نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق بین‌الملل پردیس بین‌المللی کیش دانشگاه تهران، کیش، ایران
2 دانشیار حقوق بین‌الملل پردیس بین‌المللی کیش دانشگاه تهران، کیش، ایران
چکیده
جامعه بین‌المللی برای حمایت از پناهندگان، نظام حقوقی پناهندگی را بر اساس کنوانسیون 1951 و پروتکل 1967 ایجاد نموده است. برخی از اصول و قواعد مندرج در این اسناد چنان بنیادین هستند که هیچگونه اعمال شرطی را برنمی‌تابند. اصل ممنوعیت بازگردانی پناهنده به کشور متبوع او یا کشور ثالثی که بیم آن می‌رود در آنجا مورد آزار و شکنجه قرار گیرد، از این دسته اصول و قواعد است. هر چند دیوان اروپایی حقوق بشر اصولاً به وضعیت پناهندگان نمی‌پردازد و به مسأله نقض حقوق مندرج در کنوانسیون اروپایی حقوق بشر توجه دارد، در پرونده‌های متعددی برای احراز نقض یا رعایت موادی از این کنوانسیون ناچار از بررسی رعایت یا نقض اصل ممنوعیت بازگردانی توسط دولت خوانده گردیده و به این منظور به تبیین مفهوم و ماهیت این اصل و نحوه ارزیابی وضعیت فرد پناهنده در صورت تصمیم به بازگردانی او پرداخته است. فرضیه مقاله این است که رویه قضایی دیوان اروپایی حقوق بشر به‌طور غیرمستقیم مؤید شرط‌ناپذیری اصل ممنوعیت بازگردانی است که در این مقاله صحت و سقم آن بررسی می‌شود.
کلیدواژه‌ها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
Prohibition of Reservation to the Principle of Non-Refoulement of Refugees in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights
نویسندگان [English]
- Mohammad Reza Mogadasifar 1
- Farideh Shaygan 2
1 Ph.D Student, International Law, University of Tehran, Kish International Campus, Kish, Iran
2 Associate Professor, International Law, University of Tehran, Kish International Campus, Kish, Iran
چکیده [English]
Introduction
Asylum-seeking has emerged as a critical social issue at the international level in recent decades. Every year, millions of refugees leave their home countries or places of residence, seeking refuge in other countries to escape economic, military, political, and social crises. Refugees embark on the arduous asylum process due to the fear of torture and persecution in their home country or place of residence, in pursuit of a life that aligns with the minimum standards of human rights. While some successfully obtain refugee status from the host country, some face deportation or repatriation after going through the legal process. In some cases, they may even be returned to a third country, where persecution awaits based on justified evidence. Returning them to their former country is certainly the worst-case scenario for asylum seekers or refugees. The international community has established a legal framework for refugee protection through the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol. Certain rules and principles outlined in these documents are so fundamental that no reservations can be made to them. A notable example is the principle of non-refoulement which prevents the return of refugees to their home country or a third state where persecution is feared.
The present study tried to answer the following question: What prevents the return or deportation of a refugee to their home country or a third state? While the treaties do not explicitly answer this question, the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights provides valuable insights into the meaning and legal nature of this principle, as well as methods for assessing the status of a refugee when deciding on repatriation. Although the European Court of Human Rights lacks the authority to review and apply the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, member states of the Council of Europe are obligated to ensure the respect of rights outlined in the European Convention on Human Rights for all individuals within their jurisdiction, including refugees and asylum seekers. At the intersection of the European Convention on Human Rights and the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, the European Court of Human Rights examines general conditions in the state concerned and the individual applicant’s situation to determine factors preventing repatriation or expulsion. To this end, the Court has set specific limits on the right of states to expel refugees and asylum seekers from their borders. The Court indirectly supports the principle of non-refoulement, aiming to ensure respect and prevent violations of relevant articles of the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly Article (3) which prohibits torture. This implies that the reservation cannot be applied to the principle of non-refoulement, which extends beyond the scope of the 1951 Convention.
Literature Review
While there are many articles addressing refugee protection and the non-refoulement principle under the European Convention on Human Rights, they have not explicitly delved into the prohibition of reservation to the non-refoulement principle. Therefore, the current study can be regarded as innovative in both its subject matter and content.
Materials and Methods
Adopting a descriptive–analytical method, the present research examined national and international legal literature, the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, and pertinent international treaties.
Conclusion
The European Court of Human Rights, functioning as a monitoring mechanism for the European Convention on Human Rights, has encountered numerous cases involving asylum seekers seeking refugee status. Its jurisprudence has significantly contributed to the development and evolution of laws pertaining to refugee protection. By establishing a connection between the European Convention on Human Rights and the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, the Court has effectively offered indirect support to refugees, safeguarding them against deportation, extradition, and repatriation. Its jurisprudence firmly prohibits the application of reservations to the non-refoulement principle.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
- Refugee
- Refugee Law
- Reservation
- Non-refoulement
- European Court of Human Rights
مقاله‌ها
- امیر مقامی و پردیس صابری، «استحقاق پناهندگی؛ رویارویی حقوق بشر و حاکمیت دولت»، فصلنامه علمی- ترویجی مطالعات بین‌المللی پلیس، دوره دهم، شماره 37، (1398).
- پولاکیه ویکس، یورگ، «سازوکار اجرای احکام دیوان اروپایی حقوق بشر»، ترجمه مازیار پیهانی، مجله پژوهش‌های حقوقی شهر دانش، شماره 8، (1384).
- تقوی، سید محمد علی، «رژیم حقوق بشر در اتحادیه اروپایی؛ عدم شمولیت و یکپارچگی»، پژوهشنامه ایرانی سیاست بین‌الملل، سال دوم، شماره 1، (1392).
- خالوزاده، سعید، «سیاست اتحادیه اروپا در قبال مهاجرت»، پژوهشنامه سیاست، شماره 25، (1389).
- رضی، محمد رضا، «عملکرد کشورهای عضو اتحادیه اروپا در قبال پناهجویان»، ماهنامه پژوهش ملل دوره اول، شماره 1، (١٣٩۴).
- زنگنه شهرکی، جعفر و مجتبی افشار، «پناهندگی در حقوق بین‌الملل و اسلام با تأکید بر پناهندگی در حرم مکی»، پژوهشنامه حج و زیارت سال پنجم، شماره 2، پیاپی10، (1399).
- سرفراز، فرشید، «پناهندگی: مفهوم، دگرگونی‌های تاریخی و جایگاه آن در نظام بین‌الملل کنونی»، شماره 296، (1393).
- شهبازی، آرامش و نیلوفر مقدمی خمامی، «حمایت از حق انسجام و همبستگی مجدد خانواده در چارچوب حقوق بین‌الملل پناهندگی: تأملی در رویه و نظریه»، پژوهش‌های حقوق تطبیقی دوره 23، شماره 3، (1398).
- قدیر، محسن و حسین کاظمی فروشانی، «بررسی پدیده پناهندگی از منظر اسلام و حقوق بین‌الملل»، فصلنامه پژوهش تطبیقی اسلام و غرب، سال پنجم، شماره 1، (1397).
- مرادی حقیقی، سعید، «بررسی اسناد حاوی استثناء بر حقوق پناهندگان در حقوق بین‌الملل»، فصلنامه دانش انتظامی سمنان، دوره هفتم، شماره 25، (1396).
- موسی زاده، رضا و احمدرضا آذرپندار، «سیر تحول تبیین مفاهیم پناهنده و پناهجو»، فصلنامه سیاست خارجی، سال 32، شماره 1، (1397).
- وزیر، مجدی و علیرضا حمیسی، «اصول مشروعیت پناهندگی و و موارد مشابه آن در حقوق موضوعه»، فصلنامه حقوق، مجله دانشکده حقوق وعلوم سیاسی، دوره 38، شماره 2، (1387).
References
Articles
- Alexia, Schimmel Constanze, “Returning Terrorist Suspects against Diplomatic Assurances: Effective Safeguard or Undermining the Absolute Ban on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment?”, (2007), Available at: https:// www. nottingham. ac. Uk /hrlc/ documents/ publications/ hrlcommentary 2007/ returningterroristsuspects. pdf.
- Alleweld, Ralf, “Protection Against Expulsion Under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights”, EJIL, No. 4, )1993).
- Bennett, Claire, “Relocation, Relocation. The Impact of Internal Relocation on Women Asylum Seekers”, Consonant Publisher (Formerly Asylum Aid), November 2008, available at: https:// www. refworld. org/docid/4933cab72.
- Blöndal, Erna Kristín & Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir, “Non-Refoulement in Strasbourg: Making Sense of the Assessment of Individual Circumstances”, Oslo Law Review, 5, No. 3, )2018(.
- Fullerton, Maryellen, “Refugees and the Primacy of European Human Rights Law”, UCLA J. Int'l L. Foreign Aff, Vol. 21, (2017).
- Gillard, Emanuela-Chiara, “There’s no Place Like Home: States Obligations in Relation to Transfers of Persons”, International Review of Red Cross, Vol. 90, No. 871, )2008(.
- Hathaway, James C, “Refugee Rights Are Not Negotiable”, A. K. Cusick, Co-author. Geo. Immigr. L. J. 14, No. 2, (2000).
- Ristik, Jelena, “The Right to Asylum and the Principle of Non- Refoulement Under the European Convention on Human Rights”, European Scientific Journal October, Vol. 13, No. 28,) 2017(.
- Larsaeus, Nina, “The Use of Diplomatic Assurances in the Prevention of Prohibited Treatment”, RSC Working Paper No. 32 Working Paper Series University of Oxford Queen Elizabeth House Department of International Development University of Oxford, )2006).
- Maple, Nicholas, New Issues In Refugee Research, Research Paper No. 281, Rights at Risk: A thematic Investigation into How States Restrict the Freedom of Movement of Refugees on the African Continent, )2016(.
- Orchard, Cynthia & Andrew Miller, “Protection in Europe for Refugees from Syria”, Oxford Department of International Development, )2014(.
- Röhl, Katharina, Fleeing Violence & Poverty: Non-refoulement Obligations under the European Convention of Human Rights, New Issues In Refugee Research, Working Paper, No. 111, )2005(.
- Zamfir, Ionel, “Refugee Policies in Africa: Open borders But Limited Integration, European Parliamentary Research Service”, PE 608. 698, Briefing, (2017(.
Cases
- Iskandarov V. Russia, app. no. 17185/05, ECHR, Judgment of 23 September 2010.
- Chahal V. the United Kingdom, app. no. 22414/93, ECHR, Judgment of 15 November 1996.
- Vilvarajah and Others V. the United Kingdom, app. no. 13163/87, ECHR, Judgment of 30 October 1991.
- Sufi and Elmi V. United Kingdom, Applications nos. 8319/07 and 11449/07, ECHR, Judgment of 28 June 2011.
- NA. V. The United Kingdom, Appl. No. 25904/07, ECtHR, Judgment of 17 July 2008.
- M.S.S. V. Belgium and Greece, Application no. 30696/09, ECtHR, Judgment of 21 January 2011.
- D. V. United Kingdom, 146/1996/767/964, ECtHR, Judgment of 2 May 1997.
- Hirsi Jamaa and Others V. Italy, App no 27765/09, ECHR, Judgment of 23 February 2012.
- ECtHR, N. V. United Kingdom, App. No. 26565/05, Judgment of 27 May 2008.
- Ismoilov and Others v. Russia, App. No. 2947/06, ECtHR, Judgment of 24 April 2008.
- Ahorugeze V. Sweden, App. 37075/09, ECtHR, Judgment of 27 October 2011.
- Mamatkulov and Askarov V. Turkey, App. Nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, ECtHR, Judgment of 4 February 2005.
- Öcalan V. Turkey, Application no. 46221/99, ECtHR, Judgment of 12 March 2003.
- Bader and others V. Sweden, Application no. 13284/04, ECtHR, Judgment of 8 November 2005.
Treaties
- European Convention on Human Rights, 1950.
- Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969.
- Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, 1951.
- Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, 1967.
Other Resources
- International Organization for Migration, International Migration Law Information Note, )2014(.
- Freedom from Torture, Sri Lankan Tamils Tortured on Return from the UK, Briefing, )2012(.
- The European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) , Research on ECHR Rule 39 Interim Measures, (2012).
- Report of the Committee Against Torture, 49th Session, from 29 October to 23 November 2012, UN Doc. A/68/44.
)