Talk:Non-refoulement

Wikitrad Project

This article is being translated into Spanish by the Wikitrad Project.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rusty shackleford. Peer reviewers: AVM SIB.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

need for article?

I removed the candidate for Wiktionary status, because this entry, if it were fully developed, would include the historical as well as legal background and justifications for the concept. Unfortunately, I have neither the time tonight, nor the legal expertise, to write this myself (I actually just stumbled on, and linked something to, the entry, on the very day it was marked for deletion/transfer). If anyone else wants to tackle this, by all means go ahead. Bruxism 02:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I added the link to the convention, but much more needs to be done. I will return to it after more thought.Joel Mc 16:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Link appropriateness

This link: http://www.redress.org/publications/Non-refoulementUnderThreat.pdf Non-Refoulement under Threat Proceedings of a Seminar held jointly by the Redress Trust (REDRESS) and the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association (ILPA), (2006)

Seems to have been added by Redress.org's Director. This is against our guidelines since there is a clear concern about conflict of interest. And with Redress having a specific mission issues of neutrality should also be considered as well as whether it is on point enough for the article. So I've moved it here so that uninvolved editors can discuss its appropriateness for our external links section. -- SiobhanHansa 19:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Title

I find it strange that this wiki should redirect refoulement to non-refoulement. At the very least a definition should be given at the beginning as to what refoulement is, and from which people can infer what is non-refoulement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.96.34.253 (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Non-refoulement a jus cogens

It is debated whether non-refoulement is a peremptory norm. This is due to issues regarding whether the expulsion of terrorists is OK even though they may face torture. See the 1997 UN General Assembly Resolution on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism which uses the language of the Refugee Convention's 1(f)(c) exception where it talks of acts of terrorism being contrary to the principles and standards of the United Nations. Rubensni (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added a citation that I think covers the general peremptory norm nature. If you want to add information about specific matter-of-opinion exceptions then I suggest you add additional language to the paragraph. Dan (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Speciality

There should be a section declaring article 33 of the treaty. When an asylum seeker is a threat for the security of a country, then the non-refoulement is not binding, meaning a criminal asylum seeker can be deported in his home country even though he is in danger there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.217.15.173 (talk) 13:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

revisiting need for article

looks to me like this could be incorporated into some other article? there are zero references on this page.... Soosim (talk) 06:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Case of Hirsi Jamaa and others v. Italy

The great chamber of the European Court of Human Rights judgement in february 2012 is missing in the article.

• Judgement
• Marie Benedict Debour: Interception-at-sea: Illegal as currently practiced – Hirsi and Others v. Italy

--5glogger (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)