A Peculiar Leap in the Protection of Asylum Seekers: The Inter-American Court of Human Rights' Jurisprudence on the Protection of Asylum Seekers
Keywords:Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Latin America, refugees, asylum seekers, non-refoulement, detention
This article pursues to clarify the crucial contribution of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to protect the rights of refugees and asylum seekers. It debates that the Court has instituted its renewed jurisprudence in the sphere of refuge throughout its case-law and advisory opinionsassociated with the safeguard of refugees, specifically the Court's direction towards affirming on the extended principles affiliating to asylum. The Inter-American Court went further than its European counterpart in interpreting regional and international asylum law. However, the actual protection of asylum seekers promoted by the Court is established on some controversial concepts like jus cogens norms and obligations egra omnes. Furthermore, the Court has an unclear vision concerning asylum and refuge. This may, therefore, curb the impact of a stronger humanrights-based approach to the protection of asylum seekers in Latin America.
Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company Ltd (Belgium / Spain) (Judgment)  I.C.J Rep 1964.
BEDUSCHI, A. (2015). The Contribution of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to the Protection of Irregular Immigrants' Rights: Opportunities and Challenges. Refugee Survey Quarterly, [online] 34(4), pp.45-74. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/rsq/article/34/4/45/2362547 [Accessed 5 January 2021]. https://doi.org/10.1093/rsq/hdv012
BRUIN, R. (2003). Terrorism and the Non-derogability of Non-refoulement. International Journal of Refugee Law, 15(1), pp.5-29. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/15.1.5
CINTRA, N. AND PUREZA, V. (2020). The application of the Cartagena Declaration on Refugees to Venezuelans in Brazil: An analysis of the decision-making process by the National Committee for Refugees. Latin American Law Review, (5), pp.121-137. https://doi.org/10.29263/lar05.2020.06
Colombian-Peruvian asylum (Colombia v Peru) (Judgment)  , I.C.J, Rep 266 .
COSTELLO, C. AND FOSTER, M. "Non-refoulement as Custom and Jus Cogens? Putting the Prohibition to the Test." Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 46 (2016). PP. 273-327. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-114-2_10
CRIDDLE, E. AND FOX-DECENT, E. (2009). A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens. Yale Journal of International Law, 34(2).
Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, 2011 O.J. (L 337) 10.
Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, 2013, O.J. (L 180) 63.
EDWARDS, A. (2005). Human Rights, Refugees, and The Right "To Enjoy" Asylum. International Journal of Refugee Law, 17(2), pp.293-330. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eei011
Enforceability of the Right to Reply or Correction (Articles 14(1), 1(1) and 2 American Convention On Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC-7/86, IACtHR Series A No 7 (29 August 1986).
ENGLE, E. (2009). Third Party Effect of Fundamental Rights (Drittwirkung). Hanse Law Review, 5.
FACHIN, M. AND NOWAK, B. (2020). Pandemic Rulings: Between Dialogues and Shortcuts at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, International Journal of Constitutional Law blog. Available from: http://www.iconnectblog.com/2020/07/pandemic-rulings-between-dialogues-and-shortcuts-at-the-inter-american-court-of-human-rights/ [Accessed 5 January 2021].
FARMER, A. (2008). Non-Refoulement and Jus Cogens: Limiting Anti-Terror Measures That Threaten Refugee Protection. Georgetown Immigration Law Journal,
GOODWIN-ILL, G.S. ETAL. (2014).TheInternationalLawofRefugeeProtection.TheOxford Handbook of Refugee and Forced Migration Studies. [online] Available from: https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199652433.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199652433-e-021 [Accessed 5 Nov. 2019].
FISCHEL, J. (2019). The 1984 Cartagena Declaration: A Critical Review of Some Aspects of Its Emergence and Relevance. Refugee Survey Quarterly.
FOCARELLI, C. (2008). Promotional Jus Cogens: A Critical Appraisal of Jus Cogens' Legal Effects. Nordic Journal of International Law, 77(4), pp.429-459. https://doi.org/10.1163/157181008X374906
FUENTES, A. AND VANNELLI, M. (2019). Human Rights of Children in the Context of Migration Processes. Innovative Efforts for Integrating Regional Human Rights Standards in the Americas. Laws, 8(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/laws8040031
Gender Identity, And Equality And Non-Discrimination of Same Same-Sex Couples. State Obligations Concerning Change of Name, Gender Identity, and Rights Derived from a Relationship Between Same-Sex Couples (Interpretation and Scope of Articles 1(1), 3, 7, 11(2), 13, 17, 18 and 24, in Relation to Article 1, of the American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-24/17, IACtHR Series A No 24, (24 November 2017).
Goiburú v. Paraguay (Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment) IACtHR Series C No 153 (22 September 2006).
GOODWIN-GILL, G.S. AND MCADAM, J. (2018). The refugee in international law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
HATHAWAY, J. (2010). Leveraging Asylum. Texas International Law Journal, 45(3), pp.503-545.
HATHAWAY, J. AND GAMMELTOFT-HANSEN, T. (2015). Non-Refoulement in a World of Cooperative Deterrence. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 53(2), pp.235-284.
HATHAWAY, N. (2005). The rights of refugees under international law. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614859
HERNANDEZ, G.I. (2013). A Reluctant Guardian: The International Court of Justice and the Concept of "International Community." British Yearbook of International Law, 83(1), pp.13-60. https://doi.org/10.1093/bybil/brt003
IACtHR (2020a), COVID-19 And Human Rights: The Problems And Challenges Must Be Addressed From A Human Rights Perspective And With Respect For International Obligations, (9 April 2020). Available from: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/comunicados/cp_27_2020_eng.pdf.
IACtHR (2020b), Resolución de la presidenta de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos de 26 de mayo de 2020, Caso Vélez Loor vs. Panamá, Adoptar medidas urgentes (26 May. 2020), https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/velez_se_01.pdf.
IACtHR. Inter-American Court of human rights, 2018, 40 Years Protecting Rights, 40th Anniversary of the Entry Into Force the American Convention on Human Rights, and the Creation of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. [online] Available from: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/sitios/libros/todos/docs/40anos_eng.pdf [Accessed 15 January 2021].
ILC. (2017a), International Law Commission, Third Report on Crimes Against Humanity, UN Doc. A/CN.4/704 (9 February 2017).
ILC. (2017b), Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Sixty- Ninth Session, UN GAOR, 72nd Sess., Supp. No.10, at 9-127, UN Doc. A/72/10 (11September 2017). Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary (2017) ECtHR. (No. 47287/15).
IOM., 2018. World Migration Report 2018. [online] Available from: https://www.iom.int/sites/default/files/country/docs/china/r5_world_migration_report_2018_en.pdf [Accessed 15 January 2021].
JÖBSTL, H. (2019). An Unforeseen Pandora's Box? Absolute Non-Refoulement Obligations under Article 5 of the ILC Draft Articles on Crimes Against Humanity. [online] EJIL: Talk! Available from: https://www.ejiltalk.org/an-unforeseen-pandoras-box-absolute-non-refoulement-obligations-under-article-5-of-the-ilc- draft-articles-on-crimes-against-humanity/. [Accessed 6 Feb. 2021].
Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants, Advisory Opinion OC- 18/03, IACtHR Series A No 18 (17 September 2003).
KNOX, J. (2008). Horizontal Human Rights Law. American Journal of International Law, 102(1), pp.1-47. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0002930000039828
KNUCHEL, S., (2011) State Immunity And The Promise Of Jus Cogens, Northwestern Journal of Human Rights 9(2).
LAUTERPACHT E. AND BETHLEHEM D. (2003), The Scope and Content of the Principle of non-refoulement.In: Feller E. et al. UNHCR's Global Consultations on International Protection. New York: Cambridge University Press. PP.195-22. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511493973.008
LAVRYSEN L. (2014). Positive obligations in the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Inter-american and European Human Rights Journal,7(i-2), pp.94-115.
LINDERFALK, U. (2016). Understanding the Jus Cogens Debate: The Pervasive Influence of Legal Positivism and Legal Idealism. In: Netherlands Yearbook of International Law. pp.51-84. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-114-2_3
LÓPEZ, M. AND SALERNO, L. (2018). La independencia judicial en el Perú en crisis según los estándares del Sistema Interamericano de Derechos Humanos. LEX, 16(21), PP.79-90. https://doi.org/10.21503/lex.v16i21.1542
M.N and Others v Belgium (2020) ECtHR. No. 3599/18.
MARQUES, R. (2017). Non-Refoulement Under the Inter-American Human Rights System. [online] papers.ssrn.com. Available from: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2992709. [Accessed 5 Feb. 2021]. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2992709
Mexico Declaration and Plan of Action to Strengthen the International Protection of Refugees in Latin America. (2005). International Journal of Refugee Law, 17(4), pp.802-817. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eei032
Nadege Dorzema v. the Dominican Republic (Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment) IACtHR Series C No 251 (24 October 2012).
Nicaragua v. United States of America (Merits, Judgment)  ICJ Rep 14.
OAS (2009a). OAS - Organization of American States: Democracy for peace, security, and development. [online] www.oas.org. Available from: http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/mandate/basic_documents.asp. [Accessed 5 Feb. 2021].
OAS (2009b). OAS - Organization of American States: Democracy for peace, security, and development. [online] www.oas.org. Available at: https://www.oas.org/en/iachr/mandate/Basics/intro.asp [Accessed 7 Feb. 2021].
Pacheco Tineo Family v. Bolivia (Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment) IACtHR Series C No 272 (25 November 2013).
PASQUALUCCI, J., 2013. The Practice and Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511843884
PHILLIPS, J. (2014). Asylum seekers and refugees: what are the facts? - Parliament of Australia. [online] Aph.gov.au. Available from: https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1415/AsylumFacts. [Accessed 15 January 2021].
Presidential Proclamation 2018- Aliens Subject to a Bar on Entry Under Certain Presidential Proclamation; Procedures for Protection Claims (2018) 83 Fed. Reg. 55, 934.
Presidential Proclamation On Addressing Mass Migration Through the Southern Border of the United States (2018) No. 9822, 83 Fed. Reg.57,661.
Ramírez Escobar v. Guatemala (Background, Reparations and Costs. Judgment) IACtHR Series C No 351 (9 March 2018).
Regina v. Immigration Officer, (2004) 120 UKHL 55.
Report of ILC 2017. Report of the International Law Commission on its the work of Seventy-second session, UN GAOR, 72 Sess., (20 November 2017). UN Doc. A/C.6/72/SR.19
RICKE, T. (2020). Ni Refugiados ni Migrantes: La Protección Complementaria en Casos de Migrantes en Situación de Pobreza, a la Luz del Derecho Internacional de los Derechos Humanos. American University International Law Review, 35(2), pp.319-365.
Rights and Guarantees of Children in the Context of Migration and/or in Need of International Protection, Advisory Opinion OC-21/14, , IACtHR Series A No 12 (19 August 2014).
RIVAS, J. (2020). Migrantes detenidos y COVID-19: la urgencia de un enfoque de derechos humanos. [online] Dialogo Derechos Humanos. Available at: https://dialogoderechoshumanos.com/agenda-estado-de-derecho/migrantes-detenidos-y-covid-19-la-urgencia-de-un-enfoque-de-derechos-humanos [Accessed 7 Feb. 2021].
ROGIN, J. (2012). State Department: The U.S. does not recognize the concept of "diplomatic asylum." [online] Foreign Policy. Available from: https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/08/17/state-department-the-u-s-does-not-recognize-the-concept-of-diplomatic-asylum/ [Accessed 6 Feb. 2021].
Sale v. Haitian Ctrs. Council, (1993) 509 U.S. 155.
Santarelli, N. (2020). IACHR Decision in Vélez Loor v. Panama: COVID-19 and Human Rights in the Courts. Opinio Juris. Available from: http://opiniojuris.org/2020/05/30/iachr-decision-in-velez-loor-v-panama-covid-19-and-human-rights-in-the-courts/?fbclid=IwAR03wMeF1I7yzX8Z8Gjs_SBt47RyvxfjF2W-DzAW9Z-zhr6ORISFsHIiDhY [Accessed 6 Feb. 2021].
Soering v United Kingdom (1989) ECtHR No. 14038/88.
The Institution of Asylum and its recognition as a Human Right in the Inter-American System of Protection (Interpretation and Scope of Articles 5, 22.7, and 22.8 in Relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights),Advisory Opinion OC-25/18, IACtHR Series A No 1 (30 May 2018).
Tibi v. Ecuador (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment) IACtHR Series C No 114 (7 September 2004) .
TRINDADE A. (2018). La MISIÓN DE LOS TRIBUNALES INTERNACIONALES CONTEMPORÁNEOS EN LA HUMANIZACIÓN DEL DERECHO INTERNACIONAL. Revista do Instituto Brasileiro de Direitos Humanos, (17/18).
U.N.H.C.R (2013). Refworld | Case of Pacheco Tineo Family v. Bolivia (Summary of the Judgment). [online] Refworld. Available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/53ce2cee4.html [Accessed 5 Feb. 2021].
U.S Comments (2019)-Comments from the United States on the International Law Commission's Draft Articles on "Crimes Against Humanity" on the Work of Its seventy-first session, UN GAOR, 71st Sess., (8-9 July 2019) ADD 1 & ADD2, at 8,9, UN Doc. A/CN.4/726.
UNHCR (2020)- UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Joint Guidance Note on the Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Human Rights of Migrants (May.26, 2020). Available from: https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Migration/CMWSPMJointGuidanceNoteCOVID-19Migrants.pdf [Accessed 5 January 2021].
VÄRK, R. (2012). Diplomatic Asylum: Theory, Practice and the Case of Julian Assange. Sisekaitseakadeemia Toimetised, 11, pp.240-257.
Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras (Merits, Judgment) IACtHR Series C No 4 (29 July 1988).
Vélez Loor v. Panama (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment) IACtHR Series C No 218 (23 November 2010).
WET, E. (2013). Jus Cogens and Obligations Erga Omnes. Oxford University Press.
Wong Ho Wing v. Peru (Preliminary objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment) IACtHR Series C No 297 (30 June 2015).
YILDIZ, E. (2020). Enduring Practices in Changing Circumstances: A Comparison of the European Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Temple International and Comparative Law Journal, 34(2), pp.309-338.
YUNDT, K., 1989. 'The Organization of American States and Legal Protection to Political Refugees in Central America', The International Migration Review, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 1989. https://doi.org/10.2307/2546258
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2021 Esraa Adnan Fangary
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.