International Law Reports, Volume 131

Front Cover
Elihu Lauterpacht, Christopher J. Greenwood, A. G Oppenheimer, Karen Lee
Cambridge University Press, Jan 10, 2008 - Law - 830 pages
0 Reviews
The International Law Reports is the only publication in the world wholly devoted to the regular and systematic reporting in English of decisions of international courts and arbitrators as well as judgments of national courts. Volume 131 reports on, amongst others, refugee cases from Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, the UK House of Lords decision in Roma Rights, and the UK House of Lords decision in Quark and the related European Court of Human Rights decision.
 

What people are saying - Write a review

We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.

Selected pages

Contents

that to insist on direct proof ofa specific threat to
360
to exclude him or her from the protection of the
367
WILLIAM YOUNGJ
368
InspectorGeneral A threshold justiciability argument which has been
369
182 For the reasons which I have given and the
370
Given the importance of these issues to the structure and
371
serious crime in terms of Article 332 of the Refugee
378
security criterion is to be read as including an alternative
379

95 The use of the term systematic conduct has proved
31
make it clear that they are referring to nonrandom acts
33
risk so long as the civil war continued and that
41
Convention definition secondly whether the notions of differential
45
Civil War Differential Operation and Motivation
51
176 In order to make this point clear it is
62
constituted the majority of asylum seekers claiming refugee status in
65
Ibrahim being persecuted by reason of his membership of the
70
owing to a wellfounded fear ofbeing persecuted for reasons ofrace
75
Aliens Entry Asylum Refugees Nonrefoulement
83
friends in time ofpeace Till an answer was
93
such a power is appropriate Another such indication may be
99
intended that in the field of exclusion entry and expulsion
105
man had no right to enter the government was doing
108
The CrossAppeal
113
right is fatal to the occupants case for relief in
115
99 As sources ofthe courts jurisdiction to grant the reliefapplied
116
available as a means of collaterally impeaching the correctness of
117
110 As has been noted his Honours order requires all
119
accordance with the settled course of authority have been answered
120
which had just been made by the Prime Minister The
128
147The final hearing before his Honour continued until
130
2
131
It is and at all relevant times has been the
132
Council v Aboriginal Community Benefit Fund Pty Ltd 1998 194
133
to take them off the vessel and the chances of
134
that they would not be developed and would preserve a
137
unlawful noncitizen has the meaning given by s 14
140
The Executive Power of the CommonwealthSource and
142
These provisions carry with them the royal war prerogative and
143
approval of the judgment of KerferdJ in the Full Court
147
entry by preventing a vessel from docking at an Australian
151
without authority constrained? It points to the reality that nothing
157
Aliens Entry Asylum Refugees Geneva Convention
158
under the Refugee Convention was persecution by the State the
159
Facts and Proceedings
161
proposition that persecution and protection are distinct concepts in
163
protection available against the illtreatment or violence which the person
164
Persecution
166
permission to be known as a visa to do either
169
violence experienced by her Branson J also found that the
174
The Convention Definition
175
obtain police protection in respect ofthe domestic violence she suffered
182
Persecution
183
stated that she had again gone to the police with
186
Persecution Serious Harm + The Failure of State Protection127
195
children were not a sufficiently cognisable group within Pakistani
201
police officers from taking steps available to them to prevent
202
Aliens Entry Asylum Refugees Geneva Convention
206
without regard for the material before the Refugee Division this
211
Aliens Entry Asylum Refugees Geneva Convention
215
Refugee Divisions First Decision
221
limited and brutal purposes In support of this viewpoint the
227
44 Accordingly the appellant did not persuade the Court that
229
12 That being said everything becomes a question of fact
233
that he had in fact committed a particular crime Since
239
par c Charges or convictions are not required Indeed
241
to grant refugee status to persons who had committed serious
242
26894 In order to exclude persons covered by art 1Fa
245
99 I now need only dispose of the third point
246
it is clear that the Court considered that there was
253
to live with especially dangerous individuals under the cover of
254
local justice whether or not they have been prosecuted for
257
political crime may be sufficient reason for exclusion because it
261
159 The Court held that an offence had been committed
266
This comment was of course made obiter but it seems
267
International criminal law Genocide Definition of genocide
274
State immunity Jurisdictional immunity Whether rules
279
However they differed on whether the immunity applies to a
280
the suit outright While Judge Tranto agreed that sovereign immunity
283
its property Execution or other forms of attachment are sometimes
291
procedural The foreign state may waive it either explicitly or
292
Some Recent Developments 168 1988
293
A further development occurred in the case of The Philippine
294
As respects the immunity of foreign states from the jurisdiction
295
regarding the issue of state immunity See Oppenheim supra at
297
The objections to the doctrine of absolute immunity are it
299
Perhaps the most obvious cases are those that concern the
305
was rejected See2 Tudor City Pl v Libyan Arab Rep
306
raised by tort claims It seems that the time has
307
Aliens Asylum Refugees Geneva Convention Relating
308
violate the prohibition of refoulement to torture However in deciding
310
would be in danger ofbeing arbitrarily deprived oflife or ofbeing
312
security In New Zealand there is a legislative mechanism intended
314
2 The security criteria in s 114C6a will be met
320
Refugee Convention allow the removal or deportation Article 32 applies
322
any reasons for the decisionsee s 114K7 Section 114K6 provides
328
35 classified security information relating to the period after Mr
329
Department v Rehman 2003 1 AC 153 should be taken
330
the IGIS as well as the Director has the right
331
68 It is obviously for the InspectorGeneral to regulate his
333
83 As an aside I would comment that I would
340
IfMr Zaoui or other people attracted to New Zealand by
342
should not continue because it is not ripe for review
343
A person may be said to offend against national security
359
b
380
i That the Director of Security has made a security
381
4 No review proceedings may be brought in any court
382
out that the review is lodged notify to the InspectorGeneral
383
7 The Minister is not obliged to give reasons for
385
a If satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the
387
The following is the text of the judgment of the
389
1 The meaning of art 332of the Refugee Convention
395
302 24 In terms of arts 31 and 32 of
397
such weighing such an interpretation is to be avoided unless
398
undertook a wideranging consultation on the Refugee Convention 50
399
of perceived threat to national security and serious criminality affecting
402
41 GrahlMadsen in discussing art 33 in his authoritative
406
310 45 We adopt essentially the test stated by the
407
the Vienna Convention42 While there is overwhelming support for the
409
4 The function of the InspectorGeneral on a review is
411
424 SOUTH AFRICA HIGH CT SUPREME CT OF APPEAL
424
v He failed to ensure that he had been properly
427
which deals not only with a new method of commercial
430
A runway is a defined rectangular area on a land
432
Governments have become parties and the provisions of which have
433
It is not necessary to decide the question whether a
436
19954 SA 745
451
defined area including the runway and stopway if provided intended
454
was no evidence before the Court a quo and for
457
State immunity Jurisdictional immunity Immunity from
460
the Akademik Fyodorov was being used for scientific meteorological ecological
463
The averments in the affidavits before the Court are equivocal
464
Marine Expeditions Inc and a Mr Frolov on behalf of
470
contrary they are cryptic to the degree of being incomprehensible
471
such immunity if any one of the statutory exceptions applies
483
i for its attachment in order to found jurisdiction
486
Human rights Due process Right to have disputes
492
very detailed provisions pertaining to what may properly be considered
499
of s 332 He argued that any law conferring amnesty
503
Constitution shall not by reason only of the fact that
504
democratic order It is available only where there is a
514
enjoy any similar protection in respect of any vicarious liability
521
follows from these reasons that s 207 of the Act
522
been commercial transactions Neptun had not acted as the alter
531
a judgment by arrest of the ship since the use
536
Human rights Right to fair trial Admissibility of
538
ofAppeal the appellants argued that in the light of the
539
against each of the appellants independently of the compelled answers
544
Crown Prosecution Service by the Prosecution ofOffences Act 1985 was
549
7201 respectively Some degree of misunderstanding is also evident in
558
the guidelines his answers should not have been admitted in
565
71 There are many judgments ofthe European Court which
567
considers that no causal connection has been established between the
568
Aliens Entry Asylum Asylumseeker failing to establish
577
The following is the text of the speeches delivered in
579
State refused her application and concluded that she did not
580
Razaghi v Sweden Application No 6459901 unreported 11
593
in ARJ v Australia Communication No 6921996 unreported 11
595
be relied on to resist the appellants expulsion to Pakistan
597
requiring the Court of Appeal to focus on a number
598
absolute character ofits protection In any such contexts however the
600
right not to be extradited is as such protected by
603
This is a qualified right and it is subject to
606
LORD WALKER OF GESTINGTHORPE
609
either alone or in community with others and in public
611
before the court and the thrust ofits judgment were accordingly
612
Consular relations Consuls Duties Duty to respect
616
The Applicants Claim and the Issues Raised
625
distinction between the first and the second issues He submitted
627
particularly on Lord Steyns statement that the Convention imposed
628
Discussion
634
challenged this submission He argued that the Human Rights Act
640
Did the actions ofthe diplomatic and consular officials in Melbourne
644
Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights and the
649
Aliens Entry Asylum Right of State to
652
England House ofLords 9 December 2004
653
United Kingdom refusal of leave to enter could not be
655
Domestic Immigration Legislation
657
This provision was supplemented by a new rule 17A ofthe
658
Under article 1A2 the term refugee applies to any person
659
Mr GoodwinGills submissions on behalf of the UNHCR On the
662
by specific treaties states have been adamant in maintaining that
668
tribunal In this way the article embodies the right to
669
it
672
the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe recommended
673
governmental authority at points of embarkation in transit in international
675
assent of the civilized nations of the world For writers
676
limited reach resulted from a deliberate bargain is not dispositive
694
a Each state party undertakes to
708
United Kingdom immigration officers operating under the authority of
709
Lords Bingham of Cornhill Nicholls of Birkenhead Hoffmann and
713
3 Under section 4 of the 1985 Order as amended
716
for the intervention and instruction of the Secretary of State
718
there is nothing to displace the initial inference that the
723
context this is a nonissue Quarks claim fails for a
730
48 I recognise of course that in other contexts that
731
The instruction given on 7 June 2001 by the Secretary
737
The applicant a Falklands Islands registered company 251 owned by
750
On 29 April 2004 the Court of Appeal rejected the
752

Common terms and phrases

Popular passages

Page 12 - US acceded in 1968. provides, in pertinent pan: the term "refugee" shall apply to any person who . . . owing to wellfounded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion...

References to this book

All Book Search results »

About the author (2008)

Honorary Professor of International Law, University of Cambridge. Bencher of Gray's Inn.

Professor of International Law, London School of Economics and Political Science. Bencher of Middle Temple.

Fellow of the Lauterpacht Research Centre of International Law, University of Cambridge.

Fellow of the Lauterpacht Research Centre of International Law, University of Cambridge. Fellow of Girton College, Cambridge.

Bibliographic information