The Revision of the General Comment No. 1 on the Implementation of Art. 3 uncat’s Non-Refoulement Obligation in Light of the Use of Diplomatic Assurances

Stephanie Schlickewei
{"title":"The Revision of the General Comment No. 1 on the Implementation of Art. 3 uncat’s Non-Refoulement Obligation in Light of the Use of Diplomatic Assurances","authors":"Stephanie Schlickewei","doi":"10.1163/13894633_021001007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"On 26 June 1987, the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (uncat) entered into force. The comprehensive set of regulations of the Convention aimed at ensuring a more effective implementation of the international community’s common endeavours to eradicate torture globally. Nevertheless, torture practice still prevails in many countries. New crises, such as the international fight against terrorism, constantly compromise the achievement of the Convention’s overall objective; in particular, they present a great challenge to States Parties’ compliance with the uncat’s explicit nonrefoulement obligation of Art. 3 uncat. Aiming for the transfer of a person to another State and in a bid to nevertheless satisfy their international obligations, States Parties tend to rely on so-called diplomatic assurances from the receiving State, thereby potentially exposing the individual to the risk of being subjected to torture following the transfer.\nBeing aware of the new challenges to the protection of Art. 3 uncat, in 2015, the United Nations Committee against Torture finally decided to undertake a comprehensive review of its General Comment No. 1 (1997). As the text of 1997 was considered to no longer meet the needs of the States with respect to the new challenges of the 21st century, the revision was inter alia aimed to also explicitly address the alarming trend of the application of diplomatic assurances and to include an assessment of their legitimate use in the context of Art. 3 uncat. This article outlines the aforementioned review process with regard to the use of diplomatic assurances in the context of torture and analyses the question of their legitimacy under international law with respect to the uncat and in light of and in comparison to the European Court of Human Right’s jurisdiction in this context.","PeriodicalId":167092,"journal":{"name":"Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/13894633_021001007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

On 26 June 1987, the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (uncat) entered into force. The comprehensive set of regulations of the Convention aimed at ensuring a more effective implementation of the international community’s common endeavours to eradicate torture globally. Nevertheless, torture practice still prevails in many countries. New crises, such as the international fight against terrorism, constantly compromise the achievement of the Convention’s overall objective; in particular, they present a great challenge to States Parties’ compliance with the uncat’s explicit nonrefoulement obligation of Art. 3 uncat. Aiming for the transfer of a person to another State and in a bid to nevertheless satisfy their international obligations, States Parties tend to rely on so-called diplomatic assurances from the receiving State, thereby potentially exposing the individual to the risk of being subjected to torture following the transfer. Being aware of the new challenges to the protection of Art. 3 uncat, in 2015, the United Nations Committee against Torture finally decided to undertake a comprehensive review of its General Comment No. 1 (1997). As the text of 1997 was considered to no longer meet the needs of the States with respect to the new challenges of the 21st century, the revision was inter alia aimed to also explicitly address the alarming trend of the application of diplomatic assurances and to include an assessment of their legitimate use in the context of Art. 3 uncat. This article outlines the aforementioned review process with regard to the use of diplomatic assurances in the context of torture and analyses the question of their legitimacy under international law with respect to the uncat and in light of and in comparison to the European Court of Human Right’s jurisdiction in this context.
关于使用外交保证执行《联合国禁止酷刑公约》第3条不驱回义务的第1号一般性意见的修订
1987年6月26日,《联合国禁止酷刑和其他残忍、不人道或有辱人格的待遇或处罚公约》生效。《公约》的一套全面条例旨在确保更有效地执行国际社会在全球消除酷刑的共同努力。然而,酷刑做法在许多国家仍然普遍存在。新的危机,例如国际反恐斗争,不断损害《公约》总目标的实现;特别是,它们对缔约国遵守《禁止酷刑公约》第3条明确规定的不驱回义务提出了巨大挑战。为了将一个人移交给另一个国家,同时为了履行其国际义务,缔约国往往依赖于接受国的所谓外交保证,从而可能使个人在移交后面临遭受酷刑的危险。意识到保护《禁止酷刑公约》第3条所面临的新挑战,2015年,联合国禁止酷刑委员会最终决定对其第1号一般性意见(1997年)进行全面审查。由于1997年的案文被认为不再满足各国在21世纪的新挑战方面的需要,修订的目的除其他外,还包括明确处理适用外交保证的令人震惊的趋势,并列入在《联合国禁止酷刑公约》第3条范围内对外交保证的合法使用的评估。本文概述了上述关于在酷刑情况下使用外交保证的审查过程,并根据《联合国禁止酷刑公约》并参照欧洲人权法院在这方面的管辖权并与之比较,分析了这些保证在国际法下的合法性问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信