Примеры использования State of destination of expelled aliens на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
State of destination of expelled aliens.
Draft article E1 concerned the identification of the State of destination of expelled aliens.
As to revised draft article E1(State of destination of expelled aliens), the order of paragraphs 2 and 3 should be reversed in the light of the close link between paragraphs 1 and 3.
Indeed, States were vested with the inherent right to determine the State of destination of expelled aliens.
While some members supported draft article E1 on the State of destination of expelled aliens, others thought that it should be reconsidered in the light of State practice.
These provisions reflect the Special Rapporteur's comments on the issue of relations between the expelling State and the transit and receiving States in the second addendumto his sixth report, which led to the formulation of draft article E1(State of destination of expelled aliens), and draft article F1 Protecting the human rights of aliens subject to expulsion in the transit State. .
Draft article El(State of destination of expelled aliens) should set criteria for determining, at the time of expulsion, the priorities concerning the State of destination of expelled aliens. .
His delegation was particularly concerned about the incorporation of non-refoulement obligations into numerous provisions of the draft articles and the expansion of such obligations far beyond situations prescribed under well-established principles of international law,one example being the provision of draft article E1(State of destination of expelled aliens), paragraph 2, which went beyond the non-refoulement protection accorded under the Convention against Torture and the Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees.
While some support was expressed for draft article E1 on the State of destination of expelled aliens, some delegations were of the view that this provision required further examination or needed to be restructured.
Draft article E1(State of destination of expelled aliens) should likewise specify that the expulsion of an alien to any State where he or she might be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment was prohibited.
The important role of readmission agreements in determining the State of destination of expelled aliens should be included in the draft articles, and some of those articles should be redrafted to reflect the different practices of States.
Concerning the State of destination of expelled aliens(draft article E1), the representative of Malaysia, in terms that were doubtless exaggerated, said that she found the current wording of paragraph 2"unacceptable" because, under Malaysian law, where the State of nationality of the alien being expelled had not been identified, the alien could be returned only to his or her place of embarkation or country of birth or citizenship.
As currently worded, paragraph 1 of draft article E1(State of destination of expelled aliens) was too restrictive; the primary destinations for an alien being expelled should include not only the State of nationality but also the State of residence.
Concerning draft article E1(State of destination of expelled aliens), the priority to be given to the State of nationality did not preclude expulsion to a State other than the State of nationality, even in cases not envisaged in paragraph 2 of the draft article.
In draft article E1(State of destination of expelled aliens), she failed to see the reason for the restriction of return to the State of nationality, since the expelled alien might wish to travel to another State consenting to receive him or her.
As to draft article E1(State of destination of expelled aliens), the current formulation of paragraph 2, which listed options for expulsion destinations in cases where the State of nationality of the alien being expelled had not been identified, was unacceptable to her delegation because, under Malaysia's immigration laws, such an alien could be returned only to his or her place of embarkation or country of birth or citizenship.
With regard to draft article E1(State of destination of expelled aliens), the discussion had focused on priority to be given to the alien's State of nationality; the alien's choice of State of destination; and whether States other than the State of nationality, such as the State of residence, the passport-issuing State and the State of embarkation, were under any obligation to admit the person being expelled. .
The United States had taken the view that the commentary to draft article 22(State of destination of aliens subject to expulsion)"should note that an expelling State retains the right to deny an alien's request to be expelled to a particular State when the expelling State decides that sending the alien to the designated State is prejudicial to the expelling State's interests", on the grounds that that"important principle" was codified in their national legislation.
Readmission agreements are of particular interest in determining the State of destination of an expelled alien.
The Commission is aware of the role played by readmission agreements in determining the State of destination of an expelled alien.
In this regard, the Commission is of the view that the expelling State, while retaining a margin of appreciation in the matter, should take into consideration, as far as possible, the preferences expressed by the expelled alien for the purposes of determining the State of destination.
In order for its choice to conform to the relevantrequirements of international law, it is enough for the expelling State, in exercising this right of expulsion, to ensure in particular that the alien expelled will not undergo torture or inhuman or degrading treatment in the State of destination.
Mr. Sirikul(Thailand) said that the draft articles on the topic"Expulsion of aliens" effectively captured the principles of international law on sovereign rights of States, the rights of an alien subject to expulsion and the rights of the expelling State in relation to the State of destination.
Lastly, regarding the State of destination, his delegation was of the view that the State from which an expelled alien had come was under no obligation to readmit that alien at the request of the expelling State, provided that the alien had entered the expelling State lawfully.
Paragraph 2 should also elaborate on what would happen in the event that no State consented to admit an expelled alien; moreover, the words"in that order" should perhaps be added at the end of the paragraph, unless the choice of the State of destination was likewise at the discretion of the expelling State.
There is also a lack of uniformity in the jurisprudence of the national courts of different States in terms of the discretion of the expelling State to determine the State of destination of an alien who is subject to expulsion; the right of an alien who is subject to expulsion to choose the State of destination; and the limitations on the right of the alien to make such a choice.
Concerning the State of destination of an alien subject to expulsion, a view was expressed that the State from which the alien had entered the territory of the expelling State was under no obligation to readmit that alien at the request of the expelling State, if the alien had entered the expelling State lawfully.
The draft articles established a subtle but clear balance between the rights,interests and obligations of the alien subject to expulsion, the expelling State, the transit State, the State of destination and the State of nationality.
Draft article 21 concerns the protection that an expelling State must accord an alien subject to expulsion in relation to his or her departure to a State of destination.
One view expressed was that if no State of destination could be identified in accordance with paragraph 1, the expelling State should authorize the alien subject to expulsion to remain in its territory, since no other State could be forced to receive him or her.