• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>International Journal of Refugee Law >Human Rights, Non-refoulement and the Protection of Refugees in Hong Kong
【24h】

Human Rights, Non-refoulement and the Protection of Refugees in Hong Kong

机译：香港的人权，不驱回和难民保护

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Although the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol do not apply to Hong Kong, asylum seekers have challenged Hong Kong's lack of an adequate refugee policy in a series of judicial review actions grounded in human rights and common law principles. This article focuses on two cases in particular in which the applicants have attempted to rely, in part, on a right to non-refoulement, derived from international and domestic law, to compel the Government to establish procedures to determine the status of refugees and other similar categories of claimants. The first, Secretary for Security v. Sakthevel Prabakar, led to the creation of a ‘torture screening’ mechanism based on article 3 of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. In the second, C v. Director of Immigration, the court considered whether a rule of non-refoulement has emerged in customary international law and, if so, whether it applies to Hong Kong and requires government-administered refugee status determination. Although the applicants failed at first instance,1 an analysis of the judgment with reference to Hong Kong's human rights obligations reveals gaps in the court's reasoning and demonstrates the potential for greater reliance on these standards as the basis for developing a more comprehensive protection framework. This examination of the Hong Kong experience may have broader comparative value, especially in the Asian region and in jurisdictions not bound by the Refugee Convention or its Protocol.
机译：尽管1951年《关于难民地位的公约》及其1967年《议定书》不适用于香港，但寻求庇护者在一系列基于人权和普通法原则的司法审查行动中，对香港缺乏适当的难民政策提出了挑战。本文主要针对两个案例，在这些案例中，申请人试图部分地依靠国际法和国内法产生的不驱回权，以迫使政府制定确定难民和其他难民地位的程序。相似类别的索赔人。第一个是保安部长诉Sakthevel Prabakar案，根据《禁止酷刑和其他残忍，不人道或有辱人格的待遇或处罚公约》第3条，建立了“酷刑甄别”机制。在第二项C诉移民局局长一案中，法院考虑了习惯国际法中是否存在不驱回规则，如果适用，则是否适用于香港并需要确定政府管理的难民身份。尽管申请人一审判决失败，[1]参照香港的人权义务对判决进行的分析揭示了法院推理的空白，并显示出可能更多地依赖这些标准作为制定更全面的保护框架的基础。考察香港的经验可能具有更广泛的比较价值，尤其是在亚洲地区以及不受《难民公约》或其议定书约束的司法管辖区。

著录项

  • 来源
    《International Journal of Refugee Law》 |2010年第3期|p.404-439|共36页
  • 作者

    Kelley Loper*;

  • 作者单位

    *Assistant Professor, Director of the LLM in Human Rights Programme, Deputy Director of the Centre for Comparative and Public Law, Faculty of Law, The University of Hong Kong;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号