum, protection against refoulement, and family unity.
IDPs face protection gaps, relying mainly on domestic law and international humanitarian principles.
Case law highlights states’ obligations not only to protect refugees but also to uphold their dignity and human rights.
Legal decisions affirm the principle that states cannot push back refugees without due process and protection from harm.
Courts have recognized positive obligations to prevent destitution among asylum seekers.
Accountability for displacement often involves complex intersections between international law, human rights, and corporate responsibility.
RELATED Blog
0 comments