A Critical Examination of the Exclusionary Clauses of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to...

qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfg

A Critical Examination of theExclusionary Clauses of Article

1 of the 1951 ConventionRelating to the Status of

Refugees with special referenceto the law and policy of the

United Kingdom.

International Protection ofRefugees5/12/2014

By Anthony Joseph O. Onoh

Module: International Protection of Refugees; Module Code: 22930. Essay Title: Critically examine the Exclusionary Clauses of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees with special reference to the law and policy of the United Kingdom. By Student No. 201201810. 5,432 Words. Introduction

Refugees are people who, “owing to well-founded fear of being

persecuted”1 for specified reasons, seek international

protection outside their country of “nationality”2 due to lack

of guarantees for such protection in their country of origin.

It is a “declaratory”3 status recognized in the 1951 Refugee

Convention that appears as “the fundamental instrument that

regulates refugee protection [of which] its relevance”4 is

contentious in light of divergent State applications.

Generally, the 1951 Convention on Refugee Protection5 and its

Protocol of 1967 establish procedural stages for determining

individual claims to refugee status.6 Hence the scholarly view

that “whilst someone is applying for this protection, they are

1 See Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees,under Resolution 2198 (XXI) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly,available at: http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html, accessed on 25/04/2014. 2 ibid. 3 G. Clayton (2012) Textbook on Immigration and Asylum Law. New York: OxfordUniversity Press, p. 403: refugee status is declaratory”. 4 G. S. Goodwin-Gill (2001) “Editorial: Asylum 2001 – A Convention and a Purpose”13 International Journal of Refugee Law 1 Goodwill-Gill, 2001, p. 234.5 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 28 July 1951, United Nations,Treaty Series, vol. 189, p. 137; will be hereinafter referred to as “theConvention”. 6 See the provisions of Articles 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E and 1F of the 1951 ConventionRelating to the Status of Refugees; these articles of the Convention contain a“Definition of the Term Refugee” (Article 1A), states State Obligation (Article1B), establish Cessation Clause (Article 1C) and define Exclusionary Clauses(Articles 1D, 1E and 1F).

of 49

http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html

Module: International Protection of Refugees; Module Code: 22930. Essay Title: Critically examine the Exclusionary Clauses of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees with special reference to the law and policy of the United Kingdom. By Student No. 201201810. 5,432 Words. called asylum seekers”7 until refugee status is established in

accordance with Article 1A of the Convention.

Conversely, States acquire an international obligation under

the Convention to provide protection to persons who fall under

Article 1 of the Convention, with the exception of those who

fall within Articles 1D, 1E, 1F and 33(2) of the Convention.

Often, however, some States establish a joint policy on asylum

seekers and other causes of migration which conflicts with the

Convention. According to reports, “the difficulty of

distinguishing between economic and non-economic causes of

migration is compounded by the fact that the two categories

may frequently overlap”.8 In light of the apparent overlapping

circumstances, measures that conflict with the provisions of

the Convention and actions that hinder fairness in the process

emerge within the domestic framework for refugee protection.

The scholarly view underlines State actions and “increased

eagerness to weed out the undeserving”9 from the asylum

7 ibid, no 03, p. 4038 See the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee, Session 2003-04 SecondReport, Asylum Applications, HC 218, paragraph 42.9 Dennis McNamara, Exclusion Clauses: Closer Attention Paid to the ExclusionClauses, in Refugee and Asylum Law: Assessing the Scope for Judicial Protection 68(International Association of Refugee Judges ed., 1997).

of 49

Module: International Protection of Refugees; Module Code: 22930. Essay Title: Critically examine the Exclusionary Clauses of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees with special reference to the law and policy of the United Kingdom. By Student No. 201201810. 5,432 Words. process. Hence the purpose of this work is to examine

critically one of the provisions of the international

protection regime as it applies within United Kingdom10

domestic laws.

This work will, therefore, conduct a critical examination of

relevant UK legislation and the European Union dimension of

Article 1F provisions of the Refugee Convention. Several UK

Court and European Court of Human Rights11 case laws will be

examined in order to identify conflicting law segments in the

application of the Article 1F exclusion clause. Some of these

laws include humanitarian and human rights provisions, with

special scrutiny of Article 3 of the European Convention on

Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as the ECHR), which is

relevant to decisions regarding exclusion clauses. Other areas

of international obligation such as child protection and the

role of child soldiers in the interpretation of Article 1F,

especially in its reference to “any person”,12 will be examined

critically in this work.10 The United Kingdom will be hereinafter referred to as “the UK”. 11 The European Court of Human Rights will be hereinafter referred to as the“ECtHR”.12 ibid, no. 01: “The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any personwith respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that:..”

of 49

Module: International Protection of Refugees; Module Code: 22930. Essay Title: Critically examine the Exclusionary Clauses of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees with special reference to the law and policy of the United Kingdom. By Student No. 201201810. 5,432 Words. UK Obligation under the 1951 Refugee Convention and Relevant

Domestic Legislation

Section 213 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeal Act of 1993

(hereinafter referred to as the 1993 Act) incorporated the

provisions of the Convention into the UK legal system.

Therefore, it accorded international protection such primacy

in the domestic system that the State protection regime is the

same as the International regime.14 This legislation satisfies

the UK treaty obligation as expressed in Articles 3, 4 and 5

of the Convention. Suffice it to say that refugee laws reflect

State commitment “to grant asylum [and] not the right of

asylum seekers to receive it”.15 Yet this commitment ought to

be accompanied by a measured standard of legality in

accordance with the “international minimum standard”.16 Thus,

State measures cannot conflict with the fundamental purpose of13 Section 2 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, available at:http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1993/23/section/2, accessed on 25/04/2014:“Nothing in the immigration rules (within the meaning of the 1971 Act) shall laydown any practice which would be contrary to the Convention”.14 Section 2 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993: “Primacy ofConvention”. 15 Atle Grahl-Madsen, the Status of Refugees in International Law: RefugeeCharacter, 1966, A.W. Sijthoff, p. 80.16 See Preamble of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Protection of Refugees; seealso Article 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966;see also the European Union Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 onminimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawingrefugee status; and also Article 8(1) of the 1990 International Convention on theProtection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families.

of 49

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1993/23/section/2

Module: International Protection of Refugees; Module Code: 22930. Essay Title: Critically examine the Exclusionary Clauses of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees with special reference to the law and policy of the United Kingdom. By Student No. 201201810. 5,432 Words. the Convention, which is to provide protection for those

fleeing from persecution. Consequently, some UK legislation

contains stipulations which undermine the international

standard for protection. The provisions of Article 28 of the

Council Directive, which regulates the determination of

“unfounded applications”,17 may have been strayed from in the

UK legal system. The system allows such classification of

asylum application without serious consideration to “fair and

effective process”.18 Section 94(2)19 of the Immigration and

Asylum Act of 2002 grants such powers to the Secretary of

State to tag an application as “clearly unfounded”, which, in

R. v SSHD, was defined as “bound to fail”20 and an

“unarguable”21 claim. Under this provision, the decision on an

asylum application seals every scope for appeal and thereby

infringes on Article 13 of the ECHR which establishes the17 Article 28 of the Council Directive 2005/85/EC of December 2005, available at:http://www.asylumlawdatabase.eu/en/content/en-asylum-procedures-directive-directive-200585ec-1-december-2005#Art%2028, accessed on 25/04/2014. 18 UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Global Consultations on InternationalProtection/Third Track: Asylum Processes (Fair and Efficient Asylum Procedures), 31 May2001, EC/GC/01/12, available at:http://www.refworld.org/docid/3b36f2fca.html, accessed on 23/04/2014.19 Section 94(2) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002: “A person maynot bring an appeal to which this section applies [F2 in reliance on section 92(4)(a)] if the Secretary of State certifies that the claim or claims mentioned insubsection (1) is or are clearly unfounded”.20 See Regina v. SSHD ex parte Thangarasa; Regina v. SSHD, ex parte Yogathas [2002]UKHL 36 (October 17, 2002.21 ibid

of 49

http://www.asylumlawdatabase.eu/en/content/en-asylum-procedures-directive-directive-200585ec-1-december-2005#Art%2028


Module: International Protection of Refugees; Module Code: 22930. Essay Title: Critically examine the Exclusionary Clauses of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees with special reference to the law and policy of the United Kingdom. By Student No. 201201810. 5,432 Words. right to effective remedy. An official report states that fair

and effective procedures are an essential element of the full

and inclusive application of the Convention”.22 In light of

this assertion, clauses in State legislation that establish an

abusive claim may be incompatible with the fundamental aim of

the Convention because they can “overburden asylum procedures

to the detriment of those with good grounds for requesting

asylum”.23 Hence scholars are concerned that States may be

restricting “the free immigration of persons fleeing

threatening circumstances in their home countries”.24 In most

cases, the UK system conforms to the practice of many States

that implicitly apply the exclusion clause before the

evaluation of the inclusion clause.25 In this regard, the

hospitality approach which is intended for persons under

22 ibid, no. 1823 ibid, no. 18 24 James C. Hathaway, the Evolution of Refugee Status in International Law: 1920—1950, 1984, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 33, Issue 02, pp 348-380, p. 379.25 See Michael Bliss, Serious Reasons for Considering: Minimum Standards ofProcedural Fairness in the Application of the Article 1F Exclusion Clauses, 2000,International Journal of Refugee Law, 12 (Suppl. 1), pp. 92-132, pp. 106-108; seealso Geoff Gilbert, Current Issues in the Application of Exclusion Clauses, 2003,Cambridge University Press, p. 464; Michael Kingsley Nyinah, Exclusion UnderArticle 1F: Some Reflections on Context, Principles and Practice (2000) 12International Journal of Refugee Law 295-316, pp. 305-306.

of 49

Module: International Protection of Refugees; Module Code: 22930. Essay Title: Critically examine the Exclusionary Clauses of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees with special reference to the law and policy of the United Kingdom. By Student No. 201201810. 5,432 Words. Article 1A of the Convention is preceded by the criminality

approach under the UK asylum process.

In light of this procedural approach, the detention of asylum

seekers on point of entry and the criminalization of the

application process is an element of the UK policy which is

determinant in some considerations to the exclusionary clause.

Although Article 5(1) (f) of the ECHR permits the detention of

a person in order to “prevent his effecting an authorised

entry into the country [or when] action is being taken with a

view to deportation or extradition”, it is unclear whether

asylum seekers fall into the category of persons effecting

illegal entry, because Article 18(1) of the Council Directive

2005 expressly prohibits the detention of asylum seekers. In

addition, Article 31(1) of the Refugee Convention expresses

the non-penalization of the illegal entry of asylum seekers to

the country of refuge and establishes conditions an

applicant’s compliance with State authority. One such

condition is the applicant’s notification to the authorities

of his/her presence in a reasonable timeframe.26 In contrast,26Article 31(1) of the 1951 Convention states: “The Contracting States shall notimpose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who,coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the

of 49

Module: International Protection of Refugees; Module Code: 22930. Essay Title: Critically examine the Exclusionary Clauses of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees with special reference to the law and policy of the United Kingdom. By Student No. 201201810. 5,432 Words. Section 2(1) and 2(2) of the 2004 Act penalizes entering the

UK without a passport. Under this law the UK Border Agency has

powers derived from Section 2(10) of the 1971 Act to arrest

such individuals with the exception of European Economic Area

citizens travelling with family members and finds

justification in Section 2(4) of the 2004 Act. As mentioned

earlier, the criminalization of the process could influence

the outcome of the authority’s decision because, once

convicted, the severity of the conviction could fall under

exclusionary clause provision. In MF v. SSHD, the Court

observed that “significant weight [was given to the

applicant’s] criminality and poor immigration history”.27 This

reflects a barrier to asylum seekers under the UK Border

Agency criminality approach to asylum and immigration matters.

A UN report states that “Articles 1F(a) and 1F(c) are

concerned with crimes whenever and wherever they are

committed”.28 Hence the likelihood of an asylum seeker’ssense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization,provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show goodcause for their illegal entry or presence.”.27 MF (Nigeria) v. SSHD, 2013, EWCA Civ 1192 (October 8, 2013), paragraph 50 of thejudgment; see also Sections 32(1), 32(2) and 32(5) of the UK Border Act, 2007,available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/30/section/32, accessed on23/04/2014.28 See UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Guidelines on InternationalProtection No. 5: Application of the Exclusion Clauses: Article 1F of the 1951

of 49


Module: International Protection of Refugees; Module Code: 22930. Essay Title: Critically examine the Exclusionary Clauses of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees with special reference to the law and policy of the United Kingdom. By Student No. 201201810. 5,432 Words. conviction, for instance, for the crime of “dishonest

representations to obtain benefits”,29 which carries a sentence

of “six months to seven years imprisonment”, could serve as a

justification to apply Article 1F of the Convention in the

application. The object of this reasoning is that Section

28FB of the 1971 Act grants criminal prosecution powers to the

UK Border Agency in this matter. A case in point is MF v.

SSHD, wherein an asylum seeker’s conviction “of handling

stolen goods and possession”30 was used to conclude that the

applicant was “a danger to the community of the country”;31

prompting the application of Section 32(2) and 32(5) of the

2007 UK Border Act. Apparently, Article 33(2) of the

Convention consents to a State’s decision to exclude a

claimant based on such justification. Commonly, “offences of

sufficient seriousness to attract long periods of custodial

punishment might suffice to guide States as to what might

fulfil Article 1F(b)”32 and other offences that fall under the

Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, 4 September2003, HCR/GIP/03/05, available at:http://www.refworld.org/docid/3f5857684.html, accessed on 26/04/2014].29 See Section 106 of the 1999 Act: Dishonest representation to obtain benefits. 30 ibid, no. 27, paragraph 17 of the judgement.31 See Article 33(2) of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.32 Geoff Gilbert, Current Issues in the Application of Exclusion Clauses, 2003,Cambridge University Press, p. 449.

of 49

Module: International Protection of Refugees; Module Code: 22930. Essay Title: Critically examine the Exclusionary Clauses of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees with special reference to the law and policy of the United Kingdom. By Student No. 201201810. 5,432 Words. exclusion clause. Therefore, restrictive regulatory measures

on entrants or criminal measures against deception for asylum

seekers conflict with the fundamental purpose of the

Convention and appear as entrapment for genuine refugee

applicants. One UN report states that “committing a serious

crime in the country of refuge is subject to due process of

law [or] in extreme cases Article 33(2)”33 applies. Although

the determination of the gravity of a crime falls under the

State margin of appreciation, the application of this

provision in the aforementioned case reflects divergent

interpretative doctrines as generated by the ambiguity of the

law. Granted, the abstract nature of the international refugee

regime, which adopts a “fundamental purpose of balancing the

rights of involuntary migrants and those of the states to

which refugees flee”,34 allows States a margin of discretion in

determining how to apply Convention rights within the

regulatory framework of the EU directives that sets a common

33 Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, 1992, UnitedNations High Commissioner for Refugees, HCR/IP/4/Eng/Rev. 1, paragraph 154.34 James Hathaway, Reconceiving International Refugee Law, 1997, Martinus NijhoffPublishers, p. 116.

of 49

Module: International Protection of Refugees; Module Code: 22930. Essay Title: Critically examine the Exclusionary Clauses of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees with special reference to the law and policy of the United Kingdom. By Student No. 201201810. 5,432 Words. standard of approach in conformity with regional human rights

systems and concerns.

Article 1(F) of the 1951 Refugee Convention and State

Prerogatives

One UN report observed the abstract nature of some of the

provisions of the Convention, including those of Article 1F.

It states that Article 1F(c)’s “very generally-worded

exclusion clause overlaps with the exclusion clause in Article

1 F (a)”35 and suggests that it “should be applied with

caution”.36 Scholars, however, opine that it “is framed in

mandatory language”.37 Hence the context of this provision

demands State negative duty to reject as inadmissible the

category of persons that fall within some specifics of Article

1F. Incidentally, the aforementioned comprehensive

significance of the expression “any person” in Article 1F of

the Convention does not, apparently, “distinguish between

adults and minors”.38 Herein, the subject matter is the35 Ibid, no. 33, paragraph 16236 Ibid, no. 33, paragraph 16337 Matthew Happold, Excluding Children from Refugee Status: Child Soldiers andArticle 1F of the Refugee Convention, 2002, American University International LawReview, Vol. 17, Issue No 6, pp. 1131-1176, p. 1134. 38 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees on Child-Soldiers, reprinted inPeter J. Van Krieken, (ed.) Refugee Law in Context: The Exclusion Clause,1999,

of 49

Module: International Protection of Refugees; Module Code: 22930. Essay Title: Critically examine the Exclusionary Clauses of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees with special reference to the law and policy of the United Kingdom. By Student No. 201201810. 5,432 Words. “vulnerable status and special needs of children [which ought

to] be taken into consideration”39 in the context of the

continued existence of child soldiers around the world. On

this note, UK and EU legislation provide vague protection for

children. For instance, Article 17(6) of the Council Directive

2005 expresses the prevalence of “the best interests of the

child”40 in the asylum application process but fails to define

their exclusionary status expressly. Paragraphs 350 and 351

of the UK Immigration Rules observe the “potential

vulnerability”41of child asylum seekers, stating that

“particular priority and care is to be given to the handling

of their cases”.42 Yet it states that, as with everyone else,

T.M.C. Asser Press.39 ibid, p. 4340 Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 On Minimum Standards onProcedures In Member States for Granting and Withdrawing Refugee Status, publishedin the Official Journal of the European Communities OJ L 326, 13.12.2005, pp. 13–34: Article 17(6) States: “The best interests of the child shall be a primaryconsideration for Member States when implementing this Article”.41 See paragraph 350 of the Immigration Rules part 11: Asylum, Home Office and UKVisas and Immigration (13 February 2014), available at:https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/279712/Immigration_Rules_-_Part_11.pdf, accessed on 26/04/2014. 42 See paragraph 351 of the Immigration Rules part 11: Asylum, Home Office and UKVisas and Immigration (13 February 2014), available at:https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/279712/Immigration_Rules_-_Part_11.pdf, accessed on 26/04/2014.

of 49

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/279712/Immigration_Rules_-_Part_11.pdf




Module: International Protection of Refugees; Module Code: 22930. Essay Title: Critically examine the Exclusionary Clauses of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees with special reference to the law and policy of the United Kingdom. By Student No. 201201810. 5,432 Words. “the criteria in paragraph 33443 apply in all cases”44, thus

ignoring any mention of the status of child soldiers under

Article 1F of the Convention exclusion provision. Suffice it

to say that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

(UNCRC) makes no distinction between well-fed and poor

children and defines a child as “every human being below the

age of eighteen years unless, under the law applicable to the

child, majority is attained earlier”.45 Apparently, judicial

reviews of exclusion or removal cases reflect this position of

the protection for the interests of the child. In ZH

(Tanzania) v. SSHD, the Court held that “the best interests of

43 Paragraph 334 of the Immigration Rules (2014) states that: “An asylum applicantwill be granted asylum in the United Kingdom if the Secretary of State is satisfiedthat: (i) he is in the United Kingdom or has arrived at a port of entry in theUnited Kingdom; (ii) he is a refugee, as defined in regulation 2 of The Refugee orPerson in Need of International Protection (Qualification) Regulations 2006; (iii)there are no reasonable grounds for regarding him as a danger to the security ofthe United Kingdom; (iv) he does not, having been convicted by a final judgment ofa particularly serious crime, constitute a danger to the community of the UnitedKingdom; and (v) refusing his application would result in him being required to go(whether immediately or after the time limited by any existing leave to enter orremain) in breach of the Geneva Convention, to a country in which his life orfreedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality,political opinion or membership of a particular social group. 44 See paragraph 351 of the Immigration Rules part 11: Asylum, Home Office and UKVisas and Immigration (13 February 2014), available at:https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/279712/Immigration_Rules_-_Part_11.pdf, accessed on 26/04/2014.45 See Article 1 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1990, available at:http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx, accessed on26/04/2014; see also the UN General Assembly Res. 44/25, of 20 November 1989, p.166.

of 49

http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx



Module: International Protection of Refugees; Module Code: 22930. Essay Title: Critically examine the Exclusionary Clauses of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees with special reference to the law and policy of the United Kingdom. By Student No. 201201810. 5,432 Words. the child had to be a primary consideration”,46 acknowledging

the prevalence of the UNCRC child rights regime over a failed

immigration claim. Yet the absence of an inherent legal

provision that protects children (child soldiers) from the

prerogatives of the exclusionary clauses in the Convention and

in UK domestic law underpins a legal lacuna which conflicts

with international customary laws, such as Article 3 of the

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

on the principle of non-refoulement. Generally, humanitarian

protection is granted to the excluded applicant under

paragraph 339C47 of the Immigration Rules or under the ECHR.

However, the UK’s Secretary of State discretion in determining

whether the applicant still “faces a real risk of serious

46 ZH (Tanzania) v. SSHD, 2011, UKSC 4 (February 01, 2011), paragraph 48 of thejudgement. 47 See Part 11, paragraph 339C of the Immigration Rules, which states that: “Aperson will be granted humanitarian protection in the United Kingdom if theSecretary of State is satisfied that: (i) he is in the United Kingdom or hasarrived at a port of entry in the United Kingdom; (ii) he does not qualify as arefugee as defined in regulation 2 of The Refugee or Person in Need ofInternational Protection (Qualification) Regulations 2006; (iii) substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person concerned,if he returned to the country of return, would face a real risk of sufferingserious harm and is unable, or, owing to such risk, unwilling to avail himself ofthe protection of that country; and (iv) he is not excluded from a grant ofhumanitarian protection. Serious harm consists of: (i) the death penalty orexecution; (ii) unlawful killing; (iii) torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of a person in thecountry of return; or (iv) serious and individual threat to a civilian's life or person by reason ofindiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict”.

of 49

Module: International Protection of Refugees; Module Code: 22930. Essay Title: Critically examine the Exclusionary Clauses of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees with special reference to the law and policy of the United Kingdom. By Student No. 201201810. 5,432 Words. harm”48 could eventually lead to the application of an “order

for removal”49. Consequently, other considerations such as the

ECHR and the four Directives of the European Union take

effect.

On that note, the alignment of the Convention with other

international regimes such as human rights, humanitarian and

criminal laws is evident. The provision of Article 1F of the

Convention appears mandatory and demanding of a State negative

duty to exclude anyone that falls into its category. However,

in Chahal v. the United Kingdom,50 the ECtHR sets Article 3 of

the ECHR as a restraining factor in the State prerogative to

expel excluded persons when there are “real risks of suffering

serious harm”51 and the individual’s Article 3 of the ECHR will

be violated. The ECtHR states that “the prohibition provided

by Article 3 against ill-treatment is [...] absolute in

48 See Part 11, paragraph 339G of the Immigration Rules, Asylum, Home Office and UKVisas and Immigration (13 February 2014).49 Schedule 2, Paragraph 14(2) of the Immigration Act 1971,available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/77/schedule/2, accessed on02/05/2014. 50 See Chahal v. the United Kingdom, App. no. 22414/93 (ECtHR, November 15, 1996). 51 See Article 2(e) of the Council Directive 2004/83/EC, Minimum Standards for theQualification and Status of Third Country Nationals or Stateless Persons asRefugees or as Persons Who Otherwise Need International Protection and the Contentof the Protection Granted, Official Journal of the European Union (29 April 2004).

of 49

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/77/schedule/2

Module: International Protection of Refugees; Module Code: 22930. Essay Title: Critically examine the Exclusionary Clauses of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees with special reference to the law and policy of the United Kingdom. By Student No. 201201810. 5,432 Words. expulsion cases”.52 Coincidentally, torture is attributable to

States as well as Article 6 of the 2004 Directive

classification of States as “actors of persecution”.53 The

object of this reasoning is that friendly States could

connive, politically, to return a person fleeing from

persecution to the persecutor. In Rehman v. SSHD, the Court

attempted such an approach in its interpretation of national

security, stating that “a threat to the security of one nation

is a threat to all”.54 This judgment was applied in the context

of the exclusion, on Convention grounds, of members of some

dissident groups operating against a country friendly to the

UK. In that vein, scholars disagree and assert that “an enemy

of his government is not any enemy of mankind”.55 Commonly,

States’ obligation under international law regarding Article

1F of the Convention does not simply require the exclusion of

persons described in the provision but also demands responsive

52 Ibid, no 50, paragraph 80 of the Judgment. 53 Article 6 of the Council Directive 2004/83/EC OF 29 APRIL 2004 on MinimumStandards for the Qualification and Status of Third-country Nationals or StatelessPersons as Refugees or as Persons who Otherwise need International Protection andthe Content of the Protection Granted, published in the Official Journal of theEuropean Union OJ L 304, 30/09/2004 pp. 0012–0023.54 See Rehman v. SSHD, 2001, UKHL 47 (October 11, 2001). 55 Dummett, A. and Nicol, A. G. L., Subjects, Citizens, Alliens and Others:Nationality and Immigration Law, 1990, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, p. 144.

of 49

Module: International Protection of Refugees; Module Code: 22930. Essay Title: Critically examine the Exclusionary Clauses of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees with special reference to the law and policy of the United Kingdom. By Student No. 201201810. 5,432 Words. action from the authorities. According to a UN Report, States

decide whether “the person concerned [is] criminally

prosecuted or extradited”.56 Both courses of action have

discursive legal limitations. On the one hand are the changes

in criminal law with the inception of the International

Criminal Court (ICC), which has jurisdiction to “investigate

and prosecute”57 offences mentioned in Article 1F. Scholars

argue that “the use of universal jurisdiction in domestic

courts for serious international crimes has burgeoned in

recent years”.58 Therefore, repatriation of the applicant to

the home country where allegedly he/she is being persecuted is

an erroneous option. On the other hand is the option to

extradite the excluded applicant to the international Court

for prosecution, which could satisfy the Convention objective

of protecting the individual as well as providing justice as

appropriate. Scholars contend that the “service of the

sentence, or indeed a final acquittal [of an asylum applicant]

56 See UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Guidelines on InternationalProtection No. 5: Application of the Exclusion Clauses: Article 1F of the 1951Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, 4 September2003, HCR/GIP/03/05, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/3f5857684.html,accessed on 26/04/2014], paragraph 8 of the report.57 See the Preamble of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), 1July 2002. 58 Ibid, no 32, p. 430.

of 49

Module: International Protection of Refugees; Module Code: 22930. Essay Title: Critically examine the Exclusionary Clauses of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees with special reference to the law and policy of the United Kingdom. By Student No. 201201810. 5,432 Words. brings the application of exclusion clause to an end”.59 Hence

the complexity of the Article 1F exclusion clause wherein a

State decision to exclude is preceded by an order for

repatriation of the individual back to the home country or a

third country.

- Evaluative Focus on Article 1F(a), 1F(b) and 1F(c) as

Reflects UK law and Policy

Further evaluation of Article 1F reveals the isolation of the

exclusion clause from the causality of refugee situations such

as criminal activities and violation of individual rights and

freedom. With the exception of Article 1F(b), which is

specific to domestic criminal legislation, the details of

Article 1F(a) and 1F(c) are prohibited under Common Article 3

of the Geneva Conventions and Article 1 of the UN Charter.

Both crimes are prosecuted and penalized under the

international jurisdiction of the ICC. Summarily, Article

1F(c) of the Convention “does not introduce any specific new

59 James Hathaway, the Law of Refugee Status, 1993, pp. 222-3; see also, Atle Grahl-Madsen, the Status of Refugees in International Law, 1966, Vol. 1, A W Sijthoff,Leyden, p. 291 or Territorial Asylum, 1980, Almquist & Wiksell Intl. and OceanaPublications, Stockholm/London/New York, p. 231.

of 49

Module: International Protection of Refugees; Module Code: 22930. Essay Title: Critically examine the Exclusionary Clauses of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees with special reference to the law and policy of the United Kingdom. By Student No. 201201810. 5,432 Words. element”60 other than a more abstract content that covers other

areas that are not contained in “the two preceding exclusion

clauses”.61 The scholarly view opines that Article 1F provision

was merely used to appease State uneasiness about providing

protection to “undesirable refugees”.62 For instance, Article

1F(b) reference to “serious non-political crime” creates

divergent legal discourse among scholars. Some scholars

sustain diverse interpretative standards of determining “what

constitutes a serious crime [for the purpose of determining]

whether the criminal character of the applicant for refugee

status in fact outweighs his or her character as a bona fide

refugee”.63 Conversely, other scholars support a more

universal mechanism of interpretation and sustain that only

offences punishable by “the death penalty or deprivation of

liberty for several years”64 qualify as justification under

Article 1F(b) of the Convention. Hence different States apply

either of the foregoing scholarly doctrines in their domestic

60 ibid, no 33, paragraph 162.61 ibid, no 33, paragraph 162.62 See James Hathaway, The Law of Refugee Status, 1993, Cambridge University Press,p. 214.63 G. Goodwin-Gill and J. McAdam, The Refugees in International Law, (2007) NewYork: Oxford University Press, p. 176.64 ibid, no 15, p. 297

of 49

Module: International Protection of Refugees; Module Code: 22930. Essay Title: Critically examine the Exclusionary Clauses of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees with special reference to the law and policy of the United Kingdom. By Student No. 201201810. 5,432 Words. laws wherein most cases are applied arbitrarily against the

object meaning of this provision of the Convention. In UK

refugee law and policy, however, the criteria for

distinguishing excludible asylum seekers do not provide a

necessary guarantee of effectiveness in accordance with the

exclusion clause content of the Convention. The only criterion

for determining that an applicant falls into this group is

based on State reliance on the claimant’s statement or

information received from the alleged persecutor nation.

In this regard, the “claimant’s credibility” is important in

expounding an argument on the event that preceded his/her

arrival to the country. Section 8(2) of the 2004 Act

establishes an assessment mechanism of claimant credibility.

Notably, this assessment mechanism is based on what “the

deciding authority thinks”65 and not on “serious reasons”66 for

the determination of the person’s credibility and subsequent

exclusion from the process. Scholarly observation is that the

65 See Section 8(2) of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act(2004)66 Article 17 of the Council Directive 2004/83/EC, Minimum Standards for theQualification and Status of Third Country Nationals or Stateless Persons asRefugees or as Persons Who Otherwise Need International Protection and the Contentof the Protection Granted, Official Journal of the European Union (29 April 2004).

of 49

Module: International Protection of Refugees; Module Code: 22930. Essay Title: Critically examine the Exclusionary Clauses of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees with special reference to the law and policy of the United Kingdom. By Student No. 201201810. 5,432 Words. “credibility of claimants tends to be questioned”.67 In this

context, the burden of proof seems to be shifted to the

claimants. This practice does not conform to the Convention

purpose but obeys State scepticism over the invasion of

economic migrants, the consequences of which genuine

applicants endure.

Article 1F does not operate on claimant credibility assessment

but on the factual and serious belief that the applicant

committed the act of which he or she is accused. In Gurung v.

SSHD, the apex Court ruled that “a wide range of determining

factors”68 is necessary in the application of Article 1F. Hence

it criticized the lower Court ruling, calling it “unhelpful

and overly simplistic” for allowing the exclusion clause to

apply in that context of the case. On this note, the UN High

Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) asserts that “mere

membership of an organisation is not sufficient to establish

liability for Article 1F crimes”.69 The offences must conform

67 Ibid, no 62, p. 85; See also, Deborah Anker, Law of Asylum in the United States,1999, p. 165. 68 See Gurung v. SSHD, 2002, UKIAT 04870, (October 14, 2002), paragraph 115.69 See UNHCR Executive Committee Note on the Exclusion Clauses, UN DocEC/47/WSC/CRP.29, paragraphs 12-15: published in Matthew Zagor, Persecutor orPersecuted: Exclusion Under Article 1F(A) and (B) of the Refugees Convention, 2000,23 UNSW Law Journal 3, 177-178, p. 175.)

of 49

Module: International Protection of Refugees; Module Code: 22930. Essay Title: Critically examine the Exclusionary Clauses of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees with special reference to the law and policy of the United Kingdom. By Student No. 201201810. 5,432 Words. to the stipulations of Article 1F provision; otherwise, the

State is making use of its prerogatives in Article 33(2) of

the Convention. Article 1F, according to the Court

interpretation in AH v. SSHD, requires a threshold which

establishes that “the seriousness [of the act] must be of such

degree that the offender cannot legitimately claim refugee

status”.70 In light of the foregoing, the State could grant

“discretionary leave”71 to the person or initiate a removal

action.

Conflicting Measures for Excluding Refugee Applicants under

Article 1F

Section 55 of the 2006 Act72 provides that the Secretary of

State can issue certification to exclude persons from the

international protection regime. The conflicting issue in this

prerogative is the applicable measures which, due to lack of

established procedure, are regulated under domestic law to

apply in all cases. For instance, the vagueness of Article 1F

70 AH (Sudan) v. SSHD,2007, EWCA Civ 297 (April 04, 2007), paragraph 38 of thejudgment.71 Section 3(1)(c) of the Immigration Act of 1971. 72 Section 55, Chapter 13 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 [30March 2006], available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/13, accessed on02/05/2014. Hereinafter referred to as the 2006 Act.

of 49

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/13

Module: International Protection of Refugees; Module Code: 22930. Essay Title: Critically examine the Exclusionary Clauses of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees with special reference to the law and policy of the United Kingdom. By Student No. 201201810. 5,432 Words. and the exceptions in Article 33(2) give rise to exclusive

criteria which align with the expulsion from the country of

unprotected persons under the Convention. Thus apart from the

intermixture of Articles 1F and 33(1) of the Convention under

Section 55 of the 2006 Act, which have different

specifications, UK policy is to apply Article 33(2) of the

Convention measures on the “ground of national security”73 as

the common measure in both cases. These provisions of the

Convention have different specifications. Article 1F applies

when the alleged crimes were alleged to have been committed

outside the receiving country prior to the application for

refugee protection. However, the Convention did not expressly

provide for excluded persons to be removed from the host

country or deported to his/her home country. Conversely,

Article 33(1) applies when a person who has been granted the

status of refugee commits a crime and the host country

considers such individual a threat to its national security.

In this case Article 33(2) applies and provides that the

individual can be removed. The consideration of the term

“serious crime” (Article 1F of the Convention) and subsequent73 Section 55(1)(b) of the 2006 Act.

of 49

Module: International Protection of Refugees; Module Code: 22930. Essay Title: Critically examine the Exclusionary Clauses of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees with special reference to the law and policy of the United Kingdom. By Student No. 201201810. 5,432 Words. measures is applied under Section 72(1) of the 2002 Act.74 This

provision makes no distinction between crimes committed

outside the country and crimes committed within the State

territory. It does not distinguish Article 1F exclusion and

Article 33(2) exceptions in determining applicable measures

for persons excluded from protection. Section 72(3) of the

2002 Act creates an overarching classification of crimes that

fall under Article 1F by juxtaposing both Article 1F mandatory

action and Article 33(2) of the Convention exceptions in

Section 76(1) of the 2002 Act as it applies or is interpreted

in Section 76(4) of the 2002 Act. The domestic legislative

provisions for determining applicable measures to exclusionary

clauses of Article 1D, 1E and 1F seem to exclude the following

options: (1) the political motivations for the alleged crimes

of the applicants; (2) the admissibility of the individual

based on Article 14(7)75 of ICCPR provision; or (3) the

exploitation of the jurisdiction of the international criminal

74 Chapter 41, Part 1, Section 72 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act2002; Hereinafter referred to as the 2002 Act. 75 See Article 14(7) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights1966: “No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence forwhich he has already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with the lawand penal procedure of each country”.

of 49

Module: International Protection of Refugees; Module Code: 22930. Essay Title: Critically examine the Exclusionary Clauses of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees with special reference to the law and policy of the United Kingdom. By Student No. 201201810. 5,432 Words. tribunal. These options provide considerable relief from the

risk of removing an excluded person to an “unsafe country”.76

The Relevance of International Criminal Tribunals to Article

1F of the Refugee Convention

The malleable nature of refugee laws, in general, reflects the

divergent interpretative standards regarding the motivations

for asylum application and acceptable exclusion justification.

The UNHCR states that “the exclusion clauses must be

interpreted restrictively and applied with great caution”.77

The acceptable justification for the exclusion of an asylum

applicant for refugee protection under international law is on

grounds of “serious reasons”. In Al Sirri and Another v. SSHD,

the Court held that “serious reasons”78 are more weighty than

“reasonable ground”.79 The compelling question is, therefore,

the determination of appropriate measures where such “serious

76 See H. and B. v. the United Kingdom, App. nos. 70073/10 and 44539/11 (ECtHR,April 09, 2013), paragraph 5 of Judge Kalaydjieva’s dissenting opinion; see alsoVilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, app. no 13163/87, 13164/87, 13165/87,13447/87, 13448/87, paragraph 108. The ECtHR expresses concern about expelling aperson to an unsafe country: “the foreseeable consequences of sending the applicantto the receiving country, bearing in mind the general situation there and hispersonal circumstances”.77 ibid, no 33, paragraph 04.78 Al Sirri (FC) and DD (Afghanistan) v. SSHD, 2012, UKSC 54 (November 21, 2012). 79 Ibid.

of 49

Module: International Protection of Refugees; Module Code: 22930. Essay Title: Critically examine the Exclusionary Clauses of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees with special reference to the law and policy of the United Kingdom. By Student No. 201201810. 5,432 Words. reasons” exist that an applicant falls under Article 1F

provision. It is common knowledge that an individual who has

committed the crimes expressed or implied in Article 1F of the

Convention ought to be prosecuted if found within the borders

of another country. However, several UK case laws reflect a

repetitive action to expel or repatriate an excluded applicant

rather than seek justice within domestic or international

court jurisdiction. There have been substantial changes in

international law that allow the enforcement of criminal

prosecution without recourse to the repatriation of an

excluded applicant to an alleged country of persecution. The

scholarly view is that “the use of universal jurisdiction in

domestic courts for serious international crimes has burgeoned

in recent years”.80 The establishment of the International

Criminal Court and ad hoc war crime tribunals for Rwanda,

Yugoslavia and Sierra Leone underlines the existing changes in

international criminal law which delegitimize the purpose of

Article 1F of the Convention. If an applicant had committed a

serious crime which falls into Article 1F provisions of the

Convention, there are international mechanisms for ensuring80 ibid, no 32, p. 430

of 49

Module: International Protection of Refugees; Module Code: 22930. Essay Title: Critically examine the Exclusionary Clauses of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees with special reference to the law and policy of the United Kingdom. By Student No. 201201810. 5,432 Words. effective judicial remedies. The forceful repatriation of such

persons to the country of persecution or to a third country in

violation of Article 33(1) of the Convention is therefore

unwarranted.

- The Relevance of Article 3 of the ECHR to UK Article 1F

Enforcement Law and Policy

The European Union dimension provides four core directives

which stipulate common criteria for determining the

qualification, reception, treatment procedure of asylum

seekers and inter-State collaboration on applications. These

directives are subject to the supervisory powers of the ECtHR

under Article 19 of the ECHR. Additionally, the ECtHR is

concerned with the legality of State actions at all levels of

human rights, including refugee protection. In Saadi v. Italy,

the ECtHR states that “[States] must not resort to methods

which undermine the very values they seek to protect”.81 Part

of this ideal is the protection of the human rights and

freedom of refugee applicants. Where the rights of the State

juxtapose with the human rights of the asylum seeker, the

81 See Saadi v. Italy, App. no. 37201/06, (The ECtHR, February 28, 2008), JudgeMyjer’s concurrent opinion.

of 49

Module: International Protection of Refugees; Module Code: 22930. Essay Title: Critically examine the Exclusionary Clauses of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees with special reference to the law and policy of the United Kingdom. By Student No. 201201810. 5,432 Words. ECtHR examines the “proportionality”82 of such action. The UK

has an obligation under Article 1 of the ECHR to adhere to

these rules. A frequent area of legal contention is within the

provisions of Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR. Given that neither

Article 1F nor Article 12 of the 2004 Council Directive states

an applicable measure for excluded refugee applicants,83 States

have used discretion in adopting measures. In UK law and

policy, the State revindication of its sovereign right “to

deport or return the alien to whatever country is prepared to

receive him”84 has been a common exercise. Article 28 of the

Convention prohibits countries from removing or repatriating

82 M Eissen, The Principle of Proportionality in the Case-Law of the European Courtof Human Rights: published in Ronald St John Macdonald, Franz Matscher and HerbertPetzold (eds), The European System for the Protection of Human Rights, 1993,Martinus Nijhoff, pp. 125-37: “the principle of proportionality constitutes generalprinciple of international law and includes elements of severity, duration andscope”. 83 Article 1F of the 1951 Refugee Convention and Article 12 of the Council Directive2004/83/EC states that: “the provisions of this Convention shall not apply”. Unlikeexceptions on the “prohibition of expulsion or return” in Article 33(2) of theConvention, the aforementioned Convention and Council Directive provisions do notspecify what actions States are required to take regarding the excluded personsfrom the refugee regime.84 See also Paul Weis, Travaux Preparatoires Analysed with A Commentary, The RefugeeConvention, 1951, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/4ca34be29.pdf, accessed on22/04/2014: “His Majesty's Government will continue to act, as they have done inthe past, in the spirit of this Article. They have in mind, however, certainexceptional cases, including those in which an alien, despite warning, persists inconduct prejudicial to good order and government and the ordinary sanctions of thelaw have failed to stop such conduct; or those in which an alien, althoughtechnically a refugee within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention is known tobe a criminal. In such and similar exceptional cases His Majesty's Government mustreserve the right to deport or return the alien to whatever country is prepared toreceive him, even though this involved his return to his own country”.

of 49

http://www.unhcr.org/4ca34be29.pdf

Module: International Protection of Refugees; Module Code: 22930. Essay Title: Critically examine the Exclusionary Clauses of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees with special reference to the law and policy of the United Kingdom. By Student No. 201201810. 5,432 Words. “a refugee to the frontiers of territories where his life or

freedom would be threatened”.85 Yet, a common measure in UK

exclusion law is the “removal” of the applicant as justified

in Article 33(2) of the Convention. When exclusion from

refugee status applies, a shift towards human rights and

humanitarian considerations is triggered. Hence, the ECtHR

examines the compliance of measures with Articles 3 and 8

provisions of the ECHR. The ECtHR, in Soering v. the UK,

examined Article 3 of the ECHR and adopted the expansive

version of the standard of “non-refoulement”86 as contained in

Article 3 of the ICCPR, which establishes the absolute nature

of the State obligation to provide protection to persons

fleeing from persecution. Therein, the “Soering principle”87

was created and has since been applied in cases of the

deportation or extradition of persons from the European

territory to other countries of the world.

85 UN Ad Hoc Committee on Refugees and Stateless Persons, Ad Hoc Committee onRefugees and Stateless Persons, Third Report of the Drafting Committee on Articlesof the Draft Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (E/AC.32/L.40 andE/1703/Add.7), 23 August 1950, E/AC.32/L.42/Add.2. 86 See Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman orDegrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984; in Sandy Ghandhi (ed), Blackstone’sInternational Human Rights Documents, 2012, Oxford University Press, p. 75. 87 See Soering v. the United Kingdom, App. no. 14038/88, (The ECtHR, July 7, 1989)..

of 49

Module: International Protection of Refugees; Module Code: 22930. Essay Title: Critically examine the Exclusionary Clauses of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees with special reference to the law and policy of the United Kingdom. By Student No. 201201810. 5,432 Words. UK policy establishes strict adherence to human rights laws

which also protect excluded asylum seekers or refugee

applicants. Section 6 of the Human Rights Act imposes a duty

on “public authorities” to observe and comply with the

provisions of the ECHR. International humanitarian laws have

also been incorporated into the refugee application

consideration process. Paragraph 339C of the Immigration Rules

provides mechanisms of consideration of “humanitarian

protection”88 to applicants. However, access to these remedies

for Article 1F excluded persons under UK law is relative to

two legal assessment approaches. On the one hand is the

“domestic”89 approach, which gives consideration to whether a

person’s right has been violated by a decision of the State.

88 Part 11, paragraph 339C of the Immigration Rule, Asylum, Home Office and UK Visasand Immigration (13 February 2014): “SERIOUS HARM:The Immigration Rules: “In brief, a person is now eligible for HumanitarianProtection if the person is not a refugee and faces a real risk of suffering‘serious harm’ in the country of return. Under paragraph 339C of the ImmigrationRules, serious harm means: (1) The death penalty or execution; (2) Unlawfulkilling; (3) Torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the countryof return; or (4) Serious and individual threat to a civilian’s life or person byreason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armedconflict”.89 See Ullah and Do (FC) v. The SSHD, 2004, UKHL 26 (June 17, 2004), paragraph 07:“In the ordinary way, a claim based on the Convention arises where a state is saidto have acted within its own territory in a way which infringes the enjoyment of aConvention right by a person within that territory. Such claims may for conveniencebe called ‘domestic cases’".

of 49

Module: International Protection of Refugees; Module Code: 22930. Essay Title: Critically examine the Exclusionary Clauses of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees with special reference to the law and policy of the United Kingdom. By Student No. 201201810. 5,432 Words. On the other is the “foreign”90 approach, which evaluates

whether a person’s right will be breached. In Ullah and Do v.

SSHD, the Court noted that “states undertook to secure” to

everyone within their jurisdiction “the rights and freedoms

defined in section 1 of the [ECHR] Convention”.91 Hence in

Saadi v. Italy, the ECtHR stated that “[States] must not

resort to methods which undermine the very values they seek to

protect”.92

- Evaluation of the Exclusionary Provisions in Article 1D

and 1E of the Convention

The application of Article 1D in UK law is with regard to

persons protected by “organs or agencies of the United

Nations” such as the United Nations Relief and Works Agency

(UNRWA). In Amer Muhammad El-Ali v. SSHD, the Supreme Court

held that “the applicant is excluded [insofar as the] UNRWA

90 Ibid, paragraph 09: “Domestic cases as I have defined them are to bedistinguished from cases in which it is not claimed that the state complained ofhas violated or will violate the applicant's Convention rights within its ownterritory but in which it is claimed that the conduct of the state in removing aperson from its territory (whether by expulsion or extradition) to anotherterritory will lead to a violation of the person's Convention rights in that otherterritory. I call these ‘foreign cases’, acknowledging that the description isimperfect, since even a foreign case assumes an exercise of power by the stateaffecting a person physically present within its territory”.91 ibid, no 89, paragraph 07. 92 ibid, no 81

of 49

Module: International Protection of Refugees; Module Code: 22930. Essay Title: Critically examine the Exclusionary Clauses of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees with special reference to the law and policy of the United Kingdom. By Student No. 201201810. 5,432 Words. continues to operate”93 to provide him with protection.

However, there is an exception in Article 1D(2) of the

Convention that explains when this exclusion clause ceases to

apply. One UNHCR report states:

if [a] person is outside UNRWA’s area of operations,he or she no longer enjoys the protection orassistance of UNRWA and therefore falls withinparagraph 2 of Article 1D, providing of course thatArticle 1C, 1E and 1F do not apply. Such a person isautomatically entitled to the benefits of the 1951Convention and falls within the competence ofUNHCR.94

The above statement by the UNHCR clarifies the contentious

question regarding the Article 1D exclusionary clause. The

term ‘ipso facto’ was subject to interpretation in the UK

definition of Article 1D. In Adan v. SSHD, the judges noted

that “the starting point must be the language itself”.95 Hence

Article 12(1)(a)(b)96 of the Council Directive provision became

93 Amer Mohammed El-Ali (Palestinians) v. The SSHD, 2002, UKIAT 00159 (July 26,2002), paragraph 17 of the judgment.94 UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Note on the Applicability of Article1D of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees to PalestinianRefugees, 2 October 2002, available at:http://www.unhcr-northerneurope.org/fileadmin/user_upload/PDFdocuments/Legal/Handbooks/UNHCR_Policy_Documents_Related_to_RSD/Note%20on%20the%20Applicability%20of%20Article%201D%20of%20the%201951%20Convention%20relating%20to%20the%20Status%20of%20Refugees%20to%20Palestinian%20Refugees.pdf, accessed on 02/05/2014.95 Regina v. SSHD Ex parter Adan and Others, 1999, 1 AC 293 (July 23, 1999).96 Article 12(1)(a) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004; Article 12(1)(b) provides that: “he or she is recognised by the competent authorities of thecountry in which he or she has taken residence as having the rights and obligationswhich are attached to the possession of the nationality of that country; or rightsand obligations equivalent to those”.

of 49

http://www.unhcr-northerneurope.org/fileadmin/user_upload/PDFdocuments/Legal/Handbooks/UNHCR_Policy_Documents_Related_to_RSD/Note%20on%20the%20Applicability%20of%20Article%201D%20of%20the%201951%20Convention%20relating%20to%20the%20Status%20of%20Refugees%20to%20Palestinian%20Refugees.pdf



Module: International Protection of Refugees; Module Code: 22930. Essay Title: Critically examine the Exclusionary Clauses of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees with special reference to the law and policy of the United Kingdom. By Student No. 201201810. 5,432 Words. relevant and impactful on Article 1D decisions in the UK and

other European States, as it provided an additional clause

that implied an automatic adhesion of the applicant into the

system of protection of the host country.97

In a different consideration, Article 1E excludes those under

application process or receiving protection in another

country. A UNCHR report states that “A central issue is that

Article 1E applies only to cases where the person is currently

recognized by the country concerned as having these ‘rights

and obligations’”. On this note, UK policy is relatively

simple compared with Articles 1F and 33(2) of the Convention

clauses. UK policy for the application of the Article 1E

exclusionary clause aligns with measures in Article 198 of the

Dublin Convention. The notable aspect of this Convention is

the uniformity of action in the application of Articles 5 and

16 of the Dublin Convention. In summary, a person seeking

97 Ibid, Article 12(1)(b) provides that: “he or she is recognised by the competentauthorities of the country in which he or she has taken residence as having therights and obligations which are attached to the possession of the nationality ofthat country; or rights and obligations equivalent to those”.98 Article 1 of Council Regulation [EC] No 343/2003, Establishing the Criteria andMechanisms for Determining the Member State Responsibility for Examining an AsylumApplication Lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country National,Official Journal of the European Union (18 February 2003). Hereinafter referred toas the Dublin Convention.

of 49

Module: International Protection of Refugees; Module Code: 22930. Essay Title: Critically examine the Exclusionary Clauses of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees with special reference to the law and policy of the United Kingdom. By Student No. 201201810. 5,432 Words. international refugee protection is required to make a claim

upon the first point of entry into the European territory.

Hence, the State of initial entry has established

responsibilities in Article 16 of the Dublin Convention

towards the asylum seeker. However, in MSS v. Belgium and

Greece, the ECtHR set limitations that apply in Article 10(1)

of the Dublin Convention. The ECtHR held that the asylum

seekers Article 3 right was violated because Belgium

“knowingly exposed him to conditions of detention and living

conditions that amounted to degrading treatment”99. Against

this background, the UK policy gains notoriety with mediocre

detention conditions and claims of Article 3 of ECHR rights

violations.

Conclusion

The task of refugee protection, as noted in this work, is

burgeoning and becoming a burden of duty on States. Notably,

there are innumerable components of interpretative mechanisms

for the assessment and application of exclusionary clauses.

This work examined several relevant areas of exclusionary99 MSS v. Belgium and Greece, App. no. 30696/09 (ECtHR, January 21, 2011) paragraph367 of the judgement.

of 49

Module: International Protection of Refugees; Module Code: 22930. Essay Title: Critically examine the Exclusionary Clauses of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees with special reference to the law and policy of the United Kingdom. By Student No. 201201810. 5,432 Words. clauses, including the mechanisms of enforcement adopted in UK

domestic laws and the common EU standard of approach under the

human rights Convention and the regional directives. The

abstract nature of the exclusion clauses was noted, as well as

the focus on criminality in this subject.

Greater emphasis is, however, placed on the exclusionary

clause of Article 1F of the Convention due to the broadness of

the actions within UK law and policy and the European Union

dimension to this question. The mini-exception in Article

33(2) of the Convention was also given relevance in this work

due to its use as justification in an overarching action

against excluded persons under Article 1F of the Convention.

The measures in UK policy are marred by evident arbitrary

decisions which are influenced by incongruity in criminal law

that permits internal rules that conflict with international

and regional regime provision. In addition, these measures –

or mechanisms of enforcement – for exclusionary clauses

receive constant disapprobation by both the domestic and

regional Courts. In light of the prevailing State enforcement

doctrine for excluded persons, which is the deportation,

of 49

Module: International Protection of Refugees; Module Code: 22930. Essay Title: Critically examine the Exclusionary Clauses of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees with special reference to the law and policy of the United Kingdom. By Student No. 201201810. 5,432 Words. repatriation or removal to the home or a third country, this

is confronted by other international regimes with which it

conflicts.

Also in the findings in this work, the three exclusionary

clauses and the mini-exception (Articles 1D, 1E, 1F and 33(2)

of the Convention) contain different specifications which are

ignored in the applicable domestic mechanisms of exclusion and

expulsion. Against this background is the violation of

relevant international regimes which the UK has a commitment

to respect and uphold. Discourse on how domestic measures

infringe on Article 3 of the ECHR and the non-refoulement

right as expressed in Article 3 of the ICCPR leads to the

question of the validity, or legality, of the criminality

approach to asylum seekers in UK law and policy.

In addition, this work contends that the UK’s criminality

approach towards asylum seekers, instead of the hospitality

approach as expressed in the Convention, influences decisions

on exclusionary clause assessment criteria. Most of these

criteria conflict with international set standards and other

areas of international law. Notably, the criminal of 49

Module: International Protection of Refugees; Module Code: 22930. Essay Title: Critically examine the Exclusionary Clauses of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees with special reference to the law and policy of the United Kingdom. By Student No. 201201810. 5,432 Words. investigation powers of the UK Border Agency and the criteria

for determining an applicant’s credibility undermine the core

expression of the Convention mandate for refugee protection.

The substance of UK law and policy in the exclusionary clauses

is isolated from the vague concept of the Convention, the

outstretched expressions of the four directives and the

incongruity of domestic legislation. This barrage of

applicable legal instruments in the refugee protection regime

creates discourse on the legal satisfaction of the exclusion

clauses in the Convention. A case in point is the right of

children conscripted to war as soldiers and who have committed

such crimes as defined in Article 1F. Another case in point is

the emergence of an international criminal tribunal which has

jurisdiction for prosecuting offences under Article 1F (a) and

1F(c). These observations and arguments suggest another

remedy for the protection of those excluded but who have a

“well-founded fear of being persecuted”.100

In the end, the UK policy fixation on asylum seekers’ criminal

assessment deviates from State obligation regarding the

100 Article 1A of the 1951 Refugee Convention.

of 49

Module: International Protection of Refugees; Module Code: 22930. Essay Title: Critically examine the Exclusionary Clauses of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees with special reference to the law and policy of the United Kingdom. By Student No. 201201810. 5,432 Words. underlining question of the protection of refugees towards

hunting for whom to exclude from the process and remove from

the country.

Bibliography:

- Books

Anker, D., Law of Asylum in the United States, 1999, West Publishing

Company.

Clayton, G., Textbook on Immigration and Asylum Law, 2012 New York:

Oxford University Press.

Dummett, A. and Nicol, A. G. L., Subjects, Citizens, Alliens and

Others: Nationality and Immigration Law, 1990, Weidenfeld and

Nicolson.

Eissen, M., The Principle of Proportionality in the Case-Law of the

European Court of Human Rights: published in Ronald St John

Macdonald, Franz Matscher and Herbert Petzold (eds), The European

System for the Protection of Human Rights, 1993, Martinus Nijhoff,

pp. 125-37

Ghandhi, S. (ed), Blackstone’s International Human Rights Documents,

2012, Oxford University Press.

of 49

Module: International Protection of Refugees; Module Code: 22930. Essay Title: Critically examine the Exclusionary Clauses of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees with special reference to the law and policy of the United Kingdom. By Student No. 201201810. 5,432 Words. Gilbert, G., Current Issues in the Application of Exclusion

Clauses, 2003, Cambridge University Press.

Goodwin-Gill, G. and McAdam, J., The Refugees in International Law,

(2007) New York: Oxford University Press.

Grahl-Madsen, A., The Status of Refugees in International Law:

Refugee Character, 1966, Almquist & Wiksell Sijthoff.

Hathaway, J., Reconceiving International Refugee Law, 1997,

Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

Hathaway, J., The Law of Refugee Status, 1993, Cambridge University

Press.

McNamara, D., Exclusion Clauses: Closer Attention Paid to the

Exclusion Clauses, 1997, published in Refugee and Asylum Law:

Assessing the Scope for Judicial Protection, International

Association of Refugee Law Judges, Nederlands Centrum Buitenlanders.

Van Krieken, P. J., (ed.) Refugee Law in Context: The Exclusion

Clause,1999, T.M.C. Asser Press.

Weis, P., The Refugee Convention, 1951:Travaux Preparatoires

Analysed with A Commentary, 1995, Cambridge University Press.

- Cases

of 49

Module: International Protection of Refugees; Module Code: 22930. Essay Title: Critically examine the Exclusionary Clauses of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees with special reference to the law and policy of the United Kingdom. By Student No. 201201810. 5,432 Words. AH (Sudan) v. SSHD,2007, EWCA Civ 297 (April 04, 2007).

Al Sirri (FC) and DD (Afghanistan) v. SSHD, 2012, UKSC 54 (November

21, 2012).

Amer Mohammed El-Ali (Palestinians) v. The SSHD, 2002, UKIAT 00159

(July 26, 2002).

Chahal v. the United Kingdom, App. no. 22414/93 (ECtHR, November 15,

1996).

Gurung v. SSHD, 2002, UKIAT 04870, (October 14, 2002).

H. and B. v. the United Kingdom, App. nos. 70073/10 and 44539/11

(ECtHR, April 09, 2013).

MF (Nigeria) v. SSHD, 2013, EWCA Civ 1192 (October 8, 2013).

MSS v. Belgium and Greece, App. no. 30696/09 (ECtHR, January 21,

2011).

Rehman v. SSHD, 2001, UKHL 47 (October 11, 2001).

Regina v. SSHD Ex parter Adan and Others, 1999, 1 AC 293 (July 23,

1999).

Regina v. SSHD, ex parte Razgar, 2003, EWCA Civ 840 (June 9, 2003).

of 49

Module: International Protection of Refugees; Module Code: 22930. Essay Title: Critically examine the Exclusionary Clauses of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees with special reference to the law and policy of the United Kingdom. By Student No. 201201810. 5,432 Words. Regina v. SSHD ex parte Thangarasa; Regina v. SSHD, ex parte

Yogathas [2002] UKHL 36 (October 17, 2002).

Saadi v. Italy, App. no. 37201/06, (The ECtHR, February 28, 2008).

Soering v. the United Kingdom, App. no. 14038/88, (The ECtHR, July

7, 1989).

Ullah and Do (FC) v. The SSHD, 2004, UKHL 26 (June 17, 2004).

Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, app. no 13163/87,

13164/87, 13165/87, 13447/87, 13448/87 (ECtHR, October 30, 1991).

ZH (Tanzania) v. SSHD, 2011, UKSC 4 (February 01, 2011).

- Charter, Conventions, Legislations and Treaties

Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, United Kingdom of Great

Britain and Northern Ireland, Chapter 23, (July 01, 1993), available

at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1993/23/section/2, accessed

on 25/04/2014

Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004,

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Chapter 19.

Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading

Treatment or Punishment 1984, United Nations Treaty Series, Vol.

of 49


Module: International Protection of Refugees; Module Code: 22930. Essay Title: Critically examine the Exclusionary Clauses of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees with special reference to the law and policy of the United Kingdom. By Student No. 201201810. 5,432 Words. 1465, p. 85, Available at:

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CAT.aspx,

accessed on 02/05/2014.

Council of the European Union, Council Regulation [EC] No 343/2003

of 18 February 2003: Establishing the Criteria and Mechanisms for

Determining the Member State Responsibility for Examining an Asylum

Application Lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country

National, Official Journal of the European Union, L 50/1-50/10

(February 25, 2003); (EC)No 343/2003.

Council of the European Union, Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29

April 2004 on Minimum Standards for the Qualification and Status of

Third Country Nationals or Stateless Persons as Refugees or as

Persons Who Otherwise Need International Protection and the Content

of the Protection Granted, Official Journal of the European Union, L

304/12-304/23 (April 29, 2004); 2004/83/EC.

Council of the European Union, Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1

December 2005 on Minimum Standards on Procedures in Member States

for Granting and Withdrawing Refugee Status, 2 January 2006, OJ L

326 (December 13, 2005), Available at:

http://www.asylumlawdatabase.eu/en/content/en-asylum-procedures-

of 49


http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CAT.aspx

Module: International Protection of Refugees; Module Code: 22930. Essay Title: Critically examine the Exclusionary Clauses of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees with special reference to the law and policy of the United Kingdom. By Student No. 201201810. 5,432 Words. directive-directive-200585ec-1-december-2005#Art%2028, accessed on

25/04/2014.

Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 28 July 1951, United

Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 189, p. 137, available at:

http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html, accessed on 25/04/2014.

Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989, United Nations, Treaty

Series, Vol. 1577, p. 3, available at:

http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx,

accessed on 26/04/2014

Immigration Act 1971, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

Ireland, Chapter 77, (October 28, 1971), available at:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/77/schedule/2, accessed on

02/05/2014.

Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, United Kingdom of Great Britain and

Northern Ireland, 1999 Chapter 33 (November 03, 1999).

Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, United Kingdom of

Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Chapter 13 (March 30, 2006).

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, United Kingdom of

Great Britain and Northern Ireland, 2002 Chapter 41 (November 7,

2002).

of 49

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/77/schedule/2

http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx

http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html


Module: International Protection of Refugees; Module Code: 22930. Essay Title: Critically examine the Exclusionary Clauses of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees with special reference to the law and policy of the United Kingdom. By Student No. 201201810. 5,432 Words. The Immigration Rules part 11: Asylum, Home Office and UK Visas and

Immigration (13 February 2014), available at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data

/file/279712/Immigration_Rules_-_Part_11.pdf, accessed on

26/04/2014.

The United Nations, UN General Assembly Resolution 21/2198, 1966,

Available at: http://www.un-documents.net/a21r2198.htm, accessed on

25/04/2014.

The United Nations, UN General Assembly Res. 44/25, 1989, Available

at: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/44/a44r025.htm, accessed on

24/04/2014.

UK Border Act, 2007, available at:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/30/section/32, accessed on

23/04/2014.

United Nations General Assembly, Rome Statute of the International

Criminal Court, (July 17, 1998).

United Nations General Assembly, International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights 1966, United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 999, p.

171, available at:

of 49


http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/44/a44r025.htm

http://www.un-documents.net/a21r2198.htm



Module: International Protection of Refugees; Module Code: 22930. Essay Title: Critically examine the Exclusionary Clauses of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees with special reference to the law and policy of the United Kingdom. By Student No. 201201810. 5,432 Words. http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx,

accessed on 02/05/2014.

- Journals

Bliss, M., Serious Reasons for Considering: Minimum Standards of

Procedural Fairness in the Application of the Article 1F Exclusion

Clauses, 2000, International Journal of Refugee Law, 12 (Suppl. 1),

pp. 92-132.

Goodwin-Gill, G. S., Editorial: Asylum 2001 – A Convention and a

Purpose, 2001, International Journal of Refugee Law, Vol. 1, Ser.

13.

Happold, M., Excluding Children from Refugee Status: Child Soldiers

and Article 1F of the Refugee Convention, 2002, American University

International Law Review, Vol. 17, Issue No 6, pp. 1131-1176.

Hathaway, J. C., the Evolution of Refugee Status in International

Law: 1920—1950, 1984, International and Comparative Law Quarterly,

Vol. 33, Issue 02, pp 348-380.

Nyinah, M. K., Exclusion Under Article 1F: Some Reflections on

Context, Principles and Practice, 2000, International Journal of

Refugee Law, 12, pp. 295-316.

of 49

http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx

Module: International Protection of Refugees; Module Code: 22930. Essay Title: Critically examine the Exclusionary Clauses of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees with special reference to the law and policy of the United Kingdom. By Student No. 201201810. 5,432 Words. Zagor, M., Persecutor or Persecuted: Exclusion Under Article 1F(A)

and (B) of the Refugees Convention, 2000, 23 UNSW Law Journal, Vol.

3, pp. 177-178.

- Reports

Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status

under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the

Status of Refugees, 1992, United Nations High Commissioner for

Refugees, HCR/IP/4/Eng/Rev. 1, Available at:

http://www.unhcr.org/3d58e13b4.html, accessed on 24/04/2014.

UN Ad Hoc Committee on Refugees and Stateless Persons, Ad Hoc

Committee on Refugees and Stateless Persons, Third Report of the

Drafting Committee on Articles of the Draft Convention relating to

the Status of Refugees (E/AC.32/L.40 and E/1703/Add.7), 23 August

1950, E/AC.32/L.42/Add.2.

UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Global Consultations on

International Protection/Third Track: Asylum Processes (Fair and

Efficient Asylum Procedures), 31 May 2001, EC/GC/01/12, available

at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/3b36f2fca.html, accessed on

23/04/2014.

of 49

http://www.unhcr.org/3d58e13b4.html

Module: International Protection of Refugees; Module Code: 22930. Essay Title: Critically examine the Exclusionary Clauses of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees with special reference to the law and policy of the United Kingdom. By Student No. 201201810. 5,432 Words. UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Guidelines on

International Protection No. 5: Application of the Exclusion

Clauses: Article 1F of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of

Refugees, 4 September 2003, HCR/GIP/03/05,

Available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/3f5857684.html, accessed

on 26/04/2014].

UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Note on the Applicability

of Article 1D of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of

Refugees to Palestinian Refugees, 2 October 2002,

Available at:

http://www.unhcr-northerneurope.org/fileadmin/user_upload/PDFdocumen

ts/Legal/Handbooks/UNHCR_Policy_Documents_Related_to_RSD/Note%20on

%20the%20Applicability%20of%20Article%201D%20of%20the

%201951%20Convention%20relating%20to%20the%20Status%20of%20Refugees

%20to%20Palestinian%20Refugees.pdf, accessed on 02/05/2014.

The House of Commons Home Affairs Committee, Session 2003-04 Second

Report, Asylum Applications, HC 218,

Available at:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmhaff/

218/218.pdf, accessed on 26/04/2014.

of 49

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmhaff/218/218.pdf

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmhaff/218/218.pdf




Module: International Protection of Refugees; Module Code: 22930. Essay Title: Critically examine the Exclusionary Clauses of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees with special reference to the law and policy of the United Kingdom. By Student No. 201201810. 5,432 Words.

of 49

A Critical Examination of the Exclusionary Clauses of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to...

Documents

Transcript of A Critical Examination of the Exclusionary Clauses of Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to...