Escaping The Principle Of Non- Refoulement

Customary international law as a source of law remains debatable in many aspects. Its formation and the binding effect continue to attract various arguments. Due to its automatic operation, an exception is provided for states defence, the persistent objector rule. At first glance this may seem absurd as states are initially forced to accept the rule yet is given a voucher to redeem its independence from it. The abundance of state practice required to prove the existence of custom and to establish objection add to the complexity of international law. This article seeks to analyse the formation of the principle of non-refoulement, a pertinent rule in refugee protection. It will first describe and analyse whether there is a strong support from scholars towards the creation of the rule. Then it will explain the scope and content of the principle and duties of states arising out of the principle. Next, it will look at how states can exempt itself from the operation of the principle by persistently objecting to the rule. The study will review the position of non-state party to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugee but continue to act as a host state providing temporary refuge to thousands of refugees and asylum seekers. Discussion in this article will show that not only many states find the principle as Eurocentric but also often define breach of the rule as an objection to the customary rule