AuthorJoseph Rikhof
 
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.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT