Abstract
ABSTRACT Although the distinction of international obligations as positive or negative ones is well-established in international law, the classification of the obligation not to refoule has given rise to a disagreement in relevant academic writings. The present article contributes to this academic discussion by arguing for an intermediate position, whereby the obligation not to refoule is perceived as a mixed obligation, which is comprised of both negative and positive obligations. Doing so, the article outlines the series of positive and negative obligations that have been identified as stemming from non-refoulement and further evinces that the intermediate approach toward the obligation’s classification better corresponds to the recent scholarly and jurisprudential developments, embraces non-refoulement’s peremptory character, allows a consistent classification of the obligation in all fields of international law and enhances the overall protection that may be afforded to protection-seekers under non-refoulement by ‘hardening’ the obligations that are interpreted as stemming therefrom.
Published Version
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 callSimilar Papers
Disclaimer: 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.
