Asylum State Research Articles

The Role of Asylum States in Promoting Safe and Peaceful Repatriation under the Dayton Agreements

Among the greatest difficulties presented by the peace plan for Bosnia-Herzegovina negotiated in Dayton last fall will be the repatriation and reintegration of refugees and displaced persons scattered throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina, neighbouring states, and other European countries. The challenge is two-fold: first, to conduct repatriation in a manner that does not subject returnees to renewed threats of persecution or otherwise violate their rights under the Dayton Agreements' and international law; second, to ensure that repatriation does not undermine the peace, but rather maximizes the chance that it will prove lasting. While these responsibilities will obviously fall heavily on the shoulders of the parties to the Dayton Agreements themselves, the present analysis focuses on the role to be played by the western European countries currently playing host to hundreds of thousands of refugees. Specifically, it is the intent of this analysis to underscore the dangers of western European plans to pursue swift repatriation early in the peace process. Such plans threaten the rights of displaced persons, including rights acquired under the Dayton Agreements that are not only important to the individual returnees but also to efforts to obtain enduring peace and stability in the region.

Commentary: Ethical Refugee Policy and the Moral Relevance of Numbers: Response to Adelman and Churgin

Howard Adelman's study of Canadian government influence on the repatria? tion of Tutsi exiles to Rwanda and Michael Churgin's analysis of patterns of U.S. government response to mass migrations raise important issues concern? ing ethical refugee policy. In recent years, Western asylum states experienced rapid escalation in the numbers of asylum seekers, responding with deterrent measures that sharply cut the flow. At the present, the refugee regime appears to be undergoing a transition away from the individualized focus of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and back to the collectivized responses characteristic of the interwar period. Howard Adelman examines in detail efforts by Tutsi refugees from Rwanda to exercise their right of repatriation between 1991 and the present and the varying attitudes of different Canadian ministries and agencies toward that objective. Michael Churgin takes a longer historical perspective to assess changes and continuity in patterns of response by the U.S. government to mass migrations. The common feature of these two articles is a focus upon the perspectives of decisionmakers in advanced democracies and their ability to affect migration flows. An implicit issue suggested by both articles is the moral relevance of numbers of claimants in determining an acceptable response to particular migration flows. Adelman provides an insightful analysis of the divergent attitudes of poli? cymakers in various Canadian ministries and agencies toward the former Rwandan government and how those attitudes contributed to the train of events leading to the genocide of 1994 and its aftermath. Churgin examines how U.S. policymakers have been more or less generous to large groups of asylum seekers, depending on varying political factors, and how they have preferred to act in an ad hoc manner and without judicial oversight. Father Drew Christianson suggests a need to move away from an individual right to asylum toward systems of collective protection. Responding to Teresa Sullivan's paper concerning choice, Harold Coward criticizes rights-talk in discourse concerning immigration for its rootedness in Western liberal theory. Their calls for a diminution of focus on the individual migrant are also relevant to themes implicit in Adelman's and Churgin's papers.

Standing to Allege Violations of the Doctrine of Specialty: An Examination of the Relationship between the Individual and the Sovereign

In extradition treaties, sovereign powers promise to surrender individuals who have been accused or convicted of an offense outside their territory to the country seeking to prosecute the individual for that offense. Because entering into an extradition treaty involves the sacrifice of some sovereign rights, these treaties are always reciprocal: a state will relinquish its unfettered right to grant asylum to whomever it pleases only if the other parties to the treaty agree to do the same. In addition, extradition treaties contain certain protections that limit the sacrifices these sovereign powers must make. One such restriction that is part of every extradition treaty is the doctrine of specialty.' The doctrine of specialty dictates that once the asylum state extradites an individual to the requesting state under the terms of an extradition treaty, that person can be prosecuted only for the crimes specified in the extradition request.2 In United States v Rauscher, the United States Supreme Court held that the specialty doctrine applies to every extradition treaty to which the United States is a signatory, even if specialty is not explicitly mentioned.3 Rauscher indicates that an individual extradited to

Belgian Bricks for Fortress Europe: Comment on the New Refugee Law after a Judgment of the Cour d'Arbitrage

The authors examine the modifications of the Belgian refugee law, introduced on 6 May 1993. Those modifications follow the annulment of the so-called double 5% rule by the Court of Arbitration. That rule required that refugees from certain countries submit proof of a well-founded fear of persecution before their request for refugee status could even be considered admissible. That rule comprises two notions, namely, that of the manifestly unfounded claim and the safe country of origin. Annulled because it introduced a discrimination between refugees according to their country of origin, the rule has now been extended to all refugees by the new law. Beyond the question of discrimination, the authors also look at the rule's compatibility with the Geneva Convention, especially given its extensive application. They recall that, according to the logic of the system of the Geneva Convention, without access to the territory of an asylum State, there is no access to the procedure of recognition of the quality of refugee, and therefore no possible protection.

Unchaining the Law: The Legality of Extraterritorial Abduction in Lieu of Extradition

cooperation have proven ineffective in the fight against international terrorism and narco-terrorism. Since 1988, the U.S. government has resorted to unilateral measures to bring terrorists and other suspects to trial in the United States. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, however, recently undermined the government's efforts by refusing to exercise jurisdiction over suspects not seized in accordance with an asylum state's wishes. This rule would deal a serious blow to the government's ability to combat crimes that have remained notoriously impervious to the current international law enforcement regime. The 1985 kidnapping, torture, and murder of Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) Special Agent Enrique Camarena-Salazar provides a case in point. Camarena was kidnapped by members of a Latin American drug cartel; his mutilated body was found one month after he disappeared.1 The murder resulted in political tension between the governments of the United States and Mexico because of the perception that the Mexican government had not done enough to bring Camarena's killers to justice.2 In the face of this lack of progress, the DEA embarked on a program to bring Camarena's murderers to the United States for trial.

Asylum State Responsibility for the Hostile Acts of Foreign Exiles

Hostile activities conducted by exiled dissidents from foreign sanctuaries frequently lead to conflict between the asylum State and the State of origin. This article considers the duty owed by an asylum State to the State of origin under international law. Two factors limit the asylum State's legal obligation. First, international law predicates State responsibility for the acts of private persons, such as foreign exiles, upon the existence of fault. The asylum State must either contribute to the forbidden conduct, or possess the knowledge, opportunity and capacity to prevent it and fail to do so. Geographic and resource limitations excuse liability, while political constraints do not. Secondly, the conduct must violate international law. Not every action considered hostile by a State of origin injures its sovereign interests. Exile political organizations, for example, are essentially a manifestation of the exercise of basic human rights. International law grants an asylum State substantial discretion to limit the political freedoms allowed to foreign nationals, 6ut permitting their exercise gives the State of origin no legitimate cause for complaint. The provision of financial and material assistance, hostile propaganda and other forms of non-violent support to subversive groups active within the State of origin has a more complex legal character. As purely humanitarian assistance is unlikely to alter the course of a civil conflict, an asylum State may permit or even encourage such efforts. Asylum States ought not to support more openly hostile acts of non-violent subversion, but international law at present imposes no active obligation to prevent similar conduct by private persons. Recent practice, however, reveals a possible trend towards a more comprehensive duty of prevention. The question of asylum State responsibility for the violent subversive acts of foreign exiles is unsettled in significant respects. States have vigorously condemned such attacks and, through United Nations General Assembly resolutions, have repeatedly recognized the existence of an active duty of prevention, except where self-determination is at issue. Many of these same States, however, at some point, sponsored or tolerated the activities of terrorists, armed bands or insurgents. The decision of the International Court of Justice in the Nicaragua case suggests a basis for arguing that, despite the evidence of contrary practice, States now recognized and accept that such support or acquiescence is illegal. The extent of disregard for the norm in practice, however, makes it difficult to assert that the duty has attained the status of customary international law

Refugees in Developing Countries and Transnational Organization

Large-scale refugee flows, typically occurring in developing countries, inspire the formation of transnational networks that pose new issues of policymaking, direction, execution, and legitimacy. Institutional responses to the presence of refugees, often in the poorest and least well-administered areas on earth, comprise reactions at the local, national, and transnational levels, including both intergovernmental and voluntary organizations. These responses produce ad hoc organizational entities to deal with unanticipated difficulties. Even after news of a refugee flow is spread, governments can still adopt an isolating policy but more likely will be forced to turn to such transnational networks for help. In a widely felt political disturbance, the positions of the great powers will have a substantial conditioning effect on the handling of refugees. Whatever the pattern of response, refugees tend to involve the asylum state in transnational networks in order to cope with local repercussions as well as care of those in fight. Later, the emphasis may well shift from emergency to diplomatic networks as efforts are made to find a means of liquidating refugee incidents. The character of these networks is shifting and unpredictable, conditioned by specific circumstances. Nevertheless, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees and other intergovernmental bodies serve as natural nuclei for expansion. More integrated modes of organization currently are of doubtful utility.

Africa's Resettlement Strategies

This paper examines the options for African asylum states in their attempts to support large refugee communities, given the limited resources that most have at their disposal.

Re Perón et al

Extradition — Conditions of — Extradition Treaty between requesting State and asylum State — Whether strict observance of Treaty terms essential — The law of Argentina.

In re A.

Extradition — Conditions of — National of State of Asylum — Relative Importance of Nationality at Time of Commission of Offence and at Time of Request for Extradition.

Habeas Corpus in Extradition Proceedings

The basic provision underlying extradition is found in Article IV, ? 2, cl. 2 of the Federal Constitution which provides, A person charged in any State with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another State, shall, on the demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime. Obviously the provision is not self-executory, and the United States Supreme Court in Kentucky v. Dennison' held that if the governor of the asylum state has a disinclination toward carrying out the obligation placed on him by the Constitution, there is no method by which he may be compelled to do so. But the case is exceptional where the governor of an asylum state declines to grant the request for extradition. State procedure pertaining to extradition is largely governed by the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act which is in force in thirty-five states. Typical extradition procedure may best be summarized by a short resume of the Act. Application for issuance of a requisition for extradition is presented to the governor of the demanding state by the prosecuting attorney who, in the application, states the name of the one charged with the crime, the crime charged, the circumstances of its commission, and the state in which the accused is believed to be. Similar provision is made for the application for a requisition to extradite an escapee from a penal or other such institution. The Act also provides that the application be verified by affidavit and that certain papers such as certified copies of the indictment

Extradition. Habeas Corpus Proceedings in Asylum State Bind Demanding State: Extradition. Habeas Corpus. Finding of Asylum State Court That Demanding State Had Waived Jurisdiction over Petitioner Held to Be Res Judicata in Demanding State

Extradition. Habeas Corpus Proceedings in Asylum State Bind Demanding State: Extradition. Habeas Corpus. Finding of Asylum State Court That Demanding State Had Waived Jurisdiction over Petitioner Held to Be Res Judicata in Demanding State

Habeas Corpus. Extradition. Prisoner Who Asserted in Asylum State a Denial of His Constitutional Rights in the Demanding State Held Not Entitled to Habeas Corpus without Exhaustion of State Remedies in Demanding State

Habeas Corpus. Extradition. Prisoner Who Asserted in Asylum State a Denial of His Constitutional Rights in the Demanding State Held Not Entitled to Habeas Corpus without Exhaustion of State Remedies in Demanding State

Duties of the Asylum State under the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act

As indicated by the title of this paper, discussion is limited to a consideration of the duties of the asylum state under the uniform criminal extradition act. The act, drafted and recommended by the Interstate Commission on Crime and the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, has been enacted in nineteen states.1 The uniform act was first approved by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1926; and in 1932 the Conference approved a revised draft of the act, changes being made in Sections 5, 6, 13 and 14, which Act has been adopted by twelve states.2 A complete revised draft of the act was made by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and by the Interstate Commission on Crime in 1936 and important changes were made in Sections 5 and 6 and minor changes in other sections.

Extradition. International Law. Surrender of Extradited Person to Third State. Effect of Consent of Asylum State

Extradition. International Law. Surrender of Extradited Person to Third State. Effect of Consent of Asylum State

International Law. Extradition. Necessity of Criminality in the Asylum State

International Law. Extradition. Necessity of Criminality in the Asylum State

International Law. Extradition. Interpretation of Treaties. Requirement of Criminality under Laws of Asylum State

International Law. Extradition. Interpretation of Treaties. Requirement of Criminality under Laws of Asylum State

Restriction of International Extradition to Offenses Criminal in the State of Asylum

Restriction of International Extradition to Offenses Criminal in the State of Asylum

Extradition. Interstate. Effect of Surrender by Asylum State of One Convicted of Crime

Extradition. Interstate. Effect of Surrender by Asylum State of One Convicted of Crime