EXPLAINING DELAYED CESSATION: RWANDAN REFUGEES IN ZIMBABWE
"Explaining Delayed Cessation: A Case Study of Rwandan Refugees in Zimbabwe," International Journal of Refugee Law, Volume 27, Issue 4, 1 December 2015, Pages 607–624.
Cessation is a process that removes refugee status. If cessation occurs too soon, it risks the lives of individuals sent back to their countries of origin. If cessation happens too slowly or not at all, states may become more reluctant to accept refugees in the first place. The most recent experiment in cessation is underway – and well behind schedule. Two deadlines recommended by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for the cessation of refugee status of Rwandans have come and gone, yet some 100,000 Rwandan refugees remain in countries of asylum. This article hypothesizes that the delay to implementation of Rwandan cessation by many African states is driven by regional political concerns with irregular migration. Unilateral cessation may cause undesirable irregular migration, which poses a challenge for a region composed of states with varying levels of support for cessation and at various stages of implementation. Cessation is a state prerogative but may only work effectively as an act of regional consensus. Meanwhile, Rwandan refugees are faced with indefinite uncertainty about their legal status. Most Rwandan refugees have not experienced premature cessation, but delayed cessation. If coordinated implementation of cessation does not occur, the outstanding Rwandan refugee population will dwindle slowly over time, primarily because individuals opt for voluntary return or host states increase local integration. As delays mount in implementation and enforcement of the ceased circumstances clauses, one must conclude that the UNHCR advisory deadlines for cessation were premature, or that cessation has not proved as effective as the 1951 Refugee Convention intended – or both.
CORRECTIVE AND EQUITABLE JUSTICE FOR OMAR KHADR
Omar Khadr stands for the melancholy proposition that Canadian courts will recognize a rights violation without demanding an effective remedy. Over the years, Khadr secured many legal remedies, but not the one he sought most: a repatriation order. Why? This paper ventures explanations by viewing the final five Khadr judgments through the lenses of corrective and equitable justice. The final section of the paper recasts the case for the repatriation of Omar Khadr based on two principal arguments. First, a context of structural injustice suggests the application of equitable remedial principles rather than corrective justice, even in the transnational context in which Canada cannot impose structural remedies. Second, the Khadr case suggests that declaratory relief is not an appropriate remedy when delay may cause irreparable harm and where the government may be credibly suspected of bad faith.
ABORIGINAL PEOPLES AND LEGAL CHALLENGES TO CANADIAN CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY
Andrew Stobo Sniderman & Adam Shedletzky, "Aboriginal Peoples and Legal Challenges to Canadian Climate Change Policy", (2014) 4:2 online: UWO J Leg Stud 1 .
This article explores two litigation strategies for challenging Canadian climate change policy, both of which involve constitutional rights and Aboriginal peoples. First, the authors argue that Canada’s climate change policies can be challenged as infringements of the section 7 Charter right to security of the person of Canada’s most northerly Aboriginal peoples. Second, they argue that the impact of insufficient carbon emissions regulation on Aboriginal peoples may violate section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which affirms the rights of Canadian Aboriginal peoples. Although the proposed litigation strategies face a number of challenges, the issues are justiciable. Furthermore, if one of these claims proceeded to trial, the government would be called upon to defend and justify its ongoing failure to reduce Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions.