3.4 Principle of Non-Refoulement (the regime's cornerstone)

The rule: no state shall return (refouler) the refugee to the territories where the life-or- freedom would be threatened — the 1951 Convention's Article 33. The prohibition's forms: (i) the rejection at the border (the entry's refusal — the debate: the text's "return" vs the purpose's coverage); (ii) the expulsion-and-deportation (the removal after the entry); (iii) the indirect refoulement (the chain-return: the removal to the third state that would return — the safe-third-country problem, Unit 7.3). The exception: Article 33(2) — the danger to the community (the particularly-serious-crime conviction — the security exception; the exception's narrow reading debated). The multi-treaty reinforcement (the modern structure): the CAT Article 3 (the removal-to-torture bar — the ABSOLUTE face: no security exception); the ICCPR's non-refoulement jurisprudence (the removal-to-arbitrary-deprivation-and-death-penalty risks); the ECHR Article 3's line (the ECtHR's absolute-bar jurisprudence); the child's best interests (the CRC's removal discipline). The customary claim (the exam's great debate): the non- refoulement as the customary international law (the UNHCR's position — the state practice's- and-opinio-juris's claim; the virtually-universal adherence) and the jus cogens argument's spectrum (the strongest claim: the torture-return's absolute prohibition — the debate's honest presentation); the significance for Nepal: the binding claim even without the 1951 accession (Unit 8's story — the Supreme Court's jurisprudence applying it). Exam Focus Long questions: (i) The non-refoulement principle (the rule +…