Protecting recognized Geneva Convention refugees outside their states of asylum

This article highlights the predicament of persons recognized as refugees according to the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (CSR1951 refugees) when they travel outside their state of asylum. Their status entails ipso facto that, if they are ill-treated abroad, they cannot turn to representatives of their state of nationality and request its diplomatic protection, nor can they expect to receive its consular assistance. It is submitted that a state of asylum ought to extend the scope of protection that it offers CSR1951 refugees residing in its territory, and provide them diplomatic protection and consular assistance when they travel abroad as if they were its nationals. Four claims are advanced in support of this contention: First: the advent of human rights treaties has not rendered obsolete the protection of nationals abroad nor has the practice fallen into disuse. On the contrary, protection abroad retains its pedigree and significance, as is illustrated by the recently adopted International Law Commission's Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection and by frequent resort to consular assistance. Second: while states previously enjoyed unfettered discretion concerning whether and when to protect their nationals abroad, recent developments in domestic jurisdictions as well as in European Union (EU) treaties point to the potential emergence of a qualified duty to exercise state protection or to be willing to provide justifications for its refusal. These developments call particular attention to the vulnerability of CSR1951 refugees: the professed aim of the EU treaty regime is that EU citizens should enjoy effective state protection wherever they travel; by contrast, CSR1951 refugees are in need of state protection wherever they travel. Third: according to CSR1951, states of asylum are required to issue Convention Travel Documents (CTDs) to recognized refugees lawfully staying in their territory. While CTDs do not in of themselves authorize states of asylum to provide protection abroad to their CSR1951 refugees, they reflect partial recognition of the instrumental role of these states in facilitating safe refugee travel. Fourth: while the 'nationality of claims' requirement remains pivotal to the institution of diplomatic protection, and efforts to effectuate its general relaxation have thus far failed, the International Law Commission (ILC) has 'carved out' an exception authorizing states of asylum to provide protection abroad to their recognized refugees. The ILC's protection-enhancing agenda, reflecting progressive development of the law, is laudable, even though it has opted for a rather cautious approach.

La conferencia internacional de Ginebra.

Report presented to: Chile. Ministerio de relaciones exteriores.

International wireless telegraph : [hearings, Sixtieth Congress, first session.] An international wireless telegraph convention, with service regulations annexed thereto, a supplementary agreement, and a final protocol, all signed at Berlin on November 3, 1906, by delegates of the United States and those of several other powers, and hearings thereon before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, ...

Mode of access: Internet.

From The Hague to Geneva: The protection of civilians and refugees in the perspective of legal history, 1899-1951

The presentation proposed here shall focus on international (and as far as possible some cases of national) legal protection of civilians and refugees between the first Hague Convention of 1899 and the Geneva Convention for the Protection of Refugees in 1951. An analysis of international legal texts as well as, if possible, some exemplary national constitutions will form the core of the presentation, which will try to find out, to what extent not only the civilian population remaining close to front-line fighting, but also under occupation was supposed to be protected by legal norms, but also to what extent the issue of forcing civilian to leave their homes became part of the international legal discourse as well as of international legal norms.

Πολιτικες ασύλου της ΕΕ- A critical review of the European policies of asylum: The re-positioning of asylum seekers from refugees/victims in need of protection to criminals (illegal immigrants)

This publication traces how asylum seekers are repositioned in the existing European asylum legislation from asylum seekers as victims in need of protection, to criminals . It is argued that this is due to the European legislation concerning the area of freedom, security and justice. The latest asylum legislation seems to undermine the refugee status which -as it is widely known- is safeguarded by the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its relevant 1967 Protocol. Additionally, in this paper the role of social workers and other social scientists to protect the rights of asylum seekers and question the existing legislation is presented.

Le contrôle du Conseil de sécurité en matière d'occupation impliquant ses membres permanents

Le Conseil de sécurité est l’organe principal du système onusien chargé du maintien de la paix et de la sécurité internationales. Face à une situation illégale, il ne peut donc l’ignorer et s’en désintéresser. Cependant, la perpétration d’un acte à la légalité controversée par l’un ou plusieurs de ses membres permanents peut nous laisser entendre que l’organe politique onusien aura des difficultés à remplir son rôle. Les membres permanents vont tenter d’instrumentaliser le Conseil de sécurité afin de diminuer l’illégalité de la situation. Ceci pose avec acuité le problème du contrôle de son activité en matière de maintien de la paix. L’accomplissement d’un acte illégal par un ou plusieurs membres permanents du Conseil de sécurité nécessite alors de réfléchir à des moyens d’ordre juridique pour limiter son pouvoir. Cette réflexion s’avère particulièrement pressante lorsque le Conseil est confronté à une occupation de guerre impliquant ses membres permanents ou, lorsqu’il crée ou autorise des opérations de paix de grandes envergures suite à un conflit armé impliquant ses membres permanents. Afin de limiter les prérogatives du Conseil de sécurité, le régime juridique de l’occupation tel qu’énoncé par le Règlement de La Haye (IV) de 1907 et la IVe Convention de Genève de 1949 devrait être appliquer par l’organe politique onusien lorsqu’il intervient dans une situation d’occupation de guerre impliquant ses membres permanents. L’objectif est d’éviter qu’il n’attribue aux puissances occupantes des missions qui dépassent le cadre juridique imposé par le droit des conflits armés. L’autorisation, par le Conseil de sécurité d’opérations de paix, telles qu’une administration civile transitoire ou une force multinationale avec un mandat de la paix avec recours à la force armée, suite à un conflit armé impliquant ses propres membres permanents, ouvre le débat sur leur réglementation. Alors, il sera proposé une interprétation progressiste de la définition de l’occupation telle qu’énoncée par le Règlement de La Haye (IV) de 1907 et la IVe Convention de Genève de 1949 afin d’y intégrer ces nouvelles formes d’occupations pacifiques, présentant de grandes similitudes avec les occupations de guerre. Ainsi, le régime juridique de l’occupation pourra leur être appliqué.

Réfugiés climatiques : statut et traitement

L’état actuel des travaux ne rend pas compte de l’ampleur des questions philosophiques et des enjeux moraux suscités par l’apparition sur la scène internationale des réfugiés climatiques. Il est pourtant urgent de leur accorder une protection à travers des accords internationaux. Les philosophes qui se sont penchés sur le sujet ont été induits en erreur tant par la multiplicité des termes employés que leur absence de définitions. Ce travail critique la tendance actuelle des militants écologistes à vouloir englober des populations aux problèmes divers sous le terme de réfugié. Banaliser l’emploi du terme de réfugié n’est pas seulement fallacieux mais également dangereux. A terme, les militants se tourneront vers la Convention de Genève pour revendiquer que les populations déplacées soient considérées comme des réfugiés. Or la Convention de Genève n’est pas un outil adéquat pour remédier au sort de ces populations. De plus, on ne peut élargir le statut de réfugié pour inclure ces populations sans risquer de perdre sa crédibilité et son efficience. Suivre la pente qu’emprunte les militants nous mènerait à accorder le même traitement aux réfugiés climatiques et aux réfugiés politiques, ce qui est une erreur. Notre hypothèse est que les habitants des petits pays insulaires à l’inverse des autres populations ont besoin d’un élargissement de la Convention de Genève. Nous arguerons que nous avons des devoirs et des responsabilités envers eux que nous n’avons pas envers les réfugiés politiques. Pour défendre ce point de vue, il faut définir clairement ce qu’est un réfugié climatique et justifier cette appellation. Nous devrons donc confronter la notion de réfugié climatique à d’autres notions concurrentes. Une fois les termes définis, nous envisagerons les enjeux éthiques à travers le prisme des questions de justice globale. Nous verrons que pour déterminer qui devrait remédier au sort des réfugiés climatique, il ne suffit pas de se référer à la responsabilité causale. Cela nous mènera à arguer que bien que séduisant, le principe pollueur-payeur n’est pas un outil adéquat pour guider la réflexion. Nous serons également amenés à nous interroger sur la pertinence d’une institution environnementale globale.

Non-Refoulement between 'Common Article 1' and 'Common Article 3'

This article considers whether, in the context of armed conflicts, certain non-refoulement obligations of non-belligerent States can be derived from the 1949 Geneva Conventions. According to Common Article 1 (CA1) thereof, all High Contracting Parties (HCPs) undertake to ‘respect and to ensure respect’ for the four conventions ‘in all circumstances’. It is contended that CA1 applies both in international armed conflicts (IACs) and in non-international armed conflicts (NIACs). In turn, it is suggested that Common Article 3 (CA3) which regulates conduct in NIACs serves as a ‘minimum yardstick’ also applicable in IACs. It is widely (though not uniformly) acknowledged that the undertaking to ‘ensure respect’ in a given armed conflict extends to HCPs that are not parties to it; nevertheless, the precise scope of this undertaking is subject to scholarly debate. This article concerns situations where, in the course of an (international or non-international) armed conflict, persons ’taking no active part in hostilities’ flee from States where violations of CA3 are (likely to be) occurring to a non-belligerent State. Based on the undertaking in CA1, the central claim of this article is that, as long as risk of exposure to these violations persists, persons should not be refouled notwithstanding possible assessment of whether they qualify as refugees based on the 1951 Refugee Convention definition, or could be eligible for complementary or subsidiary forms of protection that are regulated in regional arrangements. The analysis does not affect the explicit protection from refoulement that the Fourth Geneva Convention accords to ‘protected persons’ (as defined in Article 4 thereof). It is submitted that CA1 should be read in tandem with other obligations of non-belligerent States under the 1949 Geneva Conventions. Most pertinently, all HCPs are required to take specific measures to repress ‘grave breaches’ and to take measures necessary for the suppression of all acts contrary to the 1949 Geneva Conventions other than the grave breaches. A HCP that is capable of protecting displaced persons from exposure to risks of violations of CA3 and nonetheless refoules them to face such risks is arguably failing to take lawful measures at its disposal in order to suppress acts contrary to the conventions and, consequently, fails to ‘ensure respect’ for the conventions. KEYWORDS Non-refoulement; International Armed Conflict; Non-International Armed Conflict; Common Article 1; Common Article 3

Voting rights of refugees

The book develops a novel legal argument about the voting rights of recognised 1951 Geneva Convention Refugees. The main normative contention is that such refugees should have the right to vote in the political community where they reside, assuming that the political community is a democracy and that its citizens have the right to vote. The basis of this contention is that the right to political participation in some political community is a basic right from the point of view of dignity and the protection of one’s interests. Due to their unique political predicament, 1951 Geneva Convention Refugees are a special category of non-citizen residents. They are unable to participate in elections of their state of origin, do not enjoy its diplomatic protection and consular assistance abroad, and – most fundamentally – are unable or unwilling, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, to return to it; thus, they are in limbo for a potentially protracted period. Refugees, too, deserve to have a place in the world in the Arendtian sense, where their opinions are significant and their actions are effective. Their state of asylum is, for the time being, the only community in which there is any realistic prospect of political participation on their part.

Das deutsche Kriegsgefangenenwesen 1939 - 1945

Zusammenfassung: Die vorliegende Untersuchung zum deutschen Kriegsgefangenenwesen (KGW) im Zweiten Weltkrieg schließt eine wichtige Lücke innerhalb der geschichtswissenschaftlichen Forschungen zum Themenkreis der Kriegsgefangenschaft in deutschem Gewahrsam. Bisherige Studien (bis einschließlich 1997) behandeln vor allem sozial- und kulturgeschichtliche Aspekte der Kriegsgefangenen (Kgf.), der Lagergesellschaft und dem Alltag von Soldaten in Kriegsgefangenschaft. Der Verfasser indes legt mit seiner Magisterarbeit erstmals eine Organisations- und Strukturgeschichte des deutschen Kriegsgefangenenwesens von 1939 bis 1945 vor, welche fundamentale Grundlagen der deutschen militärischen Lagerorganisation und Verwaltung dokumentiert. So wird die Entwicklung von den Vorkriegsplanungen bis zum Kriegsende anhand der zentralen Dienststellen herausgearbeitet und im Kontext des Genfer Kriegsgefangenenabkommens von 1929 und völkerrechtlicher Implikationen gewichtet. Hiermit untrennbar verbundene Einflußnahmen nichtmilitärischer Stellen in die Entscheidungsgewalt der Streitkräfte im Heimatkriegsgebiet und in den Wehrmachtbefehlshaberbereichen werden nicht zuletzt auch anhand mehrerer Organigramme veranschaulicht. Zudem dokumentiert und analysiert die Untersuchung die im Kriegsverlauf stetig verschärften Maßnahmen zur Fluchtprävention und der konzertierten Fahndung nach geflohenen Kriegsgefangenen: Die Machterosion des Oberkommandos der Wehrmacht (OKW) zugunsten des Reichsführers-SS, des Reichssicherheitshauptamts und nicht zuletzt der Parteikanzlei der NSDAP wird so augenfällig. Trotz eminenter Schriftgutverluste kann der Verfasser vor allem anhand einer nahezu vollständig erhaltenen Schlüsselquelle die Stellenbesetzung und Organisationsstruktur der mit Kriegsgefangenenfragen befassten Stellen im OKW rekonstruieren. Die Auswertung dieser Sammelmitteilungen / Befehlssammlung für das Kriegsgefangenenwesen sowie an anderer Stelle überlieferter Organisationsbefehle ermöglicht wichtige Änderungen am derzeitigen Forschungsstand. Darüber hinaus beschäftigt sich die vorliegende Untersuchung mit dem Arbeitseinsatz Kriegsgefangener in der deutschen Wirtschaft als in der zweiten Kriegshälfte zentralem Element der Kriegsgefangenschaft. Außerdem wird beleuchtet, welche politischen, (rassen)ideologischen oder reziprok konnotierten Faktoren den Stellenwert gefangener Soldaten unterschiedlicher Nationalität innerhalb der Gefangenenhierarchie im deutschen Kriegsgefangenenwesen bestimmten. Inhalt: 1. Einführung; 2. Die Entwicklung des Kriegsvölkerrechts und das Genfer Kriegsgefangenenabkommen von 1929; 3. Einleitende Bemerkungen zum deutschen Kriegsgefangenenwesen: Quellenlage, Grundlagen; 4. Organisationsstruktur und Aufgaben des KGW: Zuständigkeiten für Kgf. in OKW und OKH, Abt. Wehrmachtverluste und Kriegsgefangene, der General z.b.V. für das KGW 1939 bis Ende 1941, Allgemeine und Organisationsabteilung seit Januar 1942, Generalinspekteur und Inspekteur des KGW von Juli 1943 bis Oktober 1944, das Kriegsgefangenenwesen unter Himmler seit Oktober 1944; 5. Die Kriegsgefangenenlager: Lagertypen, Anzahl und Verwendung, die Gesamtzahl Kgf. und Belegstärken ausgewählter Lager; 6. Richtlinien für KGL: Die Sammelmitteilungen / Befehlssammlung für das KGW, Lagerorganisation und Behandlung Kriegsgefangener; 7. Die Post der Kriegsgefangenen: Tätigkeit von Auslandsbriefprüfstelle, Abwehr III Referat Kgf. und Abwehrstellen der Wehrkreise, Vorgaben für Postüberwachung und Stimmungsberichte der Asten, Befehle zur Kgf-Post und Kooperation mit Hilfsorganisationen und Schutzmächten; 8. Fluchtprävention: Bestimmungen und Maßnahmen zur Fluchtvereitelung, der Fluchterlass vom 22.09.1942, der Sonderfahndungsplan der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD vom 28.09.1942, Erlass zur Kriegsfahndung vom 5.12.1942, der Fluchterlaß vom 02.07.1943, der Erlaß zur Mitarbeit NSDAP bei Groß- und Kriegsfahndungen vom 10.07.1943, Schulung zur Fluchtprävention auf Wehrkreisebene 1944, Preisausschreiben "Wie verhindere ich Fluchten?" vom 09.04.1945, Anwerbung von V-Leuten durch die Abwehr; 9. Arbeitseinsatz Kriegsgefangener in der deutschen Wirtschaft und beteiligte Stellen; 10. Der Status Kriegsgefangener unterschiedlicher Nationalitäten im Vergleich; 11. Schluss

Does Israel Follow the Law? A Critical Analysis of Israel's Application of the International Law of Belligerent Occupation in the Occupied Territories

Israel's occupation of territories it captured in 1967 has become one of the longest and most controversial occupations of the last fifty years. Eschewing the traditional political analysis of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this paper aims to explore whether Israel has adequately applied international law in the occupied territories, in particular, the law of belligerent occupation. The two actors under assessment are the Israeli government, particularly its military which enforces and maintains the law in the territories, and the Supreme Court of Israel, which has the power of review over military actions in the territories. The particular issues of the occupation that are critically analyzed are the general legal framework that Israel established in the territories, Israel's civilian settlement policy in territories, and Israel's construction of a barrier in the West Bank. This paper concludes that Israel has incorrectly applied the legal framework of belligerent occupation by refusing to apply the Fourth Geneva Convention; it has wrongly concluded that the establishment of civilian settlements in the territories conform with international law; yet it has rightly concluded that the construction of the barrier in the West Bank is permissible under international law, in contrast to the conclusion of the much publicized International Court of Justice's Advisory Opinion on the 'Wall.' Along with these general assessments, the author will also provide some historical and political insight into why the Israeli government and the Supreme Court may have applied the law in the way that they did.