EU’s migrant pact 'not consistent with international law', says UNHCR

[webfact]

EU’s migrant pact 'not consistent with international law', says UNHCR
By Everton Gayle



"Collective expulsion of foreigners is prohibited under the European Convention of Human Rights"

GENEVA: -- United Nations High Commission for Refugees says it has deep concerns about the EU’s proposed agreement to solve its migrant crisis.

The agency says the deal on the table lacked balance, had all the hallmarks of a “quick fix” and would be a breach of international law.

Vincent Cochetel, the UNHCR’s Director for Europe, said: “Collective expulsion of foreigners is prohibited under the European Convention of Human Rights, so an agreement that would be tantamount to blanket return of any foreigners to a third country is not consistent with European law, is not consistent with international law.”

Meanwhile, the Austrian chancellor, Werner Faymann, voiced his doubts, saying relying on Turkey may not be the best option in the long run: “It is an advantage to organise border defence together with Turkey – but you can’t rely on that permanently.

“That’s why, parallel to that, we need to be able to organise border defence and the [migrant crossing] hotspots in such a way in which we have often thought about in European-wide solutions, sometimes decided upon but not always enacted across Europe.”

But German Chancellor Angela Merkel was upbeat about Turkey’s offer to take back all illegal migrants who leave its shores for Europe in return for more money, faster EU membership talks and visa-free travel for its citizens.


-- (c) Copyright Euronews 2016-03-09

[NeverSure]

Aw, The poor widddow UN "thinks"...

[connda]

I think that perhaps the EU and UN should ask the Thai government for their interpretation of the migrant issue? I'm sure Thailand could set them straight on the finer points of discouraging unwanted 'visitors'.

[baboon]

Illegal or not, I don't think they are going to find many who particularly care at this moment. How many more arrivals has today seen?

[Saradoc1972]

Vincent Cochetel, the UNHCR’s Director for Europe, said: “Collective expulsion of foreigners is prohibited under the European Convention of Human Rights, so an agreement that would be tantamount to blanket return of any foreigners to a third country is not consistent with European law, is not consistent with international law.”

Let's see...

Geneva 1951 Convention Article 32: Expulsion

1. The Contracting States shall not expel a refugee lawfully in their territory save on grounds of national security or public order.

2. The expulsion of such a refugee shall be only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with due process of law. Except where compelling reasons

of national security otherwise require, the refugee shall be allowed to submit evidence to clear himself, and to appeal to and be represented for the

purpose before competent authority.

Please note the "lawfully", as according to Article 31 a refugee can only cross the border of the state directly adjacent to the state he is fleeing lawfully without papers, i.e. into Turkey or Iran.

That's the UNHCR convention out of the way, now for the European Court of Human Rights (kindly discern from the European Court of Justice, that's EU)

Protocol 7, 1984

ARTICLE 1 Procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens

1. An alien lawfully resident in the territory of a State shall not be expelled therefrom except in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law and shall be allowed:

a) to submit reasons against his expulsion,

to have his case reviewed, and

c) to be represented for these purposes before the competent authority or a person or persons designated by that authority.

2. An alien may be expelled before the exercise of his rights under paragraph 1.(a), ( and © of this Article, when such

expulsion is necessary in the interests of public order or is grounded on reasons of national security

European Convention on Human Rights, Protocol 4 1963, (no exclusions to derogation specified here),

ARTICLE 4 Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens

Collective expulsion of aliens is prohibited.

Original ECHR 1953, ARTICLE 15 Derogation in time of emergency

1. In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation any High Contracting Party may take measures

derogating from its obligations under this Convention to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that

such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law.

Works for me.

[Baerboxer]

Vincent Cochetel, the UNHCR’s Director for Europe, said: “Collective expulsion of foreigners is prohibited under the European Convention of Human Rights, so an agreement that would be tantamount to blanket return of any foreigners to a third country is not consistent with European law, is not consistent with international law.”

Let's see...

Geneva 1951 Convention Article 32: Expulsion

1. The Contracting States shall not expel a refugee lawfully in their territory save on grounds of national security or public order.

2. The expulsion of such a refugee shall be only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with due process of law. Except where compelling reasons

of national security otherwise require, the refugee shall be allowed to submit evidence to clear himself, and to appeal to and be represented for the

purpose before competent authority.

Please note the "lawfully", as according to Article 31 a refugee can only cross the border of the state directly adjacent to the state he is fleeing lawfully without papers, i.e. into Turkey or Iran.

That's the UNHCR convention out of the way, now for the European Court of Human Rights (kindly discern from the European Court of Justice, that's EU)

Protocol 7, 1984

ARTICLE 1 Procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens

1. An alien lawfully resident in the territory of a State shall not be expelled therefrom except in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law and shall be allowed:

a) to submit reasons against his expulsion,

to have his case reviewed, and

c) to be represented for these purposes before the competent authority or a person or persons designated by that authority.

2. An alien may be expelled before the exercise of his rights under paragraph 1.(a), ( and © of this Article, when such

expulsion is necessary in the interests of public order or is grounded on reasons of national security

European Convention on Human Rights, Protocol 4 1963, (no exclusions to derogation specified here),

ARTICLE 4 Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens

Collective expulsion of aliens is prohibited.

Original ECHR 1953, ARTICLE 15 Derogation in time of emergency

1. In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation any High Contracting Party may take measures

derogating from its obligations under this Convention to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that

such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law.

Works for me.

The UNHCR aren't the International Court, nor the ECJ and don't have any power. They are commenting on their interpretation which suits their agenda. They want to force these illegal migrants onto Europe so they can applaud themselves and say how wonderfully PC they have been to punish the demon Western Imperialists without offending their US masters.

[chilli42]

The one thing I agree with the UNHCR, and this is the first time ever, is that the EU plan is short term and an expedient quick fix. If these mischief makers can't come up with something more comprehensive, something that will cut off the flow at the source, then they have no right to be called "leaders".

[Ulic]

The UN, IOC and FIFA, the three most corrupt organizations in the world.

[Saradoc1972]

The UNHCR aren't the International Court, nor the ECJ and don't have any power. They are commenting on their interpretation which suits their agenda. They want to force these illegal migrants onto Europe so they can applaud themselves and say how wonderfully PC they have been to punish the demon Western Imperialists without offending their US masters.

No they are not, and they are certainly not going to invade. I suppose they might be a bit biased, but it might be time for everyone to realise who is going to foot the bill in the end and that maximum demands are off the table given both the situation and the outlook. Amnesty and Pro Asyl and their ilk are still going to make a hullabaloo, but just let them.

Btw. found some lengthy treatise on ECHR case law on refugees and migrants, I'll drop the link here in case anyone anyone is interested.

http://www.coe.int/t/democracy/migration/Source/migration/ProtectingMigrantsECHR_ESCWeb.pdf