Non-refoulement

Non-refoulement (/rəˈfuːlmɒ̃/) is a fundamental principle of international law that forbids a country receiving asylum seekers from returning them to a country in which they would be in probable danger of persecution based on "race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion" ("refoulement").^[1] Unlike political asylum, which applies to those who can prove a well-grounded fear of political persecution,^[2] non-refoulement refers to the generic repatriation of people, including refugees into war zones and other disaster locales.

Non-refoulement is generally seen as customary international law,^[3] where it applies even to states that are not parties to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees or its 1967 Protocol.^[4] It is debatable whether non-refoulement is a Peremptory norm (jus cogens) of international law, where non-refoulement must always be applied without any adjustment for any purpose or under any circumstances (derogation).^[5]^[6] The debate over jus cogens nature of non-refoulement was rekindled following the September 11, 2001 terror attacks in the United States as well as other terrorist attacks in Europe.^[7]

^ Trevisanut, Dr. Seline (September 1, 2014). "International Law and Practice: The Principle of Non-Refoulement And the De-Territorialization of Border Control at Sea". Leiden Journal of International Law. 27 (3): 661. doi:10.1017/S0922156514000259. S2CID 145445428.
^ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 14
^ Coleman, Nils. "Non-Refoulement Revised-Renewed Review of the Status of the Principle of Non-Refoulement as Customary International Law." Eur. J. Migration & L. 5 (2003): 23.
^ Vang, Jerry (Summer 2014). "Limitations of the Customary International Principle of Non-refoulement on Non-party States: Thailand Repatriates the Remaining Hmong-Lao Regardless of International Norms". Wisconsin International Law Journal. 32 (2): 355–383.
^ Jean Allain, 2001, "The jus cogens Nature of non‐refoulement", International Journal of Refugee Law, Vol. 13, Issue 4, pp. 533-558.
^ [Costello, Cathryn, and Michelle Foster. "Non-refoulement as custom and jus cogens? Putting the prohibition to the test." Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 2015: Jus Cogens: Quo Vadis? (2016): 273-327.]
^ Cite error: The named reference :2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Trevisanut-1] Trevisanut, Dr. Seline (September 1, 2014). "International Law and Practice: The Principle of Non-Refoulement And the De-Territorialization of Border Control at Sea". Leiden Journal of International Law. 27 (3): 661. doi:10.1017/S0922156514000259. S2CID 145445428.

[2] Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 14

[costomary-3] Coleman, Nils. "Non-Refoulement Revised-Renewed Review of the Status of the Principle of Non-Refoulement as Customary International Law." Eur. J. Migration & L. 5 (2003): 23.

[4] Vang, Jerry (Summer 2014). "Limitations of the Customary International Principle of Non-refoulement on Non-party States: Thailand Repatriates the Remaining Hmong-Lao Regardless of International Norms". Wisconsin International Law Journal. 32 (2): 355–383.

[5] Jean Allain, 2001, "The jus cogens Nature of non‐refoulement", International Journal of Refugee Law, Vol. 13, Issue 4, pp. 533-558.

[6] [Costello, Cathryn, and Michelle Foster. "Non-refoulement as custom and jus cogens? Putting the prohibition to the test." Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 2015: Jus Cogens: Quo Vadis? (2016): 273-327.]

[:2-7] Cite error: The named reference :2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]