Human rights bollocks

[Rum]

*wrong thread* deleted

[pErvinalia]

See the bit before that that says "countries that have ratified the treaty"? That's the signatories. There's only 19 of them.

[mistermack]

See the bit before that that says "countries that have ratified the treaty"? That's the signatories. There's only 19 of them.

Again, you are giving your own opinion, which invariably turns out to be bollocks.
Countries that are parties to the agreement have signed up to it and are bound by it.
Signatories doesn't mean ratifiers as you are claiming.

[pErvinalia]

You really are immune to facts, aren't you?

https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetai ... g2&lang=en

[mistermack]

You like to make up your own :

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... /unhcr.pdf

You will find Turkey under Europe in the linked list in blue called Annexe A.

Having just looked at the list that you yourself linked above, it has this entry for Turkey:

Turkey 24 Aug 1951 30 Mar 1962
Which according to their key means signed in 1951 and ratified in 1962.

Do you have anything more to offer? Is your daft post bag truly bottomless?

[pErvinalia]

Ah ok, Turkey was a mistake. Still doesn't change the fact that refugees are entitled, and smart, to pass by non signatory countries (i.e. most countries). I'll have to read the convention again, but I don't remember there being a requirement to lodge asylum claims in the first, or any particular, signatory country.

[Strontium Dog]

Ah ok, Turkey was a mistake. Still doesn't change the fact that refugees are entitled, and smart, to pass by non signatory countries (i.e. most countries). I'll have to read the convention again, but I don't remember there being a requirement to lodge asylum claims in the first, or any particular, signatory country.

There's a principle in law that they should claim asylum in the first safe country that they are able to, and states are permitted to transfer asylum-seekers from their territory if they determine that they could have claimed asylum in another country. In practice, this means that the UK can send refugees back to Greece or Italy or other countries on the edge of Europe.

It's perfectly possible, of course, that that first safe country could be the UK, if, for example, the refugees are packed in a lorry and have no opportunity to claim asylum along the way.

There is also the persuasive argument that rich countries like the UK and Germany have a moral responsibility to shoulder some of the "burden", even if, legally, they are not obligated to do so.

[pErvinalia]

Do you have a link to this principle?

[Strontium Dog]

Damn dude, just Google it.

[pErvinalia]

You're making the claim, you can provide evidence for it.

[Strontium Dog]

I'm not making a claim, I'm stating a fact.

[NineBerry]

That's "Dublin II". It's a thing between the European countries, not an international principle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Regulation

[Strontium Dog]

Dublin II is how the EU applies that principle of international law.

Article here:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... l-position

There is no obligation under the refugee convention or any other instrument of international law that requires refugees to seek asylum in any particular country. There has, however, been a longstanding "first country of asylum" principle in international law by which countries are expected to take refugees fleeing from persecution in a neighbouring state. This principle has developed so that, in practice, an asylum seeker who had the opportunity to claim asylum in another country is liable to be returned there in order for his or her claim to be determined.

The position on removal to other countries in the European Union is governed by a regulation, which came into force in September 2003, known as "Dublin II". This sets out criteria for determining which member state is responsible for examining any asylum claim made within the EU. One of the main criteria is the point of entry into the EU.

But I lose anyway because I ended up Googling it when I didn't want to

[pErvinalia]

I'm not making a claim, I'm stating a fact.

Stated facts are a subset of all claims. That's why you need to provide evidence, so it's possible to distinguish facts from falsehoods. If you can't provide the evidence to back up your claim, just say so. No need to dig a hole.

[pErvinalia]

Dublin II is how the EU applies that principle of international law.

Article here:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... l-position

There is no obligation under the refugee convention or any other instrument of international law that requires refugees to seek asylum in any particular country. There has, however, been a longstanding "first country of asylum" principle in international law by which countries are expected to take refugees fleeing from persecution in a neighbouring state. This principle has developed so that, in practice, an asylum seeker who had the opportunity to claim asylum in another country is liable to be returned there in order for his or her claim to be determined.

The position on removal to other countries in the European Union is governed by a regulation, which came into force in September 2003, known as "Dublin II". This sets out criteria for determining which member state is responsible for examining any asylum claim made within the EU. One of the main criteria is the point of entry into the EU.

But I lose anyway because I ended up Googling it when I didn't want to

What kind of a child are you? And you wonder why you don't get the respect you so sorely crave?

As it says, and while there may be a "longstanding principle" (whatever that is), "there is no obligation under the refugee convention or any other instrument of international law that requires refugees to seek asylum in any particular country". You can't really have it both ways. A "longstanding principle" that is in direct contradiction to the actual law seems to me to be just yet one more example of the disdain elites hold for the law when it doesn't suit them.