To transfer or not to transfer : identifying and protecting relevant human rights interests in non-refoulement
Vijay M. Padmanabhan
Host item entries:
Fordham law review, Vol. 80, no. 1, October 2011, p. 73-123
Human rights law imposes upon States an absolute duty not to transfer an individual to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing he or she will be tortured or subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. In recent years the obligation to provide non-refoulement protection has run into conflict with the State’s obligation to protect its public from aliens suspected of involvement in terrorism. Expulsion is the traditional tool available to States to mitigate the threat posed by dangerous aliens. With this tool removed, States often lack an alternative route to mitigate this threat, with criminal prosecution and indefinite detention pending deportation not available for various reasons. The result has been numerous cases where States have been forced either to release dangerous aliens back into their State, consistent with international law, or to find alternative means to deal with the threat in the shadow of human rights law. This Article argues that human rights law should recognize the important clash of human rights duties that arises in these transfer situations: the State’s duty to protect aliens from post-transfer mistreatment clashes with its duty to protect members of the public from rights violations committed by dangerous private persons within society. Recognition of this rights competition is important for two reasons. First, for too long human rights scholars and bodies have dismissed the security consequences of non-refoulement as outside the concern of human rights. Second, once a rights competition is accepted, human rights law prescribes a methodology for mediating between conflicting rights: balancing. A balancing approach would allow States a margin of appreciation to determine in the first instance how to choose between competing duties. The role of human rights apparatus, including national courts, international institutions and non-governmental organizations is to monitor this balance and to push States where the balance chosen appears over or under rights protective.
By entering this website, you consent to the use of technologies, such as cookies and analytics, to customise content, advertising and provide social media features. This will be used to analyse traffic to the website, allowing us to understand visitor preferences and improving our services. Learn more