Refoulement example sentences

Related (6): deportation, expulsion, return, asylum, immigration, persecution

"Refoulement" Example Sentences

The principle of non-refoulement prohibits states from returning refugees to places where their lives or freedoms would be threatened.
The asylum seekers argued that their deportation would constitute refoulement under international refugee law.
Under the principle of non-refoulement, no refugee should be returned to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom.
Organizations called on the government to halt the deportations, arguing that they would violate the principle of non-refoulement.
The concept of non-refoulement is enshrined in international refugee treaties.
Lawyers claimed the deportations would constitute illegal refoulement under the Geneva Conventions.
Activists criticized the government's plans, saying they risked violating the principle of non-refoulement.
Non-refoulement protections do not apply to economic migrants or undocumented immigrants.
The court ruled that deporting the asylum seekers would constitute illegal refoulement.
The principle of non-refoulement applies even to refugees whose claim has not yet been formally recognized.
Campaigners argued that sending refugees back to unsafe countries amounted to unlawful refoulement.
Critics claimed the deportations would constitute unlawful mass refoulement.
The refugee treaty prohibits refoulement in any manner whatsoever.
Forced returns of refugees could violate the international legal prohibition against refoulement.
The court granted a temporary injunction, halting the deportations to prevent possible refoulement.
Non-refoulement is a core principle underlying the entire international refugee protection regime.
The government maintained that the deportations would not constitute refoulement as defined under the convention.
Refugee advocates condemned the planned deportations as illegal and inhumane refoulement.
Governments must assess claims for refugee status before proceeding with any deportation to avoid refoulement.
Critics called for an immediate halt to the deportations , claiming they amounted to summary refoulement.
The planned mass deportation of asylum seekers could amount to unlawful refoulement.
Authorities assured the public that non-refoulement assessments were carried out prior to all expulsions and removals.
Non-refoulement prohibits both expulsion and return of refugees to a place where they would face threats.
Human rights groups denounced the policy of automatically deporting failed asylum seekers as unlawful refoulement.
The principle of non-refoulement applies regardless of how the refugee entered the country.
The court found that there were substantial grounds for believing refoulement would occur if the deportation went ahead.
Non-refoulement demands an individualized assessment of risk before any deportation can proceed.
Government officials maintained that the deportations did not constitute refoulement under international legal standards.
The president demanded an immediate end to refoulement and urged the government to respect refugee rights.
Advocates argued that non-refoulement obligations extend to those at risk of human rights violations upon return.
Refoulement violations expose governments to legal challenges and international condemnation.
Refugee advocates argued that potential threats to life or freedom were sufficient to invoke non-refoulement protections.
Diplomats called on all countries to uphold the universal prohibition against refoulement.
The government's policy of expedited removal creates risks of unlawful refoulement.
The court found that risks of persecution and torture upon return were enough to halt the deportation under non-refoulement principles.
Non-refoulement remains a cornerstone of international human rights law.
Critics slammed the deportations as a flagrant violation of the basic principle of non-refoulement.
The proposed removals could constitute illegal refoulement and violate international obligations.
Non-refoulement provides a vital safety net for protecting the world's most vulnerable people.
Non-governmental organizations denounced the deportation plan as contravening international refugee and human rights law provisions against refoulement.
The doctrine of non-refoulement imposes a duty on states not to send refugees back to places where they face threats.
Refoulement is prohibited under both refugee law and international human rights law.
Calls were mounting to halt the deportations over concerns of refoulement and human rights violations.
Refoulement violates cardinal principles underlying international refugee and human rights covenants.
The government was urged to show the political will to combat refoulement instead of tacitly condoning it.
Activists maintained that risks of torture upon return were sufficient to invoke the principle of non-refoulement.
The court ruled that risks of persecution and mistreatment faced by the asylum seekers meant refoulement would likely occur.
Non-refoulement serves an important role in protecting asylum seekers while their claims are being processed.
The prohibition against refoulement is non-derogable even in times of emergency.
Legal experts challenged the government's assertion that refoulement is restricted to threats originating from state actors.
Non-refoulement grants legal status to asylum seekers until their claims can be fully and fairly assessed.
Refoulement is prohibited under international human rights law regardless of refugee status.
The announcement triggered a wave of condemnation and warnings of possible mass refoulement.
The policy threatens to undermine one of the cornerstones of international protection against refoulement.
Human rights groups are calling on all nations to uphold their commitment to the principle of non-refoulement.
Politicians faced calls to resign over the government's plans, which critics said risked widespread refoulement.
Non-refoulement is widely considered a rule of customary international law.
The policy was roundly condemned for risking unlawful refoulement and violating key principles of refugee protection.
Legal experts maintained that risks of torture upon return are sufficient to invoke non-refoulement provisions.
Critics argued that non-refoulement guarantees should not be undermined by restrictive definitions of who qualifies as a refugee.