CONVENTION RELATING TO THE STATUS OF ... - Refworld

More documents

Recommendations

Info

except when this was justified by the difference between the two groups (refugees vs. stateless persons). The text was therefore adopted as drafted by the Refugee Conference subject to amendments on second reading, 46 which never came. The meaning and implication of this article must thus be derived from that of the Refugee Convention. 2. The wording of the relevant article in the Refugee Convention underwent certain changes. The first draft of the Ad Hoc Committee contained a non-discrimination article of formally wider implications, viz., it required the states not to discriminate against a refugee “because he is a refugee”. This would mean that the special status of a person as a “refugee” could not be used as a reason for refusing to accord him rights which are enjoyed by other persons (nationals or aliens). The second session of the Ad Hoc Committee decided that the obligation not to discriminate against a refugee because of his special status might be construed to include the prohibition to apply “special conditions of immigration imposed on aliens”. For this reason they added the phrase “within its territory” to indicate that the non-discrimination clause referred to the treatment of aliens within the territory of the Contracting States. 47 The Refugee Conference excluded the words “within the territory” to denote that the obligation to avoid discrimination was incumbent upon every Contracting State, not only the State in which the refugee resides. 48 The Refugee Conference adopted a wording which excluded the “status of a refugee” as a basis for non - discrimination, thus making it clear that the only prohibited discrimination is among the refugees themselves, 49 and that the Contracting States did not undertake by this article the obligation to treat refugees in the same manner as other aliens. The assimilation of refugees to aliens was done in Article 7 (1) of the Refugee Convention. Thus Article 3 is to be interpreted in the sense that it prohibits only discrimination among stateless persons” but not between aliens and such persons. 3. As stated, Article 3 does not contain a full non-discrimination clause; it lists only three bases for non-discrimination: race, religion, and country of origin. There are, however, other reasons for discrimination such as sex, political opinion, social origin. 50 The amendments by the Yugoslav representative to Article 3 of the Refugee Convention suggesting the addition of the words “or for other reasons” or "particularly” 51 were rejected. On the basis of the history of Article 3 of the Refugee Convention we have to conclude that it was the intention of the drafters of that Convention and of this Convention to restrict the non-discrimination clause to these three “bases”, although this would be contrary to the first recital of the Preamble and the intent of this Convention to create a uniform basis for the treatment of all refugees except when specifically provided for in the Convention. The Refugee Conference held that Article 3 ought to deal only with such grounds of discrimination as were applied in the countries of persecution, 52 and that everything else 46 SR.5, pp. 2-8. 47 E/1850, para. 21. The United States representative stated in the Conference that "the history of the drafting of Article 3 showed that if the words 'within its territory' were deleted the Convention would affect the whole field of immigration policy". (SR.5, p. 5.) 48 See the statement by the Israel representative in SR.5, p. 7, as well as the written statement by the World Jewish Congress (Doc. A/CONF.2/NGO/1) and the oral statement of the World Jewish Congress representative to Article 2 in SR.4, p. 13. 49 The United States representative interpreted Article 3 to mean that it prohibited "denying to one category of persons (viz., refugees) rights and privileges enjoyed by others in identical circumstances" (SR.5, p. 4). 50 Article 3 (1) of the Geneva Convention Relating to the Protection of Civilians in Time of War to which reference was made in the Conference (SR.5, p. 9) contains a "full" non-discrimination clause. 51 A/CONF.2/22 and SR.5, p. 9. 52 SR.5, pp. 11-12.
should be left to the law of the country of refuge. 53 On the basis of the discussion in the Stateless Persons Conference we must accept that the same view is also valid here. 4. The problem of equality goes further than Article 3 would imply: the Convention does not contain explicit provisions covering all spheres of life of a stateless person. It must therefore also be decided whether the non-discrimination clause relates only to the rights explicitly stated in the Convention or covers implied rights as well. The answer lies in Article 7 (1) which is, undoubtedly, part of the Convention, but as will be seen below this is true only of the minimum rights. 5. Article 3 is of considerable importance beyond the question raised in (3) above in the light of Articles 4, 7 (4), 13, 17 (2), 18, 19, 21, 22 (2), 24 (3), 24 (4), 30 (2), and 32 which give the Contracting States considerable leeway in treating stateless persons. The question which arises is whether the non-discrimination clause refers only to the obligatory provisions of the Convention (minimum rights, firmly established obligations of the State) or also to rights which a state may grant beyond these fixed privileges. If Article 3 is construed as an absolute prohibition of treating the various groups differently, the Contracting States would have to accord, if they so desire, benefits beyond the minimum to all stateless person or to decide to withhold them from all stateless persons. The clue to the solution lies in the words “the provisions of this Convention”, i.e., whether “the provisions” are to be understood in the broader sense of the word, including all permissible and desired extensions of the minimum rights, or in the narrower sense - the obligatory stipulation. On the basis of the history of Article 3, as stated above, and the intention of the drafters as expressed in the Preamble, we must reach the conclusion that no state may discriminate among the different groups of stateless persons on the grounds stated in this Article, i.e., treat one more favourably than the other, within the obligatory provisions of the Convention, but beyond that the states are free to grant any right they wish to any group they desire. 6. The problem of the non-discrimination clause arises further in connection with Article 5. Certain groups of stateless persons may at present enjoy, under the laws or regulations of some countries, rights going beyond what Article 5 prescribes as binding obligations of the Contracting States. Since Article 5 prescribes that these rights are not impaired by the provisions of the Convention, the conclusion is inescapable that, even if they relate to certain groups only, they should be maintained, 54 thus establishing de facto a certain inequality in the treatment of stateless persons which, however, is not contrary to Article 3 as defined above. Somewhat more difficult is the question of rights not yet in existence at the time when the Convention comes into force for the state granting these rights: is it compatible with the equality clause to grant special rights to certain groups in the future? It would seem that the answer is in the affirmative because the rule of Article 3 relates only to the provisions of the Convention and not to extra-Conventional rights. 7. The equality clause is explicitly circumvented by the Convention in certain cases, as for instance in Article 7 (3), but also in other cases, such as length of sojourn (Article 7 (2)), and the conditions which are implied in the expression “in the same circumstances” (Article 6 and its application in Articles 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22 (2), 26). A differentiation of the stateless persons on these bases is not only permissible but even indicated. 8. The rule of equality may not hold in regard to Article 4. Under that article, a Contracting State undertakes the obligation to treat stateless persons at least as favourably as its own nationals with respect to freedom to practice their religion and freedom as regards the religious education of their children. The words “at least as favourably” are nowhere else used in connection with “national treatment” because such treatment ordinarily is the ideal of every stateless person. However, there is a possibility that a state may differentiate in the treatment of its own citizens and there may be persons of such religious denominations which are not granted 53 The representatives of Yugoslavia and Egypt considered the wording of Article 3 as not covering every type of discrimination (SR.24, p. 21). It was pointed out, for instance, that "discrimination" on the basis of sex in regard to salaries, insofar as refugees are concerned, could not be prohibited on the grounds of Article 3 if it was generally practiced in the country (SR.5, p. 10). 54 Concerning this question, see the comments to Article 5 below.
Page 1 and 2: CONVENTION RELATING TO THE STATUS O
Page 3 and 4: (ii) Adoption of a revised Protocol
Page 5 and 6: PART TWO THE INTERPRETATION OF THE
Page 7 and 8: his proposal of September 21, 1954,
Page 9 and 10: Alternative A: For the purpose of t
Page 11 and 12: is to be proven. Thus it is left to
Page 13 and 14: This refers mainly to the Palestine
Page 15: article was the desire of the membe
Page 19 and 20: 2. In substance, Article 5 is a sel
Page 21 and 22: The article was adopted by a vote o
Page 23 and 24: other countries (diplomatic recipro
Page 25 and 26: was to apply to de jure stateless p
Page 27 and 28: The second sentence speaks of “th
Page 29 and 30: 2. Where a stateless person has bee
Page 31 and 32: 3. The uncertainty about the specif
Page 33 and 34: its acceptance would abridge the co
Page 35 and 36: treatment as favourable as possible
Page 37 and 38: There was some opposition to the in
Page 39 and 40: 4. The Convention does not define
Page 41 and 42: falls under the rubric “liberal p
Page 43 and 44: whole or in part by public funds or
Page 45 and 46: 4. The Contracting States will give
Page 47 and 48: The inclusion of the Article in the
Page 49 and 50: Article 26 Freedom of movement Each
Page 51 and 52: of such documents; a fourth, that i
Page 53 and 54: 3. The Contracting States shall giv
Page 55 and 56: principle that only the authority w
Page 57 and 58: is contained in the Refugee Convent
Page 59 and 60: described in para. 2 than those imp
Page 61 and 62: 3. Paragraph 1 deals with the expul
Page 63 and 64: the measures which the states may t
Page 65 and 66: Article 34 Settlement of disputes A
Page 67 and 68:
(b) With respect to those articles
Page 69 and 70:
signed it. A state which did not pa
Page 71 and 72:
that the consent of the General Ass
Page 73 and 74:
France Federal Republic of Germany
Page 75 and 76:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the President, t
Page 77 and 78:
5. The provisions of paragraphs 2 a
Page 79 and 80:
2. The Contracting States shall giv
Page 81 and 82:
2. The authority or authorities men
Page 83 and 84:
Paragraph 12 The authority issuing
Page 85 and 86:
4. It shall be open for accession b
Page 87 and 88:
MODEL TRAVEL DOCUMENT it is recomme
Page 89:
Fee paid: Done at ……………
show all

CONVENTION RELATING TO THE STATUS OF ... - Refworld

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?