Advertisement

Territoriality and Asylum Law: The Use of Territorial Jurisdiction to Circumvent Legal Obligations and Human Rights Law Responses

  • Hemme BattjesEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Netherlands Yearbook of International Law book series (NYIL, volume 47)

Abstract

The framework for refugee protection established around 1950 seemed to be essentially territorial. In this chapter, the ways in which states redefined entry into territory and indeed territory itself in order to accommodate schemes for migration control and to limit refugee law obligations is explored, as well how states, drawing on the notion that refugee law applies within the territory, set up border controls away from their borders. Furthermore, the responses of human rights treaty monitoring bodies are analysed - both as regards the redefinitions of borders and territory, as well as regards extraterritorial acts. The picture is mixed: on the one hand human rights law did develop constraints on state actions, on the other hand the notion of territoriality limits alternative human rights law approaches to define state responsibility.

Keywords

Refugee Territory Human rights Jurisdiction Extraterritorial Non-refoulement 

References

  1. Alpes J, Battjes H, Tentere D, Ramdani L, Rodrigues K (2016) Illegal at Home: Return Risks and the Criminalisation of Emigration in Cameroon. ForthcomingGoogle Scholar
  2. Battjes H, Brouwer E, Slingenberg L, Spijkerboer T (2016) The Crisis of European Refugee Law. Lessons from Lake Success. Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam. http://christenjuristen.nl/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/H.-Battjes-E.-Brouwer-L.-Slingenberg-T.-Spijkerboer-The-Crisis-of-European-Refugee-Law.pdf. Accessed 16 January 2017
  3. Coleman N (2003) Non-Refoulement Revisited. Renewed Review of the Status of the Principle. European Journal of Migration and Law 5:23–68Google Scholar
  4. Den Heijer M (2011) Europe and Extraterritorial Asylum. Leiden University, Leiden (dissertation). https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/16699/000-Heijer-07-03-2011.pdf. Accessed 16 January 2017
  5. Feller E (1989) Carrier Sanctions and International Law. International Journal of Refugee Law 1:48–66Google Scholar
  6. Gammeltoft-Hansen T (2014) Extraterritorial Migration Control and the Reach of Human Rights. In: Chetail V, Bauloz C (eds) Research Handbook on International Law and Migration. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 113–131Google Scholar
  7. Goodwin-Gill G, McAdam J (2007) The Refugee in International Law. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Grahl-Madsen A (1963) Commentary of the Refugee Convention 1951 (Articles 2–11, 13-37), October 1997, Commentary to Article 33. www.unhcr.org/3d4ab5fb9.html. Accessed 16 January 2017
  9. Lauterpacht E, Bethlehem D (2003) The Scope and Content of the Principle of Non-Refoulement: Opinion. In: Feller E, Türk V, Nicholson F (eds) Refugee Protection in International Law: UNHCR’s Global Consultations on International Protection. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 89–177Google Scholar
  10. Legomsky S (2006) The USA and the Caribbean Interdiction Program. International Journal of Refugee Law 18:677–695Google Scholar
  11. McAdam J (2013) Australia and Asylum Seekers. International Journal of Refugee Law 25:(I)435–48Google Scholar
  12. McKeown A (2008) Melancholy Order: Asian Migration and the Globalization of Borders. Columbia Studies in International and Global History. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Milanovic M (2012) Al-Skeini and Al-Jedda in Strasbourg. European Journal of International Law 23:121–137Google Scholar
  14. Scholten S (2014) The Privatisation of Immigration Control Through Carrier Sanctions. Brill, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  15. Slingenberg L (2012) Between Sovereignty and Equality. The Reception of Asylum Seekers under International Law. Vrije Universiteit, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  16. Stronks MC (2017) Grasping Slippery Time. A Legal and Philosophical Analysis of the Notion of Time in European Migration Law. Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam (dissertation). ForthcomingGoogle Scholar
  17. Wood T, McAdam J (2012) Australian Asylum Policy All at Sea: Shifting Boats, Rights and Responsibility. International & Comparative Law Quarterly 61:274–300Google Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of LawVU AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations