Source: http://humanrights.mofidu.ac.ir/article_34689.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 04:07:43+00:00

Document:
The right to freedom of religion or belief has been well-established in human rights instruments since the inception of the modern era of international law. However, while inner freedom of belief has been uncontested, the ability to manifest those beliefs publicly has been made subject to limitations for certain purposes which include public safety and order, health, morality and the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. The degree to which such restrictions on religious practice may be permissible under the rubric of international human rights law has been and continues to be under debate. International refugee law has played an important role in safeguarding religious freedom, as persecution for reasons of religion is one of the five grounds enumerated in the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. To what degree are restrictions on religious practice permissible and at what point do such restrictions rise to the level of persecution meriting international protection? An examination of the refugee jurisprudence of States adjudicating religion-based claims will help illustrate the nebulous boundaries of the definition of persecution in the context of religious practice and identify some of the factors and trends which influence refugee decision-making.
Part I will provide an overview of international refugee law as it relates to religion and describe the Westphalian context under which it was constructed. The modern era of international law was strongly influenced by wars of religion and the principle of cuius regio, eius religio – whose the rule, his the religion – which emphasized respect for national sovereignty and non-interference in religious affairs of the state as essential to international stability. International refugee law, developed largely in response to World War II and the Holocaust, attempts to balance respect for national sovereignty with humanitarian protection concerns by only applying to persons outside their country of origin. Part II will discuss refugee jurisprudence interpreting the point at which religious restrictions constitute a well-founded fear of persecution and highlight issues which form the boundaries of persecution. How does refugee law distinguish discrimination, which does not merit international protection, from persecution? Should refugees be able to avoid the prisoners’ dilemma of either renouncing their identity or beliefs or face persecution and should the imposition of a moral view constitute serious or grave harm? What deference should be given to religious States who advocate a certain religion as an affair of the State, whether through Shari’a or other religious laws? Can persecution be caused by non-State actors or religious extremists and is non-State sectarian violence a matter for refugee law? Part III will reflect on the inextricable links between religion and politics, economics and culture in light of the fact that religion demands practice by adherents and dictates standards of social conduct. It will discuss the relationship between States and religion and consider whether and how international refugee law promotes religious toleration and pluralism.
Adams, IV Nathan A. (2000). “A Human Rights Imperative: Extending Religious Liberty Beyond the Border”, Cornell Int'l L.J., Vol. 33, No. 1, 2.
Ahmad and Others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department  Imm AR 61 (CA).
Aleinikoff, T. Alexander (1991). “The Meaning of Persecution in U.S. Asylum Law”, IJRL, Vol. 3, No. 5.
Anker, Deborah (2002). “Refugee Law, Gender and the Human Rights Paradigm”, Harv. Hum. Rts. J., Vol. 15, p.133.
Arnaout, Ghassan Maarouf (1987). Asylum in the Arab-Islamic Tradition, Geneva: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
Barnett, Laura (2002). “Global Governance and the Evolution of the International Refugee Regime”, IJRL, Vol. 14, p.238.
David Kennedy (1986). “International Refugee Protection”, Hum. Rts. Q., Vol. 8, No. 1.
Davis, Derek H. (2002). “The Evolution of Religious Freedom as a Universal Human Right: Examining the Role of the 1981 United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief”, B.Y.U.L. Rev. pp. 217, 220.
Goodwin-Gill, Guy S. (1996). The Refugee in International Law, Clarendon Press: Oxford.
Grahl-Madsen, Atle (1972). The Status of Refugees in International Law, Leiden: A.W. Sijhoff.
Hathaway, James C. (1991). The Law of Refugee Status, Toronto: Butterworth.
McDougal, M.S. et al. (1980). “Human Rights and World Public Order: The Basic Policies of an International Law of Human Dignity”, p. 63, in: Nathan A. Adams, IV (2000). “A Human Rights Imperative: Extending Religious Liberty Beyond the Border”, Cornell Int'l L.J., Vol. 33, No. 1, 2.
Moore, Jennifer(2001). “Whither the Accountability Theory: Second Class Status for Third-Party Refugees as a Threat to International Refugee Protection”, IJRL, Vol. 13, pp. 32.
Moore, Jennifer (2001). “Whither the Accountability Theory: Second Class Status for Third-Party Refugees as a Threat to International Refugee Protection”, IJRL, Vol. 13, p.32.
Musalo, Karen (2002). Claims for Protection Based on Religion or Belief: Analysis and Proposed Conclusions, PPLA/2002/01, Geneva: UNHCR.
Nowak, Manfred (1993). U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: CCPR Commentary, U.S.A: N.P. Engel.
T Lee, Luke (1996). “Internally Displaced Persons and Refugees: Towards a Legal Synthesis”, Journal of Refugee Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 27-30.
Tuan N. Samahon (2000). “The Religion Clauses and Political Asylum: Religious Persecution Claims and the Religious Membership-Conversion Imposter Problem”, Geo. L.J., Vol. 88, No. 7, pp. 2211, 2212.
Turk, Volker and Nicholson, Frances (2005). “Refugee protection in international law: an overall perspective”, in: Refugee Protection in International Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bandari v. I.N.S., 227 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2000).
Bastanipour v. I.N.S., 980 F.2d 1129 (7th Cir. 1992).
Bucur v. INS, 109 F.3d 399, at 405 (7th Cir. 1997).
Chabira v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration)  27 Imm. L.R. (2d) 75.
Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief (1981).
Fisher I: Fisher v. I.N.S. 37 F.3d 1371 (9th Cir. 1994); Fisher II: Fisher v. I.N.S. 79 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 1996).
Gender-Related Persecution within the context of Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention and/or its 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, HCR/GIP/02/01 (7 May 2002).
Guidelines on International Protection: Religion-Based Refugee Claims under Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention and/or the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, HCR/GIP/04/06 (28 April 2004).
Haimov v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration 2001 FCT 665 (2001).
Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees: UN doc. HCR/IP/4/Eng/REV.1, Re-edited, Geneva, Jan. 1992 (1979).
HRC General Comment No. 22, para. 4.
Internal Flight or Relocation Alternative” within the Context of Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention and/or 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, HCR/GIP/03/04 (23 July 2003).
Irripugge, Mendis & Qiu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)  Docket: IMM2784-98; IMM-2969-98; IMM-2089-98.
Namitabar v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993).
Okyere-Akosah v. M.E.I.  33 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1119.
R v. Secretary of State for Home Department, ex parte Ehsan Hamid (1997) EWCA Civ 2612.
Refugee Appeal No. 10/92 (1992).
Refugee Appeal No. 1039/93 (1995).
Refugee Appeal No. 2039/93 (1996).
Refugee Appeal No. 300/92 (1994).
Refugee Appeal No. 70692/97 (1998).
Refugee Appeal No. 72350/2000 (2001).
The Refugees Convention, 1951: The Travaux Preparatoires Analysed.
UNHCR Executive Committee Conclusion No. XXXIX, Refugee Women and International Protection (1985).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 EWCA