Popular in Law

Human Rights Law

Human Rights and Corruption: Problems and Potential of Individualising a Systemic Problem

Max Planck Institute Anne Peters

Law

A statistical approach to law school citation rankings

University of Virginia Joshua Fischman

Constitutional Law

What is constitutional ideology?

University of Oxford Nick Barber

Civil Procedure Law

Politics, Identity, and Class Certification on the U.S. Courts of Appeals

University of Pennsylvania Sean Farhang

Law

Diversity and Social Mobility in the UK legal profession

Law Society I. Stephanie Boyce

Internet Law

The Law of AI for Good

University of San Diego Orly Lobel

Human Rights Law

Transforming Restorative Justice for Transitional Settings

University of Nottingham Kerry Clamp

Cosmopolitan Pariahs: The Moral Rationale for Exclusion under Article 1F

View more insights in Professional - Law - Criminal Law - Human Rights Law

View more figures from Queen's University

View the page of Colin Grey

Read the Study

Next in Criminal Law

Policing & The Problem of Physical Restraint

Steven Koh | Boston University

Brave New World: Legislating for the Future of Driverless Cars

Paul Almond, Sally Kyd | University of Leicester

Colin Grey reconstructs the moral rationale for exclusion under article 1F of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.

Image courtesy of interviewee. August 15, 2024

Log-in or Sign-up to Faculti
Currently viewing this subject insight as a guest. You have insight(s) remaining for this month. Login to view 8000+ figures on the platform.

Generating Workspace...

Export as PDF

This video discusses Article 1F of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which stipulates that individuals who have committed serious domestic or international crimes, such as war crimes or crimes against humanity, are excluded from receiving refugee protection. This video exclusion raises questions about the nature of international refugee law as either a humanitarian or human rights issue.

The author argues that refugee protection should be considered primarily a matter of humanitarianism rather than human rights, as the logic behind excluding criminals is based on the notion of undeserving. This video creates a tension within the convention, as human rights are typically viewed as inalienable, irrespective of an individual's moral standing.

The paper posits that international refugee law embodies a deep-seated ambiguity, fluctuating between concepts of justice and benevolence. By maintaining Article 1F, it implies that states have discretion in deciding whom to provide protection to, thereby framing refugee status as contingent upon moral judgments about an individual’s past actions.

The author calls for further exploration into the rationale behind exclusion and alternative responses to criminality in the context of refugees, emphasizing the need for reform in international refugee law to address these complexities. Overall, it advocates for a reevaluation of how refugee protection is conceptualized, suggesting a need to bridge the gap between humanitarian considerations and human rights principles.

Language:

Export as PDF

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.000 --> 00:02.485
Article one f is a provision

00:02.485 --> 00:04.765
that's in the 1951 convention relating

00:04.765 --> 00:05.925
to the status of refugees.

00:06.625 --> 00:08.765
And basically what Article one F says is

00:08.765 --> 00:11.365
that people who've committed certain serious domestic

00:11.545 --> 00:14.165
or international crimes, you know, like arson

00:14.465 --> 00:16.205
or a war crime,

00:16.265 --> 00:19.125
or a crime against humanity, will be,

00:19.315 --> 00:22.725
will not receive refugee protection under the 1951

00:22.725 --> 00:24.725
convention relating to the status of refugees.

00:25.145 --> 00:27.245
So the 1951 convention is important

00:27.435 --> 00:30.685
because it is the most widely recognized, source

00:31.185 --> 00:33.645
of international obligations towards refugees.

00:34.425 --> 00:38.325
Uh, what the 1951 convention says is that,

00:38.785 --> 00:42.805
you are a refugee if you face persecution, for one

00:42.805 --> 00:45.485
of several discriminatory grounds like race or religion.

00:46.425 --> 00:49.725
So the effect, the upshot of Article one F is

00:49.725 --> 00:51.565
that if you've committed a crime like arson

00:51.585 --> 00:54.405
or you've committed a war crime, even if you face

00:55.285 --> 00:58.245
persecution, for race or religion

00:58.305 --> 01:01.645
or another ground, you will not receive refugee protection.

01:01.705 --> 01:04.085
The 1951 convention will not apply to you.

01:04.945 --> 01:06.365
And the reason that that's urgent

01:06.505 --> 01:10.845
or important is that persecution is usually defined in terms

01:10.985 --> 01:12.005
of the serious

01:12.185 --> 01:15.685
or systemic violation of basic human rights, right?

01:15.745 --> 01:18.085
So someone, if they're being tortured

01:18.085 --> 01:20.765
or if they're being raped, they're being persecuted, right?

01:20.905 --> 01:25.565
And so the upshot of Article one F is that someone who,

01:25.865 --> 01:27.325
is that someone who's committed a crime

01:27.905 --> 01:30.645
may not receive international protection against these

01:30.645 --> 01:32.525
serious forms of persecution.

01:33.185 --> 01:35.965
And the reason that gives rise to a question, right?

01:35.985 --> 01:39.045
An urgent question is that what that may mean is

01:39.045 --> 01:41.845
that the International Refugee protection regime ends up,

01:41.945 --> 01:44.925
treating people worse than systems of sort

01:44.925 --> 01:47.285
of domestic criminal justice academics.

01:47.445 --> 01:50.285
U-N-H-C-R, the courts have all, appealed

01:50.285 --> 01:52.485
and I would say principally appealed to this idea

01:52.485 --> 01:55.725
of undeserving to answer this important question about why

01:55.725 --> 01:58.245
we exclude criminals from refugee protection, right?

01:58.265 --> 01:59.285
So it's said that,

01:59.545 --> 02:01.805
and it has been said ever since the convention was

02:01.805 --> 02:05.765
negotiated, that the reason that, article one F is there

02:05.765 --> 02:08.365
to exclude criminals from refugee protection is

02:08.365 --> 02:09.845
because they're undeserving

02:10.185 --> 02:13.085
or unworthy of refugee protection, right?

02:13.465 --> 02:15.365
And so this raises all sorts of puzzles.

02:15.555 --> 02:18.525
Like one is that the idea of undeserving as,

02:18.525 --> 02:20.685
you just said, is a little fuzzy around the edges.

02:21.625 --> 02:23.325
And the other reason is that,

02:23.385 --> 02:26.165
we don't normally think about human rights as things

02:26.165 --> 02:28.485
that we deserve or not, right?

02:29.285 --> 02:31.125
Normally you are entitled to human rights simply,

02:31.505 --> 02:33.565
or you're thought to be entitled to human rights simply

02:33.565 --> 02:35.965
because you are a human right.

02:36.265 --> 02:38.765
Uh, your entitlement to human rights,

02:38.915 --> 02:40.845
does not depend on your goodness

02:40.905 --> 02:42.965
or badness, moral or otherwise.

02:43.545 --> 02:45.485
So it's odd that if we think

02:45.485 --> 02:48.245
of international refugee protection as a form

02:48.245 --> 02:51.565
of human rights protection, it's odd that we would withhold

02:51.565 --> 02:54.125
that protection from people based on their

02:54.415 --> 02:55.805
moral badness, right?

02:55.825 --> 02:58.645
Or their, undeserving. So there's, this

02:58.675 --> 03:00.445
Ends up being, this tension sort

03:00.445 --> 03:04.125
of embedded in the 1951 convention between exclusion

03:04.465 --> 03:07.125
and the preferred way of thinking about refugee protection,

03:07.125 --> 03:10.365
which is as a form of, human rights protection.

03:10.785 --> 03:13.565
The core argument that I make in the paper is that,

03:14.145 --> 03:16.685
you know, we end up either having to choose

03:17.035 --> 03:19.925
between thinking about international human rights

03:19.925 --> 03:22.445
protection, sorry, international refugee protection

03:22.665 --> 03:25.405
as a form of human rights protection and exclusion,

03:25.635 --> 03:29.685
because exclusion cannot be squared with this idea

03:29.825 --> 03:32.765
of thinking about international refugee protection as a form

03:32.765 --> 03:33.965
of human rights protection.

03:34.545 --> 03:38.325
And instead, if we're going to sort of accept,

03:38.325 --> 03:41.725
article one F and its presence in the 1951 convention

03:42.105 --> 03:45.725
and accept, its rationale as being this idea

03:45.725 --> 03:50.645
of undeserving this, then we need to accept also,

03:51.065 --> 03:53.845
that, the 1951 convention

03:54.805 --> 03:56.205
probably shouldn't be thought of first

03:56.205 --> 03:58.725
and foremost as a form of, as a human rights instrument,

03:59.145 --> 04:01.725
but rather as an instrument that provides a form

04:01.725 --> 04:04.205
of human humanitarian protection, right?

04:04.225 --> 04:05.245
So the article is trying

04:05.245 --> 04:07.965
to force us into thinking about sort

04:07.965 --> 04:11.325
of the hard choices we have to make if we continue

04:11.325 --> 04:14.045
to have Article one F sort of embedded into the,

04:14.105 --> 04:17.885
in the 1951 convention, there's this deep seated ambiguity,

04:18.065 --> 04:21.245
within international refugee law, about whether

04:21.245 --> 04:24.045
or not refugee protection is a matter of human rights

04:24.065 --> 04:25.205
or humanitarianism

04:25.585 --> 04:27.485
or as I also put it in the article, whether

04:27.485 --> 04:30.725
or not it's a matter of justice or a benevolence

04:30.745 --> 04:32.325
or goodwill, right?

04:32.665 --> 04:34.925
And if you look at the various official documents

04:34.925 --> 04:37.565
through which, international refugee law has been

04:37.565 --> 04:40.165
developed or explained, there seems

04:40.165 --> 04:42.805
to be a significant number of references both

04:42.905 --> 04:43.965
to human rights

04:44.105 --> 04:47.805
and sort of human rights related words, on the one hand

04:47.825 --> 04:49.005
and humanitarianism

04:49.005 --> 04:51.445
and humanitarian related words on the other.

04:51.945 --> 04:54.965
And just to give you an example, if you look at the preamble

04:54.965 --> 04:58.485
to the 1951 convention, it both recognizes the need

04:58.485 --> 05:01.165
to ensure the fundamental human rights of refugees,

05:01.665 --> 05:05.005
but also refers to refugee protection as a social

05:05.265 --> 05:07.485
and humanitarian problem, right?

05:07.505 --> 05:10.405
So one of the things I argue in the paper is

05:10.405 --> 05:12.325
that there's this deep seated ambiguity

05:13.185 --> 05:16.645
and the idea of refugee protection being more a matter

05:16.645 --> 05:20.085
of humanitarianism than, as opposed to human rights,

05:20.505 --> 05:22.885
is something that's potentially unattractive, right?

05:22.885 --> 05:24.805
So that's something that's important to note.

05:25.305 --> 05:27.725
Uh, it suggests that states will have discretion

05:27.745 --> 05:30.285
or wiggle room in deciding whom to protect

05:30.305 --> 05:31.405
and whom not to protect.

05:32.105 --> 05:35.965
Uh, and so that's the import of arguing that,

05:36.025 --> 05:39.805
our exclusion under Article one F can only be reconciled

05:39.875 --> 05:41.405
with a view of the international,

05:41.405 --> 05:44.045
of the international refugee law as a form

05:44.045 --> 05:45.565
of humanitarian protection.

05:45.815 --> 05:49.005
Blame can be thought of when we think of blame in sort

05:49.005 --> 05:51.845
of our common everyday usage as an emotion

05:51.845 --> 05:53.485
that's associated with punishment.

05:53.485 --> 05:55.325
When we blame someone, we sometimes want

05:55.325 --> 05:57.925
to punish them in some way, either kind of in our

05:58.525 --> 06:00.845
official institutional institutional relations

06:00.845 --> 06:02.445
or in our interpersonal relations.

06:03.185 --> 06:06.165
Uh, but the philosopher TM Scanlan has argued

06:06.165 --> 06:09.285
that blame can also enco encompass certain non-punitive

06:09.285 --> 06:13.245
emotions and reactions such as the withdrawal of trust,

06:13.525 --> 06:15.885
reluctance to enter friendships, the reluctance

06:15.885 --> 06:17.605
to help people with their projects.

06:18.225 --> 06:19.645
Uh, so he gives the example,

06:19.865 --> 06:21.525
and I think it's quite a compelling example

06:22.025 --> 06:23.965
of an abusive spouse that you know

06:23.965 --> 06:25.485
of in your neighborhood, right?

06:25.545 --> 06:27.405
So if you, if there is someone in your neighborhood

06:27.425 --> 06:29.525
who knew, who knew was abusing their wife,

06:29.865 --> 06:31.445
it would be appropriate to blame them

06:31.465 --> 06:35.005
and to want them to be punished for sort of criminal abuse,

06:35.625 --> 06:37.165
but it would also be appropriate

06:37.165 --> 06:41.285
and in fact, required to sort of withhold trust from them

06:41.905 --> 06:43.205
to not become their friends,

06:43.665 --> 06:45.205
to not help them out with things, right?

06:45.345 --> 06:47.285
So to not go duck hunting

06:47.345 --> 06:49.205
or to help them wash their car, right?

06:49.505 --> 06:53.525
And so the argument in the paper is that, that's how

06:53.525 --> 06:55.605
to understand exclusion under Article one F.

06:55.955 --> 06:59.645
It's as a way of in withholding sort of beneficence

07:00.305 --> 07:03.365
humanitarianism goodwill from people who've committed these

07:03.365 --> 07:05.005
serious crimes, right?

07:05.065 --> 07:08.085
And specifically what it is, it's, amounts

07:08.085 --> 07:11.765
to withholding a specific form of friendship from them,

07:12.265 --> 07:15.245
the civic friendship that sort of is entailed

07:15.345 --> 07:17.365
by the relationship of being citizens

07:17.365 --> 07:19.445
of the same country together, right?

07:19.745 --> 07:23.965
And so when you see exclusion that way, it is,

07:23.965 --> 07:27.445
compatible with the idea of humanitarianism benevolence

07:27.445 --> 07:30.005
or goodwill and not with the idea

07:30.005 --> 07:31.285
of human rights protection.

07:31.885 --> 07:33.645
I see the article, of course, I see the article

07:33.785 --> 07:35.325
as addressing an important issue.

07:35.785 --> 07:38.605
Um, and what I think it should force sort

07:38.605 --> 07:42.325
of refugee scholars to do, me among them, is to do more

07:42.325 --> 07:44.925
to explore the rationale for exclusion, whether

07:44.925 --> 07:47.405
or not exclusion can be justified sort

07:47.405 --> 07:50.125
of on this understanding that's set out in the paper

07:50.425 --> 07:52.325
or maybe on some other justification.

07:52.865 --> 07:56.045
Uh, and if it can't be justified to ask questions about

07:56.045 --> 07:58.765
what would be the proper response to criminal wrongdoing

07:58.945 --> 08:01.965
by people who otherwise would be refugees, right?

08:02.265 --> 08:05.245
So if not exclusion, what then should we do?

08:05.905 --> 08:08.165
And there, so there are obvious important implications

08:08.185 --> 08:10.005
to sort of how we might think about reforming

08:10.005 --> 08:11.365
international refugee law.

08:11.665 --> 08:14.725
And there are also sort of work that should be done in terms

08:14.745 --> 08:17.085
of the interpretation and application of that law.

"Exploring Article One F of the 1951 Refugee Convention: Tensions Between Human Rights and Humanitarian Protection"

00:00:00 - Article one f is a provision that's in the 1951 convention relating to the status of refugees. And basically what Article one F says is that people who've committed certain serious domestic or international crimes, you know, like arson or a war crime, or a crime against humanity, will be, will not receive refugee protection under the 1951 convention relating to the status of refugees. So the 1951 convention is important because it is the most widely recognized, source of international obligations towards refugees. what the 1951 convention says is that, you are a refugee if you face persecution, for one
00:00:46 - So the effect, the upshot of Article one F is that if you've committed a crime like arson or you've committed a war crime, even if you face persecution, for race or religion or another ground, you will not receive refugee protection. The 1951 convention will not apply to you. And the reason that that's urgent or important is that persecution is usually defined in terms of the serious or systemic violation of basic human rights, right? So someone, if they're being tortured or if they're being raped, they're being persecuted, right? And so the upshot of Article one F is that someone who,
00:01:27 - may not receive international protection against these serious forms of persecution. And the reason that gives rise to a question, right? An urgent question is that what that may mean is that the International Refugee protection regime ends up, treating people worse than systems of sort of domestic criminal justice academics. U-N-H-C-R, the courts have all, appealed and I would say principally appealed to this idea of undeserving to answer this important question about why we exclude criminals from refugee protection, right? So it's said that, and it has been said ever since the convention was negotiated, that the reason that, article one F is there to exclude criminals from refugee protection is
00:02:10 - or unworthy of refugee protection, right? And so this raises all sorts of puzzles. Like one is that the idea of undeserving as, you just said, is a little fuzzy around the edges. And the other reason is that, we don't normally think about human rights as things that we deserve or not, right? Normally you are entitled to human rights simply, or you're thought to be entitled to human rights simply because you are a human right. your entitlement to human rights, does not depend on your goodness or badness, moral or otherwise. So it's odd that if we think of international refugee protection as a form of human rights protection, it's odd that we would withhold
00:02:54 - moral badness, right? Or their, undeserving. So there's, this Ends up being, this tension sort of embedded in the 1951 convention between exclusion and the preferred way of thinking about refugee protection, which is as a form of, human rights protection. The core argument that I make in the paper is that, you know, we end up either having to choose between thinking about international human rights protection, sorry, international refugee protection as a form of human rights protection and exclusion, because exclusion cannot be squared with this idea of thinking about international refugee protection as a form
00:03:34 - And instead, if we're going to sort of accept, article one F and its presence in the 1951 convention and accept, its rationale as being this idea of undeserving this, then we need to accept also, that, the 1951 convention probably shouldn't be thought of first and foremost as a form of, as a human rights instrument, but rather as an instrument that provides a form of human humanitarian protection, right? So the article is trying to force us into thinking about sort of the hard choices we have to make if we continue to have Article one F sort of embedded into the,

"Exploring the Dichotomy of Human Rights and Humanitarianism in International Refugee Law"

00:04:18 - within international refugee law, about whether or not refugee protection is a matter of human rights or humanitarianism or as I also put it in the article, whether or not it's a matter of justice or a benevolence or goodwill, right? And if you look at the various official documents through which, international refugee law has been developed or explained, there seems to be a significant number of references both to human rights and sort of human rights related words, on the one hand and humanitarianism and humanitarian related words on the other. And just to give you an example, if you look at the preamble
00:04:58 - to ensure the fundamental human rights of refugees, but also refers to refugee protection as a social and humanitarian problem, right? So one of the things I argue in the paper is that there's this deep seated ambiguity and the idea of refugee protection being more a matter of humanitarianism than, as opposed to human rights, is something that's potentially unattractive, right? So that's something that's important to note. it suggests that states will have discretion or wiggle room in deciding whom to protect and whom not to protect. and so that's the import of arguing that,
00:05:39 - with a view of the international, of the international refugee law as a form of humanitarian protection. Blame can be thought of when we think of blame in sort of our common everyday usage as an emotion that's associated with punishment. When we blame someone, we sometimes want to punish them in some way, either kind of in our official institutional institutional relations or in our interpersonal relations. but the philosopher TM Scanlan has argued that blame can also enco encompass certain non-punitive emotions and reactions such as the withdrawal of trust, reluctance to enter friendships, the reluctance to help people with their projects.
00:06:19 - and I think it's quite a compelling example of an abusive spouse that you know of in your neighborhood, right? So if you, if there is someone in your neighborhood who knew, who knew was abusing their wife, it would be appropriate to blame them and to want them to be punished for sort of criminal abuse, but it would also be appropriate and in fact, required to sort of withhold trust from them to not become their friends, to not help them out with things, right? So to not go duck hunting or to help them wash their car, right? And so the argument in the paper is that, that's how to understand exclusion under Article one F. It's as a way of in withholding sort of beneficence
00:07:03 - serious crimes, right? And specifically what it is, it's, amounts to withholding a specific form of friendship from them, the civic friendship that sort of is entailed by the relationship of being citizens of the same country together, right? And so when you see exclusion that way, it is, compatible with the idea of humanitarianism benevolence or goodwill and not with the idea of human rights protection. I see the article, of course, I see the article as addressing an important issue. and what I think it should force sort of refugee scholars to do, me among them, is to do more
00:08:14 - or not exclusion can be justified sort of on this understanding that's set out in the paper or maybe on some other justification. and if it can't be justified to ask questions about what would be the proper response to criminal wrongdoing by people who otherwise would be refugees, right? So if not exclusion, what then should we do? And there, so there are obvious important implications to sort of how we might think about reforming international refugee law. And there are also sort of work that should be done in terms of the interpretation and application of that law.

Faculti AI can make mistakes

Research

Policy

Analysis