CEU Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2009
| Author | Rozembersky, Ildiko Rozsa |
|---|---|
| Title | Prioritizing Human Rights and Security in the World of Law: A Comparison of How the United States and the United Kingdom Interpret Exclusion Clauses |
| Summary | Since September 11, 2001 refugees have increasingly become victims of paranoia that they are criminals and potential terrorists, often being excluded from the Refugee Convention in the domestic courts. This paper analyzes how the United States and the United Kingdom conduct exclusion cases when a suspected or charged terrorist is to be deported, yet is appealing under Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture that they will undergo torture if returned to their country of origin. This paper does not only focus on the exclusion of refugees considered to be a terrorist and the return to a potential threat of torture, but also the extent these governments apply Article 1F Exclusion Clauses and Article 3 Convention Against Torture to their domestic cases. Reviewing exclusion cases from the domestic courts of the US and UK, this paper will analyze how the UK and US construe human rights and security in the world of law. |
| Supervisor | Nagy, Boldizsár |
| Department | International Relations MA |
| Full text | https://www.etd.ceu.edu/2009/rozembersky_ildiko.pdf |
Visit the CEU Library.
© 2007-2021, Central European University