Source: http://www.downhi.com/rtf/8uW8GSp-_iNK.html
Timestamp: 2019-10-14 00:41:23
Document Index: 152169905

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 33', 'Art. 33', 'Art. 22', 'Art. 2', 'Art. 2', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 4', 'Art. 2', 'Art. 7', 'Art. 37', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 10', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 12', 'Art. 22', 'Art. 3']

Refugees And Human Rights_Free Document Search and Download
Home > Refugees And Human Rights
Refugees need to be guaranteed the right to return voluntarily and in safety to their countries of origin or nationality. They also need protection against forced return to territories in which their lives, safety and dignity would be endangered. Human rights law recognises the right of an individual, outside of national territory, to return to his or her country.45 The U.N. Security Council has also affirmed “the right of refugees and displaced persons to return to their homes”.46 In a similar vein, the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities has affirmed “the right of refugees and displaced persons to return, in safety and dignity, to their country of origin and or within it, to their place of origin or choice”.47 The right of a refugee to return to his country of origin also arises from the rules of traditional international law which stress the duty of the State of origin to receive back its citizen when the latter is expelled by the admitting state and to extend its diplomatic protection to him. Besides, the social fact of attachment, together with the genuine connection between a national and his state, his sentiments, and emotional ties with his motherland give rise to the above mentioned obligations of the State of origin.48 Therefore, if a state of origin chooses to ignore the link of nationality and to ‘write off those who have fled, it may involve a breach of obligation to the state of refuge and perhaps also to the international community.49 This is the case, even though, given the conditions prevailing in the country of origin, the actual return of refugees may be barred by that complex of duties ergo omnes which derives from the principle of non-refoulement”.50
It is now increasingly recognised that voluntary repatriation will provide both effective and durable solutions to the refugee problem and allow the returnees to re-establish themselves in their own community and to enjoy their basic human rights. Despite this, due to political reasons in the not too distant past refugee status was equated with permanent immigration and ‘external settlement’,51 return was not seen as the normal solution of the problem of refugees. It is true that the UNHCR Statute mentioned voluntary repatriation as one of the durable solutions, but it was included, as the first High Commissioner Van Heuven Goedhart admitted, as ‘the somewhat hypocritical compromise to which the interminable discussions in the United Nations had led’.52 It is therefore not surprising that in the Western-inspired international instrument and documents on refugees and asylum, the emphasis has been mainly, if not exclusively, on exile.
For long the UNHCR, a non-partisan, non-political humanitarian organisation responsible for the implementation of the 1951 Refugee Convention, consistently refused to accept the human right to return as the starting point for a consideration of voluntary repatriation.53 However, since 1980’s the focus of international attention is mainly on voluntary repatriation and prevention of the mass exodus of refugees and the linkage between the two has been asserted in the international debates on the refugee problem. Pursuing this line of approach Dr. Ghassan Arnaout said as early as 1989 that “in a proper and normal scale of concerns, prevention should have its pre-eminence by virtue of the principle that prevention is better than cure. Voluntary return, of course, is closely linked with the aspect of prevention. In the context of a broad approach to the refugee problem, therefore, the notion of solution must be seen today in a comprehensive and balanced manner which gives due value to the concerns of prevention and of voluntary return”54 . The concerns for prevention and voluntary return, he stressed, “must relate only to the rights and freedoms of the individual and not to the desire to prevent trans-frontier movement or to compel a return movement regardless of circumstances in the country of nationality”.55
Thus the recent trend is towards facilitating the voluntary repatriation of the refugees by involving both the country of refuge and the country of origin and also the UNHCR. So far as preconditions for organised voluntary repatriation are concerned, Article V of the 1969 OAU Convention stressed the essentially voluntary character of repatriation, the importance of collaboration by country of origin and country of asylum, of amnesties and non-penalization, as well as assistance to those returning. The 1979 Arusha Conference, on the situation of Refugees in Africa, went a step further and recommended that appeals for repatriation and related guarantees should be made known by every possible means.56
The “Conclusions” adopted by the Executive Committee of the High Commissioner’s Programme (1980)57 recognised that voluntary repatriation is generally the most appropriate solution for refugee problems, particularly when a country accedes to independence. The other conclusion stressed that the essentially voluntary character of repatriation should always be respected, and that appropriate arrangements should be made to establish this, both in the individual cases and in large scale repatriation movements, and that UNHCR should be involved ‘whenever necessary’. The Executive Committee noted the joint responsibilities of country of origin and country of asylum. The importance of refugees being provided with the necessary information regarding existing conditions and visits by individual refugee or refugee representatives to the country of origin for this purpose was recognized. Governments of countries of origin were called upon to provide formal guarantees for the safety of returning refugees. Arrangements must be made in countries of asylum to ensure that the terms of such guarantees and other relevant information regarding conditions prevailing there were duly communicated to refugees. The UNHCR could appropriately be called upon with the agreement of the parties concerned to monitor the situation of returning refugees with particular regard to any guarantees provided by the governments of the countries of origin. The Governments concerned were requested to provide repatriating refugees with the necessary travel documents, visa, entry permits and transportation facilities and to arrange for the re-acquisition of nationality where it had been lost. Finally, the Executive Committee noted that reception arrangements and re-integration projects might be necessary.
The UNHCR Executive Committee re-examined the subject of voluntary repatriation at its 1985 session. The “Conclusions” adopted at that session58 reaffirmed the right of refugees to return, conditional upon their truly expressed wishes, stressed the voluntary and individual character of repatriation and the necessity for it to be carried out in conditions of safety, preferably to the refugee’s former place of residence. The other conclusion emphasised the inseparability of causes and solutions, and the primary responsibility of states to create conditions conductive to the return. The Executive Committee noted that “the existing mandate of the High Commissioner is sufficient to allow him to promote voluntary repatriation by taking initiatives to this end”. These include promoting dialogue between all the main parties, facilitating communication between them, and by acting as an intermediary or channel of communication from the outset of a refugee situation, the High Commissioner should at all times keep the possibility of voluntary repatriation for all or for part of a group under active review. Whenever the High Commissioner deems that the prevailing circumstances are appropriate, he should actively pursue the promotion of this solution. The other conclusions dealt with the establishing of a tripartite commission, assistance for the re-integration of returnees in the country of origin to be provided by the international community and the involvement of the UNHCR in assessing the feasibility, planning, and implementation. Of particular significance was the recognition of the importance of spontaneous return of refugees to their countries of origin.
The above principles emphasise the voluntary character of repatriation and lay stress on the physical safety and social reintegration of the returnees. But in practice “a somewhat less individual and less voluntary standard has been accepted and applauded”59 . Besides, in the last few years the consensus contained in the above mentioned texts is being increasingly questioned.60
Recently, U.N. Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimi-nation and Protection of Minorities has affirmed “the right of persons to remain in peace in their own homes, on their own lands and in their own countries”. 61 The Turku/Abo Declaration on Minimum Humanitarian Standards62 also provides in Article 7: 1 “All persons have right to remain in peace in their homes and their places of residence.” Article 7 runs : “No person shall be compelled to leave their own country”. This right which is also known as ‘the right not to be refugees’ has provided the jurisprudential basis for the concept of ‘preventive protection’. Articulating the concept the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, Sadako Ogata has urged the international community to address and remedy the root causes of displacement.63 Failing this, it must assist and protect people in their own countries. At the same time she has cautioned that “the notion of prevention....can only be effective if backed by political action for a peaceful settlement”.64
The concept of ‘preventive protection’ is postulated on the following premise. ‘Recognition of the relevance of root as well as of immediate causes can lead to a beneficial consideration of the whole range of human rights applicable to the refugee problem including ‘collective’ rights as well as the rights of “individuals” and economic, social and cultural rights as well as civil and political rights. In practical terms, it can entail acknowledging the fundamental importance of international solidarity in economic and social development”.65
Although developed countries and the UNHCR have come openly in support of fixing the problems, where refugees originate, rather than worrying so much about the legal rights of involuntary migrants this strategy has several pitfalls and limitations. While the need to address the causes of trans-boundary movements can hardly be questioned it would be wrong to see it as an alternative to the duty to protect whichever persons are able to leave situations of danger, until and unless the ‘root causes’ of the problem there are in fact eradicated.66 Indeed, both are parallel projects which must be simultaneously pursued. While the humanitarian aspects of the problem of refugees should continue to be addressed by UNHCR, the U.N. Security Council and the human rights infrastructure are the most effective organs to address the causes of flight.67 Appropriate lessons should be taken from the failures of the so-called ‘Fly Zones’ or ‘Safe Havens’ in recent years,68 leading to the slaughter of thousands’ of innocent civilians.
In a very forceful critique of ‘the right to remain’ strategy Professor James Hathaway draws our attention to the un-workability of the system and regrets that in championing ‘preventive protection’ the UNHCR has forgotten its institutional responsibility to affirm the critical importance of a legal regime to ensure the welfare of involuntary migrants.69 In his view ‘if states are failing to abide by their truly assumed duties towards refugees, the answer is not to accommodate their breaches’, but in being creative about protection.70
III. Impact of Human Rights Principles on
Refugee Protection Mechanisms
There is need for better cooperation between the UNHCR and the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights. NGOs should also be knit together more closely than in the past. In recent years UNHCR has incorporated a number of human rights principles in its working e.g., legal rehabilitation, institution building, law reform and enforcement of the rule of law, humanitarian assistance to internally displaced persons and given due importance to the establishment of increased cooperation with international and regional human rights mechanisms.71
Another important positive development has been the concerns expressed by the Human Rights Committee, the Committee on the Rights of the Child, and the Committee Against Torture over the treatment of refugees by state parties to the respective conventions.71a For example, in 1997, the Human Rights Committee recommended that the definition of ‘persecution’ be broadened to include not only state harassment but also persecution by non-state actors.72 It further said that a country ignored its obligations by detaining a refugee and without allowing for a regular review of the detention.73 The Committee against Torture reviewed the situation of many asylum seekers and concluded that several states had threatened to return those people to their home country in violation of their international obligations.74
Turning to human rights of refugees in India one is wonderstruck by the fact that India has neither acceded to the 1951 Refugee Convention nor enacted any legislation for the protection of refugees, although it has always been willing to host the forcibly displaced persons from other countries without adopting legalistic approaches to the refugees issues. All persons who flee their homelands have invariably been provided refuge, irrespective of the reasons of their flight.75 Taking a broader view of the concept of ‘refugees’ which somewhat resembles the one found in the 1969 OAU Convention, rather than the narrow definition provided in 1951 Refugee Convention, the Government of India recognises Tibetans, Chakmas, Sri Lankan Tamils and Afghans and thousands of people of other nationalities from Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan and Myanmar as refugees. However 20,000 refugees are not recognised as refugees but foreign nationals temporarily residing in India. These persons are assisted by the UNHCR and provided international protection and assistance under its mandate. Its policies are discriminatory and inequitable, even to members of the same group. Thus it granted substantially less assistance to the Tibetan refugees arriving after 1980 than to the Tibetans who arrived here prior to 1980.76
In the absence of accession to the Refugee Convention by India and any national legislation on protection of refugee the legal status of individuals recognised as refugees by the Government of India is not clear.77 Also not clear is the relationship between refugee status granted by the Government and corresponding laws governing the entry and stay of foreigners (i.e. Foreigners Act, 1946).
As Justice J.S. Verma, Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission recently observed, “the provisions of the (1951) Refugee Convention and its Protocol can be relied on when there is no conflict with any provisions in the municipal laws”.78 Fortunately, the judiciary has sought to fulfil the void created by the absence of domestic legislation by its landmark judgments in the area of refugee protection. It extended the guarantee of Article 14 (right to equality) and Article 21 (right to life and liberty) to non-citizens including refugees. The Madras High Court in P. Neduraman and Dr. S. Ramadoss v. Union of India and the State of Tamil Nadu (1992) emphasized the need to guarantee the voluntary character of repatriation. The National Human Rights Commission has also come to the rescue of refugees ‘approaching it with their complaints of violations of human rights.’
While India’s record with respect to protection of human rights of refugees has been generally satisfactory, the Human Rights Committee recently expressed concern at reports of forcible repatriation of asylum seekers including those from Myanmar (Chins), the Chittagong Hills and the Chakmas. It recommended that in the process of repatriation of asylum seekers or refugees, due attention be paid to the provisions of the Covenant and other applicable norms.79 The Committee also recognised that India, notwithstanding all its historic generosity to refugees, has recently engaged in certain practices vis-a-vis less favoured refugee populations. In this context it needs to be recognised that India is not the only country which resorting to such practices. Indeed, as already noted there are many states in the South which starve refugees out, imprison them behind barbed wire, and otherwise make their lives miserable. At a time when the West is willing to undermine even the most basic premises of international refugee law in the name of ‘compassion fatigue’, ‘saturation of absorbing capacity’ or religious intolerance and xenophobia of a section of the local population towards refugees, and already has ignored its commitments flowing from the concepts of ‘international solidarity’ and ‘burden sharing’, developing countries alone can not be singled out for condemnation. Use of these practices or schemes by them are legally and ethically repugnant but unless the refugee regime is rejuvenated and revitalised and the interests of the receiving state and refugees find proper accommodation therein, such practices, are likely to continue even in future. Be that as it may, India should reconsider its refugee policy and enact a separate national legislation on the treatment of refugees considering that India presently shelters one of the largest refugee populations in the world, its refusal to accede to the Refugee Convention or its Protocol is not only beyond comprehension but unnecessarily tarnishes its image at the international level.
* Senior Reader, Faculty of Law, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi.
1. Statement made at the 50th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights (1994) Quoted in UNHCR, Human Rights and Refugee Protection, Part I: General Introduction (October, 1995), p.4.
2. Some of the standard works on the refugee problem include, Atle Grahl-Madsen, The Status of Refugees in International Law vols, 1&2, (1966 - 1972); Guy Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee in International Law ( Oxford, 1983); Gilbert Jaeger, Status and International Protection of Refugee (Leiden, 1978); Peter Macalister-Smith, International Humanitarian Assistance : Disaster Relief Actions in International Law and Organization (Oxford,1985); Gill Loescher and Laila Monahan, Refugees and International Relations ( Oxford,1989).
3. James Hathaway, “Fear of Persecution and the Law of Human Rights”, Bulletin of Human Rights, 91/1, United Nations, (New York, 1992), p.99, quoted in Brian Gorlick, ‘Refugees and Human Rights’, Seminar (March 1998), P.23.
4. G.A. Resolution 428 (v) of 14 December, 1950.
5. UNTS No 14691.
6. UNHCR, Human Rights and Refugee Protection, note 1, P.3.
7. Ibid, pp. 7-9.
8. The 1951 Refugee Convention (Art. 33(1)), UNHCR, Basic Legal Documents on Refugees (1999), 8-37; Article 3, United Nations Declaration on Territorial Asylum, Art. VIII of the Asian- African Legal Consultative Committee, Bangkok Principles, Art.II (3), OAU Convention 1969, Article 22(8), American Convention on Human Rights Convention, 1969.
9. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 5; UNHCR, Basic Legal documents, pp.43-47; See also Convention Against Torture, Articles 2 and 6. Article 7 of the ICCPR (1966).
10. HRC General comment No. 20, para 9.
11. Ibid., paras 14.1 and 15.3.
12. Cruz Varas Case, Judgment of 20 March 1991; Quoted in UNHCR, International Legal Standards Applicable to the Protection of Internally Displaced Persons: A Reference Manual for UNHCR Staff, (Geneva, 1996), p.65.
13. Cruz Varas Case, note 12. Series A no. 161. Para 91.
14. See, Amnesty International, ‘The Barriers are Going up’, Refugee (Spring 1998), 19; B.S. Chimni, ‘Refugees in International Law’, Seminar n.463, (March 1998), pp.18-22; James Hathaway, ‘Crisis in International Law’, Indian Journal of International Law, vol. 39 (1999), pp. 9-11.
15. In an unfortunate decision Sale v. Haitian Centres Council C1/3 Set 2549 (1993), the U.S. Supreme Court decided that such action is not violative of Art. 33 of the Refugee Convention.
16. When the U.S. started holding Haitian and Cuban refugees at Guantanamo Bay, a territory leased out from Cuba, a U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in Cuban American Bar Association (Cuba) v. Christopher [43 F. 3 A. 1412 (11th Cir. 1995) that refugee in ‘Safe haven’ camps outside the U.S. did not have the constitutional rights of due process or equal protection and were not protected against forced return. Also See, Chimni, note14, p.22.
17. The German Federal Constitutional Court, in May 1996, upheld the German safe third country law. See Chimni, note 14,p .22.
18. Article 1 of the Resolution adopted by the Institute of International Law in Sept. 1950, American Journal of International Law, vol. 50, Supplement ( 1951), p 15.
19. Article 14 (1), Universal Declaration of Human Rights (G.A. Resolution 217 (III); Art. XXVII, American Declaration, Art. 22 (7), American Convention on Human Rights, ILM, vol. 9 (1970), p 673, Vienna Declaration, part I (1993), para 23.
20. Michell Moussalli, “Who is a Refugee?” Refugee Magazine, (September, 1982), p.42.
21. Opening statement by the High Commissioner for Refugees at the Thirty-Seventh Session of the Executive Committee of the High Commissioner’s Programme, 6 October 1986.
23. The Refugee Convention contains certain rights provisions- protection from refoulement, protection against unlawful expulsion or detention, the right to employment and education, access to the courts, and freedom of movement. In respect of many of these rights, refugees are supposed to receive the same treatment as nationals in the country of residence.
24. ICCPR, Art. 2(1) ILM., vol. 6 (1967), p. 3687; ICESCR, Article 2 (2), ILM., vol.9 (1970), p.360, U.N. Charter, Arts. 1 (3), 13 (1) (b), 55 (c) and 76 (c); Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art. 2; European Convention, Article 14 213 UNTS 221; American Convention, Articles. 1 and 24; African Charter, Articles 2, 13, 18 (3)- ILM.,vol. 21 (1982),p. 58.
25. UNHCR, Human Rights and Refugee Protection, note 1, p. 37.
26. UNHCR, International Legal Standards, note 12 at p. 18.
27. Relevant instruments include the U.N. Declaration and the International Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), 60 UNTS 195; The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), I.L.M., vol. 19 (1980),p. 33, the UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education, 1960; The Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination based on Religion or Belief, 1981; The UNESCO Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice, 1978; The Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (G.A. res. 2263 (XXII) of 7 Nov. 1967).
28. Gil Loescher, ‘Refugee Issues in International Relations’, in Gil Loescher and Laila Monahan, (eds.) Refugees and International Relations (Oxford,1989), pp. 1-2.
29. Quoted in Refugees (1998) Spring, p.9.
31. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 3; ICCPR, Article 6(1), American Declaration, Art. 1; American Convention, Art. 4 (1); European Convention, Art. 2 (1); African Charter, Article 4; CRC., Articles 6 (1) and 19.
32. Article II, Genocide Convention, 1948.
33. Views of the Human Rights Committee on Communication No. 45/1979 (Suarez de Guerrero v. Colombia), Paras, 13.2 and 13.3.
34. H.R.C. General Comments, , No. 86, paras 2,3 and 5.
35. Vienna Declaration, 1993, para 28.
36. Universal Declaration, Article 5; ICCPR, Art. 7; CRC, Art. 37 (a); American Convention, Art. 5 (2); European Convention, Art. 3; African Charter, Art. 5.
37. Art. 10 (1) of the ICCPR, See also HCRC General Comments, No. 21, paras 2,4.
38. HRC General Comment No. 20. para 2.
39. See generally CRC, Article 28 (3), ILM. vol.28 (1989),p. 1448; ICCPR, Article 8 (3) and Article 26.
40. See UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women; Article 9 of the Inter-American Convention on Violence Against Women. See also Article 25 of Universal Declaration; ICESCR, Article 12; American Declaration of Rights and Duties of Man 1948, Article XI; European Social Charter, Article 11. States may be held responsible for private acts if they fail to act with due diligence to prevent violations of rights or to investigate and punish acts of violence and for providing compensation. CEDAW General Recommendations, No.10, U.N.Doc. HRI /General /1/Rev.2 (29 March 1996), para 9.
41. See Universal Declaration, Article 4; ICCPR, Article 8(1) (2); African Charter, Art. 5. See also 1926 Slavery Convention 60 UNTS 25/3, CEDAW, Article 6; Supplementary Slavery Convention, Article 1 (C). Marriage against consent is prohibited, see Universal Declaration, Article 16 (2) 266 UNTS 3; ICCPR, Article 23 (3), Women’s Convention, Article 16 (1) (b); American Convention, Article 17.
42. Universal Declaration, Article 9; ICCPR, Article 9(1); CRC; Article 37 (b); American Convention, Article 7(1); American Declaration, Art. 1; European Convention, Article 5(1); African Charter, Article 6.
43. See, the HRC’s view on Communication 305/1988 (Van Alphen v. The Netherlands) para 5.8, Annual Report of the Human Rights Committee 1990, 115.
44. HRC General Comments No. 8, para 1.
45. Universal Declaration, Article 13 (2); African Charter, Article 12 (2); CERD, Art. 5d (ii). Art. 12 (4) of the ICCPR, Art. 22 (5) of the American Convention; Art. 3 (2) of the Fourth Protocol to the European Convention prohibits the deprivation of the right to enter the territory of the state of which a person is a national. The African Charter limits restrictions to those provided for by law for the protection of national security, law and order, public health or morality. Article 12 (2).
46. U.N.S.C. Resolution 876 (1993) of 19 Oct, 1993 on the situation in Abkhazia on the right of Palestinians to return . See, Kathleen Lawland, “The Right to Return of Palestinians in International Law”, International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 8 (1996), p.532.
47. Sub-Commission resolution 1994/24, para 2 and 1995/13 para 2.
48. See Nottebohm Case, ICJ Reports (1955), 23. See also Ammoun’s separate opinion in the Western Sahara case, ICJ Reports (1975), 12 at pp. 85-6. The learned Judge observed; “The ancestral tie between the land and the man who was born there from, remains attached thereto, and must one day return there to be united with his ancestors. This link is the basis of the ownership of the soil”.
49. Guy Goodwin-Gill, ‘Voluntary Repatriation’ in Loescher and Monahan (eds.) Refugees and International Relations ( Oxford,1989), p. 255 at p.261.
51. See generally, UNHCR Resettlement Section, “ Resettlement - An Instrument of Protection and a Durable Solution”, International Journal of Refugee Law, vol.9 (1997), p.666.
52. See Gervase Coles, ‘Approaching the Refugee Problem Today’ in Loescher and Monahan (eds.) note 49, p.389.
53. Ibid., p. 390.
54. Arnaout, “Refugee Law Today”, Refugees, p. 11.
56. See Goodwin-Gill, note 49 , p.263.
57. 1980 (Executive Committee-31st Session) No. 18 (XXXI) Voluntary Repatriation, Conclusion endorsed by the Executive Committee of the High Commissioner’s programme upon the recommendation of the Sub-Committee of the Whole on International Protection of Refugees.
58. 1985 (Executive Committee-36th Sesssion) No.40 (XXXVI) Voluntary Repatriation, Conclusion endorsed by the Executive Committee of the High Commissioners Programme upon the recommendation of the Sub-Committee of the Whole on International Protection of Refugees.
59. Fred Cuny and Barry Stein, ‘Prospects for and Promotion of Spontaneous Repatriation’, in Loescher and Monahan (eds.), note 49, pp. 308-309.
60. For an interesting account of the current critical legal issues relating to voluntary repatriation, see Jens Vedsted-Hansen, ‘An Analysis of the Requirements for Voluntary Repatriation’, International Journal of Refugee Law, vol.9 (1997), p. 559.
61. Sub-Commission resolution 1994/94, para, 1, UN Doc. E/KN.4/ Sub.2/1994/56, 28 Oct. 1994 at 67. See also, resolution 1995/13, para 1, Report of the Sub-Commission on its Forty Seventh Session, Geneva 31 July-25 August 1995.
62. Reprinted in American Journal of International Law, vol. 89 (1995), pp. 218-23.
63. Sadako Ogata, Statement at the Round Table Discussions on United Nations Human Rights Protection of Internally Displaced Persons (Nyon, Switzerland, 5 February 1993).
64. Statement of the UNHCR in the International Meeting on Humanitarian Aid for Victims of the Conflict in Former Yugoslavia (Geneva, 29 July 1992).
65. Arnaout, note 54, p. 12.
66. James Hathaway, note 14, pp. 12-13.
69. Ibid. For the forceful defence of the recent UNHCR response, see Nicholas Morris, ‘Protection Dilemmas and UNHCR’S Response: A Personal View From Wilhum UNHCR, International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 9 (1997),p. 492.
70. See, note 14.
71. Brian Gorlick, “Refugee and Human Rights”, Seminar (1998 Spring), p. 19.
71a. See generally, Gil Loescher, “Refugees, A Global Human Rights and Security Crises’ in Dunne and Wheel, Human Rights in Global Politics, (1999), p. 245.
72. See, “The Barriers are Going Up”, Refugees : (1998 spring), p. 19.
75. See generally, J.N. Saxena, “Legal Status of Refugees: Indian Position”, Indian Journal of International Law, vol. 26 (1986), p. 501.
76. See H. Knox Thames, “India’s Failure to Adequately Protect Refugees”, Human Rights Brief, (Issue I, 1999),p.7; (Centre for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, Washington College of Law), p.20.
77. See, Gorlick, note 71, p. 26.
78. Mr. Verma made this observation at the SAARCLAW and UNHCR Seminar on Refugees in the SAARC Region held in New Delhi on 2 May 1997. This reasoning has been recognized in Visakha v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 13 August 1997.
79. National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh and another, (1996) 1 SCC.295; Khudiram Chakma v. Union of India (1994) Supp. 1 SCC 614.
Search more related documents:Refugees And Human Rights
Download Document:Refugees And Human Rights