Non-refoulement

Non-refoulement (/rəˈfuːlmɒ̃/) is a fundamental principle of international law anchored in the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees that forbids a country from deporting ("refoulement") any person to any country in which their "life or freedom would be threatened" on account of "race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion".^[1]^[2] The only exception to non-refoulement according to Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees are "reasonable grounds" of "danger to the security of the country" or "danger to the community of that country".^[1] Unlike political asylum, which applies only to those who can prove a well-grounded fear of political persecution,^[3] non-refoulement refers to the generic deportation of people, including refugees into war zones and other disaster locales.^[2]

Non-refoulement is generally seen as customary international law,^[4] where it applies even to states that are not parties to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees or its 1967 Protocol.^[5] 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).^[6]^[7] 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.^[8]

^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference convention was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b Trevisanut, 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 (2003). "Non-Refoulement Revised – Renewed Review of the Status of the Principle of Non-Refoulement as Customary International Law". European Journal of Migration & Law. 5 (1): 23. doi:10.1163/157181603100405657.
^ 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.
^ Allain, Jean (2001). "The jus cogens nature of non‐refoulement". International Journal of Refugee Law. 13 (4): 533–558. Archived from the original on 2013-04-15.
^ Costello, Cathryn; Foster, Michelle (2016). "Non-refoulement as custom and jus cogens? Putting the prohibition to the test". Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 2015: Jus Cogens: Quo Vadis?: 273–327.
^ Cite error: The named reference :2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[convention-1] Cite error: The named reference convention was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Trevisanut-2] Trevisanut, 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.

[3] Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 14

[costomary-4] Coleman, Nils (2003). "Non-Refoulement Revised – Renewed Review of the Status of the Principle of Non-Refoulement as Customary International Law". European Journal of Migration & Law. 5 (1): 23. doi:10.1163/157181603100405657.

[5] 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.

[6] Allain, Jean (2001). "The jus cogens nature of non‐refoulement". International Journal of Refugee Law. 13 (4): 533–558. Archived from the original on 2013-04-15.

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

[:2-8] Cite error: The named reference :2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]