After the Second World War, human rights law became entrenched in legal discourse as demonstrated by a proliferation of human rights treaties. While the right of asylum was recognized as a fundamental right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it has never been an absolute right but instead has been restricted in various ways -- most significantly, that asylum should not be conferred on criminals and that refugees with a criminal background could be removed from the country of refuge. Exclusion and Refoulement: Criminality in International and Domestic Refugee Lawexamines the legislative instruments at the international and domestic levels as well as the extensive jurisprudence emanating from these instruments, which has attempted to balance the right of asylum for an individual versus the state of refuge to restrict this right in situations of criminality.

Article 1F of the Refugee Convention excludes persons with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that they have committed a crime against peace, a war crime or a crime against humanity, a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to their admission to that country as a refugee, or acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. A 1F applicant loses any protection which would have been available under the Convention and, consequently, becomes ineligible for a residence permit under asylum. Though the exclusion of an asylum seeker basically leads to expulsion, this may be impossible to execute due to legal obstacles, such as the non-refoulement principle. According to this principle, no one should be returned to a country where he fears for his life or freedom. This book is the result of a study into Article 1F, including an in-depth focus on the post-exclusion phase from a national and European perspective. In this study, the author seeks solutions regarding the dilemmas surrounding the position of non-removable excluded asylum seekers. With its description of the applicable law as it stands, its theoretical framework and comparative elements, this research will be of value to legal practice. It will contribute to the continual debate regarding the possibilities and limits of developing a Common European Asylum System. [Subject: Human Rights Law, European Law]

Human Rights Series, 3 (Library of Human Rights, 3) After the Second World War human rights law became entrenched in legal discourse as witnessed by a proliferation of human rights treaties. While the right of asylum was recognized as an fundamental right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it has never been an absolute right but always restricted in various ways, the most important ones being that asylum should not be conferred on criminals and that refugees with a criminal background could be removed from the country of refuge. This book examines the extensive jurisprudence at the international and domestic level, which has attempted to balance the right of asylum for an individual versus the right of the state of refuge to restrict this right in situations of criminality. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 2: History Chapter 3: Exclusion Chapter 4: Refoulement Chapter 5: Alternatives to Refoulement Chapter 6: Conclusion Appendix: Geographical Listing of Court/Tribunal Decisions regarding Nefarious Organizations Jurisprudence Literature and Official Documents Index ABOUT THE AUTHOR Joseph Rikhof has received a BCL from the University of Nijmegen in The Netherlands; a LL.B degree from McGill University in Canada; a Diploma in Air and Space Law, also from McGill University and a PhD from the Irish Center for Human Rights. He teaches the course International Criminal Law at the University of Ottawa. He is Senior Counsel, Manager of the Law with the Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Section of the Department of Justice, Canada. He was a visiting professional with the International Criminal Court in 2005 while also serving as Special Counsel and Policy Advisor to the Modern War Crimes Section of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration between 1998 and 2002. His area of expertise lies with the law related to organized crime, terrorism, genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, especially in the context of immigration and refugee law. He has written over 30 articles as well his PhD thesis exploring these research interests and has lectured on the same topics in North and South America, Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Australia and New Zealand.

The last couple of years have witnessed an unprecedented battle within Europe between values and pragmatism, and between states' interests and individuals' rights. This book examines humanitarian considerations and immigration control from two perspectives; one broader and more philosophical, the other more practical. The impetus to show compassion for certain categories of persons with vulnerabilities can depend on religious, philosophical and political thought. Manifestation of this compassion can vary from the notion of a charitable act to aid 'the wretched' in their home country, to humanitarian assistance for the 'distant needy' in foreign lands and, finally, to immigration policies deciding who to admit or expel from the country. The domestic practice of humanitarian protection has increasingly drawn in transnational law through the expansion of the EU acquis on asylum, and the interpretation of the European Court of Human Rights.

How to assess and deal with the claims of millions of displaced people to find refuge and asylum in safe and prosperous countries is one of the most pressing issues of modern political philosophy. In this timely volume, fresh insights are offered into the political and moral implications of refugee crises and the treatment of asylum seekers. The contributions illustrate the widening of the debate over what is owed to refugees, and why it is assumed that national state actors and the international community owe special consideration and protection. Among the specific issues discussed are refugees' rights and duties, refugee selection, whether repatriation can be encouraged or required, and the ethics of sanctuary policies.