Conclusion

• Author: Joseph Rikhof
• Pages: 738-748

738

 

Conclusion

Before drawing some f‌inal conclusions from the examination of the

international and domestic practices regarding exclusion, refoulement,

and alternative remedies, it may be useful to recall some of the obser-

vations made earlier in the book in respect to the responses to refugees

with a criminal background.

In Chapter , which examined the historical background of exclu-

sion and refoulement provisions, it was clear that the concern with

criminality had permeated virtually all discussions related to the rights

of refugees. This had begun with legal philosophers, such as Grotius

and Vattel, who advocated states’ obligations to protect persons f‌leeing

persecution but who were not inclined to extend these rights to serious

criminals. Soon after the issue of refugees had become a concern of the

international community and international agreements were drawn up

to provide protection to displaced persons, criminality in the form of

a refoulement provision had already found a place in the f‌irst com-

prehensive refugee arrangement, the  Refugee Convention. This

convention included exceptions for non-refoulement for situations of

national security or public order. The f‌irst instruments after the Second

World War were less concerned with criminality as an exception to

refoulement than with ensuring that certain criminal elements would

not be entitled to any benef‌it normally associated with refugees in the

f‌irst place. The drafting of the Refugee Convention brought these two

strands of criminality together for the f‌irst time by having both an

exclusion ground and an exception to the non-refoulement provision.