This causes a huge variation in the behavior of the diplomat while posted in a host country. Some countries like Nepal apply diplomatic protection, under their code of conduct to only officially, state appointed diplomats. On the other hand, countries like China and Germany apply diplomatic protection in the case of all citizens of their country. These citizens do not get immunity, but they have diplomatic protection under the Vienna Convention. Certain codes of conduct, like the one of Kathmandu do not allow leaders, politicians, bureaucrats and others to randomly meet foreigners.
The 1946 Constitutionof the International Refugee Organization had excluded from the IRO’s mandatepersons who ‘participated in any terrorist organization’ after the war. Treatyobligations discussing a “right to asylum” are understood in various ways, generally not toprovide for a right to receiveasylum but apply for it. However, the past few decades have showna growth in conventionsaddressing asylum, especially, but not limited to, the European context.With refugee flows being an inherently international concern with a need for durable solutions,increasingly refugees are being assimilated to asylum-seekers. States are reacting or anticipatingthese issues by adopting domestic rights to asylum, at least for individuals qualifying as refugees.These trends suggest an evolving international consensus on opiniojurisand state practice thatrefugees must receive asylum. Thus, it appears that the right to asylum for refugees exists undercustomary international lawHowever, this right of the state does not necessarily exclude a right of individuals to receiveasylum if conventional or customary international law also demand it.
During the meeting of July 13 with international human rights organizations he said he was recognised “as an asylum seeker by the UN High Commission on Refugees – but the US”, he said, did not “recognize this.” He said he wanted international organizations to request the US and EU not to interfere with his asylum claim: “For decades the United States of America has been one of the strongest defenders of the human right to seek asylum. Sadly, this right, arranged and voted for by the U.S. in Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is now being rejected by the current government of my country. The Obama administration has now adopted the strategy of using citizenship as a weapon. Although I am convicted of nothing, it has unilaterally revoked my passport, leaving me a stateless person. Without any judicial order, the administration now seeks to stop me exercising a basic right.
Recently, based on universal jurisdiction, an Argentine judge asked Spain to arrest and extradite 20 former officials accused of abuses during the military rule of General Franco. Also, on October 30 2014, the South African Constitutional Court unanimously ruled that South Africa is obligated to investigate crimes against humanity, including torture, committed by Zimbabwean police in March 2007. Moreover the AU adopted in 2012 the AU Model National Law, whose aim is to provide to African countries to exercise universal jurisdiction over international crimes and give effect to its obligations under international law. However, these practices of universal jurisdiction do not mean that non-Western States are not critical towards the Western practice of universal jurisdiction. Looking at the comments made by non-Western States in the Sixth Committee of the U.N. General Assembly (Sixth Committee), it can be said that a lot of comments focus on the way in which Western States exercise universal jurisdiction.
Under the traditional law, asylum was recognised as the right of the state to be conferred, in its discretion, and individual could only request for it and if granted enjoy it. Unfortunately, all the efforts to ensure right of asylum to every person fearing persecution have been forestalled by states. In the last few years U.S.A, Australia, Germany, France and other European countries to name a few, are increasingly putting into practice restrictive asylum policies in order to deter and to prevent asylum-seekers from seeking refuge in their territory. This has been done by way of interception and interdiction measures, stringent visa controls, carrier sanctions, safe third country arrangements, administrative detention, and also by way of
The detention, the asylum centers and the treatments of the asylum procedures are concretes examples. The fact that they differs in the members states, influence the choice of the asylum seeker. The most flexible member states receive more asylum seekers and are facing more difficulties in threating those procedures. The early effort is not effective enough and therefore a common EU-asylum policy is
In many situations, those who arrive successfully are detained for long periods of time. There is often great animosity towards refugees among native people, often prompting government action to attempt to deter the influx of asylum seekers over international boarders. International and European human rights standards set clear limitations on what is considered permissible when detaining new arrivals at their boarders. All too frequently states defy guidelines, and detain asylum seekers for inordinately long periods of time, causing an obvious and adherent breach of human rights. What’s more alarming is that children have also been known to be detained without their parents, either because they made the crossing alone, or because they were separated in the process of arrival sorting.
(Kugelmann, 250) It should be noted that there is a slight difference in the wording of the English and French versions of the Convention, both of which are equally authentic. Whereas, according to Article 14, "the enjoyment of rights and freedoms [...] must be ensured without distinction of any kind ...", the English text uses the words "without discrimination". (UN Portal) There are distinctions that are not discriminations. The European Court of Human Rights has rightly pointed out that "certain inequalities of law tend to correct de facto inequalities". Here we find the idea of the second paragraph of section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, namely, "affirmative action" or "positive discrimination".
Some other writers say that fugitives should be handed over to the police and asylum should be granted only on humanitarian grounds in case where there is extreme danger to life of the individuals seeking asylum. The Havana Convention of 1928 also prohibits grant of asylum on warships to persons accused of or condemned for crime, subject to
States have been allowing security to individuals and social occasions getting away mistreatment for a significant long time; in any case, these days outcast and refuge seekers organization is, all things considered, the consequence of the second half of the twentieth century. Like worldwide human rights law, propelled pariah law has its beginning stages in the repercussions of World War II and also the outcast crises of the interwar years that went before it. Article 14(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which was gotten in 1948, guarantees the benefit to search for and acknowledge shelter in various countries. Subsequent commonplace human rights instruments have clarified on this benefit, guaranteeing the "benefit to