Abstract
Over the past few years, states have been entering into international agreements that increasingly displace their non-refoulement obligations. Non-refoulement is a legal norm that protects vulnerable people from people expelled and returned to a state where they might face serious mistreatement. This rule has been a cornerstone of the law on international migration and forced movement for a considerable period, even being viewed as a human right by some. However, recently states have adopted agreements that avoid the non-refoulement obligation through a number of arrangements. This study will proceed by looking at three forms of contracting out of non-refoulement: agreements that establish facts, agreements that establish jurisdiction or agreements creating competing norms.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
