File Download
  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Human rights, non-refoulement and the protection of refugees in Hong Kong

TitleHuman rights, non-refoulement and the protection of refugees in Hong Kong
Authors
Issue Date2010
PublisherOxford University Press. The Journal's web site is located at http://ijrl.oxfordjournals.org/
Citation
International Journal Of Refugee Law, 2010, v. 22 n. 3, p. 404-439 How to Cite?
AbstractAlthough the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol do not apply to Hong Kong, asylum seekers have challenged Hong Kong's lack of an adequate refugee policy in a series of judicial review actions grounded in human rights and common law principles. This article focuses on two cases in particular in which the applicants have attempted to rely, in part, on a right to non-refoulement, derived from international and domestic law, to compel the Government to establish procedures to determine the status of refugees and other similar categories of claimants. The first, Secretary for Security v. Sakthevel Prabakar, led to the creation of a 'torture screening' mechanism based on article 3 of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. In the second, C v. Director of Immigration, the court considered whether a rule of non-refoulement has emerged in customary international law and, if so, whether it applies to Hong Kong and requires government-administered refugee status determination. Although the applicants failed at first instance,1 an analysis of the judgment with reference to Hong Kong's human rights obligations reveals gaps in the court's reasoning and demonstrates the potential for greater reliance on these standards as the basis for developing a more comprehensive protection framework. This examination of the Hong Kong experience may have broader comparative value, especially in the Asian region and in jurisdictions not bound by the Refugee Convention or its Protocol. © The Author (2010). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/92989
ISSN
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.231
SSRN
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLoper, Ken_HK
dc.date.accessioned2010-09-22T06:55:53Z-
dc.date.available2010-09-22T06:55:53Z-
dc.date.issued2010en_HK
dc.identifier.citationInternational Journal Of Refugee Law, 2010, v. 22 n. 3, p. 404-439en_HK
dc.identifier.issn0953-8186en_HK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/92989-
dc.description.abstractAlthough the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol do not apply to Hong Kong, asylum seekers have challenged Hong Kong's lack of an adequate refugee policy in a series of judicial review actions grounded in human rights and common law principles. This article focuses on two cases in particular in which the applicants have attempted to rely, in part, on a right to non-refoulement, derived from international and domestic law, to compel the Government to establish procedures to determine the status of refugees and other similar categories of claimants. The first, Secretary for Security v. Sakthevel Prabakar, led to the creation of a 'torture screening' mechanism based on article 3 of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. In the second, C v. Director of Immigration, the court considered whether a rule of non-refoulement has emerged in customary international law and, if so, whether it applies to Hong Kong and requires government-administered refugee status determination. Although the applicants failed at first instance,1 an analysis of the judgment with reference to Hong Kong's human rights obligations reveals gaps in the court's reasoning and demonstrates the potential for greater reliance on these standards as the basis for developing a more comprehensive protection framework. This examination of the Hong Kong experience may have broader comparative value, especially in the Asian region and in jurisdictions not bound by the Refugee Convention or its Protocol. © The Author (2010). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.en_HK
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherOxford University Press. The Journal's web site is located at http://ijrl.oxfordjournals.org/en_HK
dc.relation.ispartofInternational Journal of Refugee Lawen_HK
dc.rightsCreative Commons: Attribution 3.0 Hong Kong License-
dc.rightsThis is a pre-copy-editing, author-produced PDF of an article accepted for publication in International Journal of Refugee Law following peer review. The definitive publisher-authenticated version International Journal of Refugee Law, 2010, v. 22 n. 3, p. 404-439 is available online at: http://ijrl.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/3/404-
dc.titleHuman rights, non-refoulement and the protection of refugees in Hong Kongen_HK
dc.typeArticleen_HK
dc.identifier.openurlhttp://library.hku.hk:4550/resserv?sid=HKU:IR&issn=0953-8186&volume=22&issue=3&spage=404&epage=439&date=2010&atitle=Human+Rights,+Non-refoulement+and+the+Protection+of+Refugees+in+Hong+Kong-
dc.identifier.emailLoper, K:kloper@hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.authorityLoper, K=rp01267en_HK
dc.embargo.remark21 Jul 2012-
dc.description.naturepostprint-
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/ijrl/eeq029en_HK
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-77955255170en_HK
dc.identifier.hkuros176831-
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-77955255170&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_HK
dc.identifier.volume22en_HK
dc.identifier.issue3en_HK
dc.identifier.spage404en_HK
dc.identifier.epage439en_HK
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdomen_HK
dc.identifier.ssrn1659546-
dc.identifier.hkulrp2011/002-
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLoper, K=35768098200en_HK

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats