In Search of a Fair Balance: The Absolute Character of the Prohibition of Refoulement under Article 3 ECHR Reassessed

Leiden Journal of International Law

Volumn 22, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 583-621

  Battjes, Hemme ^a  

^a VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

absoluteness; argumentative patterns; European Court of Human Rights; human rights law; prohibition of refoulement

Indexed keywords

EID: 85011510549     PISSN: 09221565     EISSN: 14789698     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0922156509990100     Document Type: Article

References (116)

1. Saadi v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of 28 February 2008, [2008] ECHR.
2. E.g.N. v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of 27May 2008, [2008] ECHR.
3. Golder V. UK, Judgment of 21 February 1975, at. 29;.
4. H. Battjes, European Asylum Law and International Law (2006), 14-25.
5. Chahal V. the United Kingdom, Judgment of 15 November 1996, [1996] ECHR, Rep 1996-V, at 80.
6. ECHR, United Kingdom., at 81.
7. Saadi, European Asylum Law and International Law 1.
8. N v. UK, European Asylum Law and International Law 2, at 42.
9. ECHR, 162.
10. ECHR, at 163; 1978.
11. Saadi, European Asylum Law and International Law 1, at 127.
12. Al-Adsani V. UK, Judgment of 21 November 2001, [2001] ECHR, Rep. 2001-XI, at 53.
13. Chahal, European Asylum Law and International Law 6;.
14. Saadi, European Asylum Law and International Law 1, at 127.
15. Soering V. the United Kingdom, Judgment of 7 July 1988-1989.
16. G. Noll, Negotiating Asylum (2000), 461.
17. D. Seidermann, Hierarchy in International Law - The Human Rights Dimension (2001), 77-8.
18. Hierarchy in International Law - The Human Rights Dimension at 36.
19. Seidermann, European Asylum Law and International Law 18, at 45.
20. Seidermann, European Asylum Law and International Law 18, at 85.
21. Soering, European Asylum Law and International Law 16, at 88 (emphasis added).
22. R. A. Lawson, Het EVRM en de Europese Gemeenschappen (1999), at 176.
23. Al-Adsani, European Asylum Law and International Law 14, at 53.
24. European Asylum Law and International Law., at 55-7.
25. European Asylum Law and International Law, at 58.
26. European Asylum Law and International Law, at 59.
27. European Asylum Law and International Law., at 60.
28. European Asylum Law and International Law, at 61.
29. Al-Adsani, European Asylum Law and International Law 14, at 55.
30. R. Lawson and H. G. Schermers, Leading Cases of the European Court of Human Rights (1999), at 544-5.
31. Seidermann, European Asylum Law and International Law 18, at 77-78.
32. Lawson, European Asylum Law and International Law 24, at 168-74.
33. Soering, European Asylum Law and International Law 16, at 88.
34. European Asylum Law and International Law at 49.
35. European Asylum Law and International Law at 49-50.
36. Chahal, European Asylum Law and International Law 6, at 76.
37. European Asylum Law and International Law., at 80.
38. European Asylum Law and International Law., at. 79;.
39. Saadi, European Asylum Law and International Law 1, at 127.
40. European Asylum Law and International Law, at 138.
41. European Asylum Law and International Law., at 64.
42. Soering, European Asylum Law and International Law 16, at 89 (emphasis added).
43. Chahal, European Asylum Law and International Law 6, at 81.
44. Chassagnou, European Asylum Law and International Law 49, at 113.
45. Chahal, European Asylum Law and International Law 6, at 76.
46. Saadi, European Asylum Law and International Law 1, at 122.
47. European Asylum Law and International Law., at 120.
48. A. R. Mowbray, The Development of Positive Obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights by the European Court of Human Rights (2004), 2.
49. C. Dro¨ge, Positive Verpflichtungen der Staaten in der Europa¨ischerMenschenrechtskonvention (2003).
50. N v. UK, European Asylum Law and International Law 2, at 42.
51. D v. UK, European Asylum Law and International Law 36, at 48.
52. Saadi, European Asylum Law and International Law 1, at 125.
53. Soering, European Asylum Law and International Law 16, at 91.
54. Saadi, European Asylum Law and International Law 1, at 126.
55. European Asylum Law and International Law 17, at 396-7.
56. Lawson, European Asylum Law and International Law 24, at 242-3;.
57. Noll, European Asylum Law and International Law 17, at 470.
58. Cf. Lawson, European Asylum Law and International Law 24, at 213-14, 231-3, 243.
59. Noll, European Asylum Law and International Law 17, at 467-73.
60. Paul and Audrey Edwards v. UK, Judgment of 14March 2002.
61. Jabari v. Turkey, Judgment of 11 July 2000, at 37.
62. N v. UK, European Asylum Law and International Law 2, at 44.
63. Soering, European Asylum Law and International Law 16, at 90.
64. European Asylum Law and International Law., at 87.
65. Paul and Audrey Edwards v. UK, European Asylum Law and International Law 72, at 55.
66. Jabari, European Asylum Law and International Law 74, at 39.
67. Vilvarajah and others v. UK, Judgment of 30 October 1991, at 108.
68. Hilal V. UK, Judgment of 6March 2001 at 2075.
69. Aksoy V. Turkey, Judgment of 18 December 1996 at 98;.
70. Hilal, European Asylum Law and International Law 81 at. 75.
71. UK, European Asylum Law and International Law 36, at 6.
72. European Asylum Law and International Law at 46-7.
73. Saadi, European Asylum Law and International Law 1, at 138.
74. European Asylum Law and International Law., at 120.
75. Battjes, European Asylum Law and International Law 5, at 62-63.
76. Saadi, European Asylum Law and International Law 1, at 122.
77. European Asylum Law and International Law at 121-2.
78. European Asylum Law and International Law at 140.
79. European Asylum Law and International Law, at 143.
80. European Asylum Law and International Law, at 139.
81. Soering, European Asylum Law and International Law 16, at 88.
82. European Asylum Law and International Law, at 91.
83. Osman V. UK, Judgment of 28 October 1998-1999.
84. Vilvarajah, European Asylum Law and International Law 80, at 111.
85. Shamayev and Others V. Georgia and Russia, Judgment of 12 April 2005, [2005] ECHR (Rep. 2005-III), at 338;.
86. Grabayev V. Russia, Judgment of 7 June 2007, [2007] ECHR (appl. no. 38411/02), at 76.
87. P. Van Dijk et al., Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights (2005), 410 ff.
88. Cruz Varas v. Sweden, Judgment of 20 March 2001, [2001] ECHR (Ser. A210), at 76.
89. Shamayev, Yearbook of the International Law Commission 98, at 337.
90. J. Vedsted-Hansen, ‘The Borderline between Questions of Law and Questions of Fact’, in G. Noll (ed.), Proof, Evidentiary Assessment and Credibility in Asylum Procedures (2005), 57.
91. Proof, Evidentiary Assessment and Credibility in Asylum Procedures, at 438, n.190.
92. Soering, Evidentiary Assessment and Credibility in Asylum Procedures 16, at 98.
93. NA v. UK, Judgment of 17 July 2008, [2008] ECHR (appl. no. 25094/07), at 111.
94. Saadi, Evidentiary Assessment and Credibility in Asylum Procedures 1, at 140.
95. N v. UK, Evidentiary Assessment and Credibility in Asylum Procedures 2, at 43.
96. Evidentiary Assessment and Credibility in Asylum Procedures., at 42.
97. Evidentiary Assessment and Credibility in Asylum Procedures, at 47.
98. Evidentiary Assessment and Credibility in Asylum Procedures., at 50.
99. Saadi, Evidentiary Assessment and Credibility in Asylum Procedures 1, at 140.
100. N v. UK, Evidentiary Assessment and Credibility in Asylum Procedures 2, at 43.
101. Soering, Evidentiary Assessment and Credibility in Asylum Procedures 16, at 111.
102. Van Dijk et al., Evidentiary Assessment and Credibility in Asylum Procedures 99, at 406-12.
103. Saadi, Evidentiary Assessment and Credibility in Asylum Procedures 1, at 134;.
104. Jalloh V. Germany, Judgment of 11 July 2006, at 67.
105. Mubilanzila Mayeka and Kaniki Mitunga, Judgment of 12 October 2006, [2006] ECHR (appl. no. 13178/03), at 55 and 58.
106. Saadi, Evidentiary Assessment and Credibility in Asylum Procedures 1, at 135.
107. Jalloh, Evidentiary Assessment and Credibility in Asylum Procedures 115, at 69.
108. Evidentiary Assessment and Credibility in Asylum Procedures, at 76.
109. Tyrer v. UK, Judgment of 25 April 1978, [1978] ECHR (Ser. A.26), at 33.
110. P. H. van Kempen, ‘Jalloh t. Duitsland’, (2007) 32 NJCM Bulletin 354, at 365-6.
111. Ireland v. UK, NJCM Bulletin 11, at 167.
112. Messina v. Italy, Decision of 8 June 1999.
113. Saadi, NJCM Bulletin 1, at 138.
114. NJCM Bulletin at 9.
115. NJCM Bulletin, at 12.
116. NJCM Bulletin at 14-18.