The Canadian Journal of Human Rights recently published an article of mine. The title and citation are "Tough on Terror, Short on Nuance: Identifying the Use of Force as a Basis for Excluding Resisters Seeking Refugee Status" (2015) 4:2 Can J Hum Rts 179.
The article can be found at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2620504
The abstract is as follows:
The
use of force has been a significant feature of many political struggles
and resistance movements. The consequences for its participants may
include the possibility of persecution, if not death. Some will flee and
seek protection under the auspices of the 1951 Convention Relating to
the Status of Refugees. Since the attacks of September 11th 2001,
governments in Australia, Canada and the United States have passed broad
national security legislation that effectively renders such persons
inadmissible or excluded for the purposes of acquiring refugee status.
Regardless of context, the targeting of government actors and the use of
proportionate means, all political violence under such legislation
becomes invalid. In this article, the author takes the position that
such legislation should be repealed. In its place, Article 1F(b) of the
Convention can be used to exclude those who engage in serious
non-political crimes while allowing those who perpetrate legitimate
political crimes to obtain refugee status. Article 1F(b) is the perfect
tool as the purpose of the provision was to protect political resisters
while excluding those who failed to observe the distinction between
civilians and legitimate targets or who adopted disproportionate means
and methods. Prevailing political crimes jurisprudence demonstrates that
courts and tribunals possess the capability to differentiate between
uses of force that are legitimate while rejecting those that are not.
They have done so by engaging in nuanced and contextual analyses.
