Full Text Available

Note: Clicking the button above will open the full text document at the original institutional repository in a new window.

Balancing refoulement to torture against security interests - the pitfalls of the Suresh exception

This thesis examines whether the balancing of security interests against refoulement to torture, as advanced by the Canadian Supreme Court in the Suresh Case, is a helpful legal development for negotiating the complex security and protection challenges in the post 9/11 era. This thesis assesses the...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Hetaba, Amira
Format: Thesis
Published: AUC Knowledge Fountain 2017
Subjects:
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1867613407481430016
access_status_str Open Access
author Hetaba, Amira
author_browse Hetaba, Amira
author_facet Hetaba, Amira
author_sort Hetaba, Amira
collection Thesis
dc_rights_str_mv The author retains all rights with regard to copyright. The author certifies that written permission from the owner(s) of third-party copyrighted matter included in the thesis, dissertation, paper, or record of study has been obtained. The author further certifies that IRB approval has been obtained for this thesis, or that IRB approval is not necessary for this thesis. Insofar as this thesis, dissertation, paper, or record of study is an educational record as defined in the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 USC 1232g), the author has granted consent to disclosure of it to anyone who requests a copy.
description This thesis examines whether the balancing of security interests against refoulement to torture, as advanced by the Canadian Supreme Court in the Suresh Case, is a helpful legal development for negotiating the complex security and protection challenges in the post 9/11 era. This thesis assesses the controversial issues raised by the balancing approach in Suresh and finds the following. Firstly, by allowing refoulement to torture under exceptional circumstances, the Court ignored Canada’s obligations under the Convention against Torture and the absolute prohibition of torture as a norm of ius cogens. This violation of international law through the Suresh exception was influential in foreign jurisdictions. The erosion of the absolute prohibition of torture, in Canada and internationally, is not only illegal but is particularly troubling at a time when security measures infringing human rights, such as extraordinary rendition, are proliferating. Secondly, this thesis analyzes the difficulties of determining who is a threat to national security. Terrorism remains undefined in international law and the Suresh attempt to define the scope of threat domestically raises considerable legal difficulties. For example, it gives rise to the controversial issue of whether an indirect threat to a state is sufficient to justify refoulement to torture, and leaves open what degree of association to a terrorist organization qualifies an individual as a security threat. These debates expose how susceptible the term terrorism is to political manipulation and misuse. Thirdly, this work considers whether there are legal alternatives to the Suresh exception that could better protect national security without undermining the prohibition of refoulement to torture – alternatives better suited to meeting contemporary challenges. This thesis concludes that the Suresh exception is not only unhelpful legally, it is a highly troubling decision that unnecessarily undermines important human rights laws at a time when the opposite is needed.
format Thesis
id oai:fount.aucegypt.edu:etds-1040
institution American University in Cairo (Egypt)
last_indexed 2026-06-10T12:35:39.635Z
license_str Other — see source repository
provenance_str_mv Harvested via OAI-PMH from AUC Knowledge Fountain — bepress
publishDate 2017
publishDateRange 2017
publishDateSort 2017
publisher AUC Knowledge Fountain
publisherStr AUC Knowledge Fountain
record_format dspace
source_str AUC Knowledge Fountain — bepress
spelling oai:fount.aucegypt.edu:etds-1040 Balancing refoulement to torture against security interests - the pitfalls of the Suresh exception Hetaba, Amira This thesis examines whether the balancing of security interests against refoulement to torture, as advanced by the Canadian Supreme Court in the Suresh Case, is a helpful legal development for negotiating the complex security and protection challenges in the post 9/11 era. This thesis assesses the controversial issues raised by the balancing approach in Suresh and finds the following. Firstly, by allowing refoulement to torture under exceptional circumstances, the Court ignored Canada’s obligations under the Convention against Torture and the absolute prohibition of torture as a norm of ius cogens. This violation of international law through the Suresh exception was influential in foreign jurisdictions. The erosion of the absolute prohibition of torture, in Canada and internationally, is not only illegal but is particularly troubling at a time when security measures infringing human rights, such as extraordinary rendition, are proliferating. Secondly, this thesis analyzes the difficulties of determining who is a threat to national security. Terrorism remains undefined in international law and the Suresh attempt to define the scope of threat domestically raises considerable legal difficulties. For example, it gives rise to the controversial issue of whether an indirect threat to a state is sufficient to justify refoulement to torture, and leaves open what degree of association to a terrorist organization qualifies an individual as a security threat. These debates expose how susceptible the term terrorism is to political manipulation and misuse. Thirdly, this work considers whether there are legal alternatives to the Suresh exception that could better protect national security without undermining the prohibition of refoulement to torture – alternatives better suited to meeting contemporary challenges. This thesis concludes that the Suresh exception is not only unhelpful legally, it is a highly troubling decision that unnecessarily undermines important human rights laws at a time when the opposite is needed. 2017-02-01T08:00:00Z thesis application/pdf https://fount.aucegypt.edu/etds/41 https://fount.aucegypt.edu/context/etds/article/1040/viewcontent/LLM_20Thesis_20Amira_20Hetaba.pdf The author retains all rights with regard to copyright. The author certifies that written permission from the owner(s) of third-party copyrighted matter included in the thesis, dissertation, paper, or record of study has been obtained. The author further certifies that IRB approval has been obtained for this thesis, or that IRB approval is not necessary for this thesis. Insofar as this thesis, dissertation, paper, or record of study is an educational record as defined in the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 USC 1232g), the author has granted consent to disclosure of it to anyone who requests a copy. Theses and Dissertations AUC Knowledge Fountain non-refoulement refugee law
spellingShingle non-refoulement
refugee law
Hetaba, Amira
Balancing refoulement to torture against security interests - the pitfalls of the Suresh exception
title Balancing refoulement to torture against security interests - the pitfalls of the Suresh exception
title_full Balancing refoulement to torture against security interests - the pitfalls of the Suresh exception
title_fullStr Balancing refoulement to torture against security interests - the pitfalls of the Suresh exception
title_full_unstemmed Balancing refoulement to torture against security interests - the pitfalls of the Suresh exception
title_short Balancing refoulement to torture against security interests - the pitfalls of the Suresh exception
title_sort balancing refoulement to torture against security interests the pitfalls of the suresh exception
topic non-refoulement
refugee law
url https://fount.aucegypt.edu/etds/41
https://fount.aucegypt.edu/context/etds/article/1040/viewcontent/LLM_20Thesis_20Amira_20Hetaba.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT hetabaamira balancingrefoulementtotortureagainstsecurityintereststhepitfallsofthesureshexception