Abstract
In this paper a case study of EU legal regime and their practices to the refugees is undertaken to see whether these practices are compatible with international law in the spirit of the principle of non-refoulement.
This paper argues that: (i) the current practices of EU with regard to refugees are contributing to diminish the spirit of the principle as they seem to go against the general principles of protection of human rights, including the refugees; and (ii) the practices are less than satisfactory, even if strictly they are not against international law.
The principles of human rights ought to be given priority as the consequences otherwise could create an unsafe global society where the dignity and moral claims of refugees are subordinated to legalisms. This study takes two examples to establish this argument: (i) the EU practice of extra-territorial border control; and (ii) the engagement of a diametrically opposed move by the EU, where it purports to act as a single zone of protection. In this regard at first sources of international law and EU law are scrutinised and the EU and its Member states obligation under them is explored. This is followed by a discussion of the responses of EU, including the legislation related to Frontex’s joint operations to prevent refoulement.
The study concludes that the current practices of the EU have the effect of diminishing the spirit of this principle. Finally a few recommendations are suggested so that the EU practices are better aligned with international law.
This paper argues that: (i) the current practices of EU with regard to refugees are contributing to diminish the spirit of the principle as they seem to go against the general principles of protection of human rights, including the refugees; and (ii) the practices are less than satisfactory, even if strictly they are not against international law.
The principles of human rights ought to be given priority as the consequences otherwise could create an unsafe global society where the dignity and moral claims of refugees are subordinated to legalisms. This study takes two examples to establish this argument: (i) the EU practice of extra-territorial border control; and (ii) the engagement of a diametrically opposed move by the EU, where it purports to act as a single zone of protection. In this regard at first sources of international law and EU law are scrutinised and the EU and its Member states obligation under them is explored. This is followed by a discussion of the responses of EU, including the legislation related to Frontex’s joint operations to prevent refoulement.
The study concludes that the current practices of the EU have the effect of diminishing the spirit of this principle. Finally a few recommendations are suggested so that the EU practices are better aligned with international law.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Title of host publication | ANZSIL 25th Annual Conference |
| Subtitle of host publication | sustaining the international legal order in an era of rising nationalism |
| Publisher | The Australian National University |
| Pages | 15-16 |
| Number of pages | 2 |
| Publication status | Published - 2017 |
| Event | Australia and New Zealand Society of International Law (ANZSIL) Conference (25th : 2017) - Canberra, Australia Duration: 29 Jun 2017 → 1 Jul 2017 |
Conference
| Conference | Australia and New Zealand Society of International Law (ANZSIL) Conference (25th : 2017) |
|---|---|
| Country/Territory | Australia |
| City | Canberra |
| Period | 29/06/17 → 1/07/17 |