Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T16:03:01.519Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

SAFE ZONES AND THE INTERNAL PROTECTION ALTERNATIVE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2020

Bríd Ní Ghráinne Open the ORCID record for Bríd Ní Ghráinne [Opens in a new window]
Bríd Ní Ghráinne*
Affiliation:
Judicial Studies Institute, Masaryk University, Czech Republic, brid.ni_ghrainne@law.muni.cz.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A ‘safe zone’ refers to an area established in armed conflict for the purposes of protecting civilians. This article provides the first legal analysis of whether safe zones can be invoked as a ground for refusing asylum. It examines the concept of the Internal Protection Alternative (IPA) which posits that an individual is not a refugee if there is a safe place within his/her country where he/she can relocate. It clarifies the applicable criteria in the IPA inquiry and uses three case studies to illustrate that safe zones can only qualify as lawful IPAs in exceptional circumstances.

Keywords

public international lawsafe zonerefugee lawasylumSyriaInternal Protection AlternativecontainmentRefugee Convention
Type
Articles
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 69 , Issue 2 , April 2020 , pp. 335 - 364
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press for the British Institute of International and Comparative Law

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This article was supported by the Operational Programme of Research, Development and Education - Project ‘Postdoc@MUNI’ (No. CZ.02.2.69/0.0/0.0/16_027/0008360). The author would like to thank the following individuals for their helpful feedback on earlier drafts of this article: Adam Blisa, Tamara Hervey, Ondřej Kadlec, David Kosař, Aisling McMahon, Madalina Moraru, Mairéad Ní Ghráinne, Jan Petrov, Jessica Schultz, Katarína Šipulová, Hubert Smekal, Samuel Spáč, Nino Tsereteli, Tereza Papoušková, Nikolas Feith Tan, Marína Urbániková, Ruvi Ziegler.

References

1 R Erdoğan, Twitter (9 October 2019) <https://twitter.com/rterdogan/status/1181922277488762880>.

2 Gilbert, G and Rüsch, A Magdalena, Creating Safe Zones and Safe Corridors in Conflict Situations: Providing Protection at Home or Preventing the Search for Asylum? (Policy Brief, Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, University of New South Wales, 2017)Google Scholar. Safe zones are sometimes also referred to as ‘buffer zones’, ‘safe areas’, ‘safe havens’ or ‘de-escalation zones’.

3 Civilians are persons who are not members of the armed forces. Rule 5, definition of civilians, International Committee of the Red Cross International Humanitarian Law Database of Customary International Law, <https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter1_rule5>. An armed conflict can be international or non-international in nature. In the Tadić case, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia stated that an international armed conflict ‘exists whenever there is a resort to armed force between States’. A non-international armed conflict exists whenever there is […] protracted armed violence between governmental authorities and organised armed groups or between such groups within a state.’ ICTY, The Prosecutor v Duško Tadic, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, IT-94-1-A (2 October 1995) [70].

4 N McIntyre and M Rice-Oxley, ‘It's 34,361 and Rising: How the List Tallies Europe's Migrant bodycount’ The Guardian (20 June 2018) <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/20/the-list-europe-migrant-bodycount>.

5 L Rozen, ‘US, Russia Hold Secret Talks over South Syria Safe Zone’ Al-Monitor (1 June 2017) <https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2017/06/us-russia-secret-talks-south-syria-safe-zone.html>; A Bendix, ‘Safe Zones in Syria’ The Atlantic (4 May 2017) <https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/05/russia-iran-and-turkey-agree-on-safe-zones-in-syria/525486/>; J Irish, ‘France, Partners to Discuss Northern Syria “Safe Zone” – Hollande’ Reuters (28 September 2015) <https://www.yahoo.com/news/france-says-discuss-syria-no-fly-zone-partners-191659977.html>.

6 J Macaron, ‘Trump's ‘‘Real Estate’’ Approach to Safe Zones in Syria’ Al Jazeera (31 January 2017) <http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2017/01/trump-real-estate-approach-safe-zones-syria-170130135423734.html>. See also discussion in K Long, ‘No Entry! A Review of UNHCR's Response to Border Closures in Situations of Mass Refugee Influx’ (UNHCR Policy Development and Evaluation Service 2010); B Frelick, ‘Preventing Refugee Flows: Protection or Peril’ World Refugee Survey (US Committee for Refugees 1993); Hyndman, J, Managing Displacement: Refugees and the Politics of Humanitarianism (University of Minnesota Press 2000)Google Scholar; Landgren, K, ‘Safety Zones and International Protection: A Dark Grey Area’ (1995) 7 IJRL 436CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Chimni, BS, ‘The Incarceration of Victims: Deconstructing Safety Zones’ in Al-Nauimi, N and Meese, R, International Legal Issues Arising under the United Nations Decade of International Law: Proceedings of the Qatar International Law Conference ’94 (Martinus Nijhoff 1995)Google Scholar; Barutciski, M, ‘The Reinforcement of Non-Admission Policies and the Subversion of UNHCR: Displacement and Internal Assistance in Bosnia-Herzegovina (1992–94)’ (1996) 8 IJRL 49CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Subedi, SP, ‘The Legal Competence of the International Community to Create Safe Havens in Zones of Turmoil’ (1999) 12 Journal of Refugee Studies 23CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 E Francis, ‘UNHCR Chief says Safe Zones would not work in Syria’ Reuters (3 February 2017) <https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-unhcr/unhcr-chief-says-safe-zones-would-not-work-in-syria-idUSKBN15I2CO>.

8 ICTY, The Prosecutor v Radislav Krstić, Judgement, IT-98-33-T (2 August 2001) [1].

9 B Ní Ghráinne, ‘What Are “Safe Zones” and How Do They Work?’ RTÉ (26 September 2019) <https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2019/0922/1077488-what-are-safe-zones-and-how-do-they-work/>.

10 ‘Statement Attributable to Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Mr Jonathan Hoffman’ US Department of Defense (7 October 2019) <https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/1982590/statement-attributable-to-assistant-to-the-secretary-of-defense-for-public-affa/>.

11 R Hall, ‘“When They Come, They Will Kill You’’: Ethnic Cleansing Is Already a Reality in Turkey's Syrian Safe Zone’ The Independent (29 November 2019) <https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/turkey-syria-safe-zone-ethnic-cleansing-death-toll-sna-a9225896.html>.

12 The concept is known by many names, including ‘Internal Protection Alternative’, ‘Internal Protection Principle’, ‘Safe Haven Principle’, ‘Internal Resettlement’ and ‘Internal Relocation Alternative’. This article will use the term ‘Internal Protection Alternative/IPA’ because it appropriately focuses on the protection (or lack thereof) in the country of nationality, which is a criterion of the refugee definition.

13 The IPA is not explicitly incorporated into the 1951 Refugee Convention but it is firmly established in the practice of States. A detailed explanation of the IPA concept can be found in section IV.

14 KAB v Sweden App No 17299/12 ECHR (5 December 2013).

15 DM (Majority Clan Entities can Protect) Somalia v Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2005] UKAIT 00150 (27 July 2005) (UK, Asylum and Immigration Tribunal); Elmi v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, IMM-580-98, (Federal Court of Canada); Council Directive (EC) 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (recast) [2011] OJ L337/9.

16 See for example, President Erdoğan's quote at the beginning of this article. See also the examples analysed in section V; the views of Turkey's President Erdoğan in C Gall, ‘Turkey Wants Refugees to Move to a “Safe Zone”. It's a Tough Sell.’ New York Times (1 November 2019) <https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/01/world/middleeast/syria-refugees-turkey-safe-zone.html>; France's former president Hollande ‘France, Partners to Discuss Northern Syria ‘‘Safe Zone’’: Hollande’ Reuters (28 September 2015) <https://www.reuters.com/article/us-un-assembly-hollande-syria/france-partners-to-discuss-northern-syria-safe-zone-hollande-idUSKCN0RS2D920150928>; US President Donald Trump in Macaron (n 6).

17 Turkey does not apply the 1951 Refugee Convention to Syrian refugees, but it is nonetheless bound by the law as set out in this article. The reason is as follows: although Turkey is a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, it made a reservation clause to the 1967 Protocol limiting its definition of a refugee to those who fall under the geographical scope of the former instrument. This means that Turkey's definition of a refugee is restricted to individuals fleeing events in Europe. Syrians are provided with ‘temporary protection’ by the Government of Turkey, and the full range of rights set out in the 1951 Refugee Convention do not necessarily apply to Syrian refugees in Turkey. However, the three criteria set out in this article as applicable to the IPA also apply to the ECHR, to which Turkey is bound.

18 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (adopted 28 July 1951, entered into force 22 April 1954) 189 UNTS 137 (Refugee Convention) art 33. This provision prohibits the return of every refugee who could face a new risk of of persecution, or where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment if returned.

19 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (adopted 23 May 1969, entered into force 27 January 1980) 1155 UNTS 331, arts 31, 31(3)(b).

20 Further justification for the selection of these case studies is given in section V.

21 See, for example, Long (n 6); H Yamashita, Humanitarian Space and International Politics: The Creation of Safe Areas (Routledge 2014); C McQueen, Humanitarian Intervention and Safety Zones (Palgrave McMillan 2005).

22 See, for example Gilbert and Rüsch (n 6); EC Gillard, ‘Safe Areas: The International Legal Framework’ (2017) 99(106) International Review of the Red Cross 1075; T Desch, ‘Safe Zones’, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (2015); Subedi (n 6).

23 Frelick notes that ‘The circumstances under which [safe zones] truly promote safe haven without compromising the right to asylum need further exploration' (n 6). The following authors have noted that safe zones may undermine the institution of asylum: Gilbert and Rüsch (n 6); Landgren (n 6) 442; A Shacknove, ‘From Asylum to Containment’ (1993) 5 IJRL 516.

24 See the sources cited in J Schultz, The Internal Protection Alternative in Refugee Law: Treaty Basis and Scope of Application under the 1951 Convention (Brill Nijhoff 2019).

25 Schultz (n 24); First Colloquium on Challenges in Refugee Law, The Michigan Guidelines on the Internal Protection Alternative (1999); UNHCR, An Overview of Protection Issues in Western Europe: Legislative Trends and Positions Taken by UNHCR (European Series 1995); H Storey, ‘The Internal Flight Alternative Test: The Jurisprudence Re-examined’ (1998) 10 IJRL 499; A Zimmermann, The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and Its 1967 Protocol: A Commentary (Oxford University Press 2010). For further analysis of these positions, see B Ní Ghráinne, ‘The Internal Protection Alternative and Human Rights Considerations – Irrelevant or Indispensable?’ (2015) 27(1) IJRL 29; and B Ní Ghráinne ‘The Internal Protection Alternative’ in C Costello, M Foster and J McAdam, The Oxford Handbook of International Refugee Law (Oxford University Press 2020, forthcoming).

26 Schultz (n 24).

27 Desch (n 22).

28 The IPA has been incorporated into art 8 of the Council Directive (EC) 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (recast) [2011] OJ L337/9. For a critique of the IPA in EU law see J Eaton, ‘The Internal Protection Alternative under European Union Law: Examining the Recast Qualification Directive’ (2012) 24 IJRL 765. The European Commission has proposed to replace the Qualification Directive with a new Regulation. See ‘Completing the Reform of the Common European Asylum System: Towards an Efficient, Fair and Humane Asylum Policy’ European Commission (13 July 2016) <http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2433_en.htm>. In mid-2018, Parliament and the Council reached a provisional agreement, however, the agreement did not receive sufficient support from the Member States. ‘Outcome of the Council Meeting, 3661st Council meeting, Justice and Home Affairs, Brussels, 6 and 7 December 2018’ Council of the European Union (7 December 2018) <https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/37402/st15252-en18.pdf>.

29 It is important to note that the question of the compatability of safe zones with the IPA criteria is but one of many under-researched legal issues surrounding safe zones. Related issues include how to legally establish a safe zone, the practical and logistical operation of a safe zone, the application of human rights and humanitarian law to safe zones, and responsibility and accountability within safe zones. The analysis in this article will be limited to the compatability of safe zones with the IPA and some of the other aforementioned issues will form the basis for this author's future work.

30 Frelick (n 6); BS Chimni, ‘Responses to Hathaway: Globalization and Refugee Blues’ (1995) 8(3) Journal of Refugee Studies 298; J Hyndman, ‘Preventive, Palliative, or Punitive? Safe Spaces in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Somalia, and Sri Lanka’ (2003) 16 Journal of Refugee Studies 167.

31 Frelick (n 6).

32 ibid; Schultz (n 24).

33 JC Hathaway and RA Neve, ‘Making International Refugee Law Relevant Again: A Proposal for Collectivized and Solution-Oriented Protection’ (1997) 10 HarvHumRtsJ 115.

34 L Rudgers and D Bailey, ‘Trump Wall – All You Need to Know about US Border in Seven Charts’ BBC News (27 September 2019) <https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46824649>.

35 ‘Legal Action against Italy over its Coordination of Libyan Coast Guard Pull-backs Resulting in Migrant Deaths and Abuse’ Global Action Legal Network (8 May 2018) <https://www.glanlaw.org/single-post/2018/05/08/Legal-action-against-Italy-over-its-coordination-of-Libyan-Coast-Guard-pull-backs-resulting-in-migrant-deaths-and-abuse>.

36 ‘‘‘Medevac” Law: Australia Denies Medical Evacuations for Refugees’ BBC News (4 December 2019).

37 ‘US Migrant Centres: Photos Show ‘‘Dangerous’’ Overcrowding’ BBC News (2 July 2019) <https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-50653195>.

38 UNHCR, ‘Detention’ <https://www.unhcr.org/detention.html>.

39 K McConnachie, ‘Camps of Containment: A Genealogy of the Refugee Camp’ (2016) 7(3) Humanity: An International Journal of Human Rights, Humanitarianism, and Development 397; S Sytnik, ‘Rights Displaced: The Effects of Long-term Encampment on the Human Rights of Refugees’ (2012) 4 Refugee Law Initiative Working Papers Series.

40 ‘Court Rules Family Entitled to Hearing over ‘Outsourcing’ of Asylum Investigation’ Irish Times (16 May 2018) <https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/supreme-court/court-rules-family-entitled-to-hearing-over-outsourcing-of-asylum-investigation-1.3497510>; ‘Lack of Legal Aid Puts Asylum Seekers’ Lives at Risk, Charity Warns’ The Guardian (19 July 2018) <https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jul/19/lack-legal-aid-puts-asylum-seekers-lives-at-risk-charity-warns>.

41 DM (Majority Clan Entities can Protect) Somalia v Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2005] UKAIT 00150, UK, Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (27 July 2005); Art 8 of the Council Directive (EC) 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (recast) [2011] OJ L337/9; Elmi v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, IMM-580-98, Canadian Federal Court (12 March 1999).

42 European Migration Network Inform, ‘Safe Countries of Origin’ <https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/00_inform_safe_country_of_origin_final_en_1.pdf>.

43 ‘EU-Turkey Joint Action Plan’, ‘The Paradox of the EU-Turkey Refugee Deal’ Migration Policy Institute (March 2016) <https://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/paradox-eu-turkey-refugee-deal>.

44 Pact on Security, Stability and Development in the Great Lakes Region (adopted 15 December 2006, entered into force 21 June 2008) 46 ILM 175; African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa (adopted 23 October 2009, entered into force 6 December 2012) 52 ILM 400.

45 ‘Under this much-celebrated R2P formulation, where a State fails in its responsibility to protect, the international community has reserved the right, as a last resort, to take collective forcible action through the UN to enforce it. In respect of how far this recharacterization of sovereignty goes and whether it is supportive of a right of humanitarian intervention, it must first be noted that R2P is a political doctrine and not a formal or even material source of international law. Moreover, the use of force is a last resort under this principle and, relying as it does on Chapter VII UN Charter authorization, by definition it is not (unilateral) humanitarian intervention.’ C O'Meara, ‘Should International Law Recognize a Right of Humanitarian Intervention?’ (2017) 66(2) ICLQ 441.

46 Humanitarian intervention can be defined as the use of force to protect people in another State from gross and systematic human rights violations committed against them, or more generally to avert a humanitarian catastrophe when the target State is unwilling or unable to act. See V Lowe and A Tzanakopoulos, ‘Humanitarian Intervention’, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (2011).

47 United Nations Secretary-General, ‘High-Level Panel on Internal Displacement’ (3 December 2019) <https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/personnel-appointments/2019-12-03/high-level-panel-internal-displacement>.

48 A Roberts, ‘NATO's Humanitarian War over Kosovo’ (2006) 41(3) Survival 106.

49 Chimni in Al-Nauimi and Meese.

50 UNHCR, ‘Cluster Approach’ <https://emergency.unhcr.org/entry/61190/cluster-approach-iasc>.

51 B Frelick, ‘Down the Rabbit Hole: The Strange Logic of the Internal Flight Alternative’ (1999) World Refugee Survey 22; Gilbert and Rüsch (n 6); A Helton, ‘UNHCR and Protection in the 90s’ (1994) 6 IJRL 1; B Ní Ghráinne, ‘UNHCR's Involvement with IDPs – “Protection of That Country” for the Purposes of Precluding Refugee Status?’ (2014) 26(4) IJRL 536.

52 H Brown, ‘Turkey Wants to Send Syrian Refugees to the New “Safe Zone”. Some Refugees Are Terrified.’ Vox (7 November 2019) <https://www.vox.com/2019/11/7/20927448/turkey-syria-refugees-safe-zone.b>.

53 UNHCR, ‘Global Trends in Forced Displacement 2018’ <https://www.unhcr.org/5d08d7ee7.pdf>; L Molana-Allen, ‘Turkey Threatens to “Open Gates” for Syrian Refugees to Leave and Move to the West if It Doesn't Get a Safe Zone’ Telegraph (5 September 2019) <https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/05/turkey-threatens-open-gates-syrian-refugees-leave-move-west/> .

54 UNHCR, ‘The Global Compact of Refugees’ (26 June 2018) <https://www.unhcr.org/events/conferences/5b3295167/official-version-final-draft-global-compact-refugees.html>.

55 ‘Migrant Crisis: Farage Says EU “Mad” to Accept So Many’ BBC News (9 September 2015) <https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34197707>; ‘Viktor Orbán: “Hungary Doesn't Want Muslim Invaders”’ Politico (1 August 2018) <https://www.politico.eu/article/viktor-orban-hungary-doesnt-want-muslim-invaders/>.

56 H Cabot, ‘Crisis and Continuity: A Critical Look at the ‘‘European Refugee Crisis”’ (10 November 2015) Allegra lab <http://allegralaboratory.net/crisis-and-continuity-a-critical-look-at-the-european-refugee-crisis/>.

57 Art 1A, 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (adopted 28 July 1951, entered into force 22 April 1954) 189 UNTS 137.

58 JC Hathaway and M Foster, Law of Refugee Status (Cambridge University Press 2014).

59 See for example, President Erdoğan's quote at the beginning of this article. See also the examples analysed in section V; the views of Turkey's President Erdoğan in C Gall, ‘Turkey Wants Refugees to Move to a “Safe Zone”. It's a Tough Sell.’ New York Times (1 November 2019) <https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/01/world/middleeast/syria-refugees-turkey-safe-zone.html>; France's former president Hollande, ‘France, Partners to Discuss Northern Syria ‘‘Safe Zone’’: Hollande’ Reuters (28 September 2015) <https://www.reuters.com/article/us-un-assembly-hollande-syria/france-partners-to-discuss-northern-syria-safe-zone-hollande-idUSKCN0RS2D920150928>.

60 Hathaway and Foster (n 58) Ch 4.

61 UNHCR, Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (January 1992) UN Doc HCR/IP/4/Eng/REV.1; GS Goodwin-Gill and J McAdam, The Refugee in International Law (Oxford University Press 2011); JC Hathaway and M Foster, ‘Internal Protection/ Relocation/ Flight Alternative as an Aspect of Refugee Status Determination’ Global Consultation on International Protection, Expert Rountable Discussion organised by the UNHCR (2001); Eaton (n 28); G de Moffarts, ‘Refugee Status and the Internal Flight or Protection Altnerative’ Refugee and Asylum Law: Assessing the Scope for Judicial Protection (1997).

62 Januzi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] UKHL 5; [2006] 2 AC 426 (UK); Art 8, Council Directive (EC) 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (recast) [2011] OJ L337/9; Randhawa v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 52 FCR 437; 124 ALR 265 (Australia); Thirunavukkarasu v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) 1993 CarswellNat 160; 22 Imm LR (2d) 241 (Canada); Butler v Attorney General [1999] NZAR 205 (New Zealand); SZATV v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] HCA 40 (Australia); Case Abstract IJRL/015 1 IRL 388 (1989) (Netherlands); Case Abstract IJRL/0101 4 IJRL 97 (1992) (France); Judgment of 24 February 2011 No 10 C 310 (Germany); Decision of 28 April 2000, 96/21/1036-7 (Austria); Norwegian Immigration Act (2010) section 28(5), available at <http://www.regjeringen.no/en/doc/laws/acts/immigration-act.html?id=585772>.

63 These criteria are set out below.

64 These criteria include a rebuttable presumption that the IPA is unavailable where the State is the agent of persecution; that protection in the IPA must be durable; the risk of persecution must be ‘permanently eradicated’; there must be a legal system in operation for the detection, prosecution, and protection of acts of persecution or serious harm. There is also considerable disagreement amongst State practice regarding whether whether non-State actors of protection can qualify as actors of protection for the purposes of establishing an IPA and the minimum stardards of living in the IPA. For further discussion of these criteria, see B Ní Ghráinne, ‘The Internal Protection Alternative and Human Rights Considerations – Irrelevant or Indispensable?’ (2015) 27(1) IJRL 29; and B Ní Ghráinne ‘The Internal Protection Alternative’ in C Costello, M Foster and J McAdam, The Oxford Handbook of International Refugee Law (Oxford University Press 2020, forthcoming).

65 Art 31(1).

66 Art 31(3)(b); RK Gardiner, Treaty Interpretation (Oxford University Press 2008) 239; International Law Commission, ‘Draft conclusions on subsequent agreements and subsequent practice in relation to the interpretation of treaties’ (2018) Conclusion 5.

67 O Dörr and K Schmalenbach, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: A Commentary (Springer 2012) 597.

68 Art 31(3)(c).

69 Joined cases C-175/08, C-176/08, C-178/08 and C-179/08 Aydin Salahadin Abdulla (C-175/08), Kamil Hasan (C-176/08), Ahmed Adem, Hamrin Mosa Rashi (C-178/08) and Dler Jamal (C-179/08) v Bundesrepublik Deutschland EU:C:2010:105 [2010] ECR I-01493; Council Directive (EC) 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (recast) [2011] OJ L337/9, art 8; Salah Sheekh v The Netherlands App No 1948/04 ECHR (11 January 2007); Sufi and Elmi v the United Kingdom App Nos 8319/07 and 11449/07 ECHR (28 November 2011); Thirunavukkarasu v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) 1993 CarswellNat 160; 22 Imm LR (2d) 241 (Canadian Federal Court of Appeal); Al-Amidi v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs 177 ALR 506 (Australian Federal Court); Randhawa v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 52 FCR 437; 124 ALR 265 (Federal Court of Australia); Bundesverwaltungsgericht, 13 May 1993: BVerwG 9 C.5992, Neue ZeitschrflftrVewaltungsrecht 1994, 210; German Federal Administrative Court (1993) Neue Zeitschrift fur Verwaltungsrecht 1210, 1212; R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Immigration Appeals Tribunal, Ex parte Anthonypillai Francis Robinson [1998] QB 929 (Court of Appeal (Civil Division) of England and Wales); Decision of 28 April 2000, 96/21/1036-7 (Australian High Administrative Court); Matter of H, Decision No. 3276, 1996 (US Board of Immigration Appeals); Dirshe v MCI, Decision No. IMM-2124-96 (1997) (Canadian Federal Court of Appeal); No. 71684/99 (New Zealand Refugee Status Appeals Authority); (1993) Neue Zeitschrift for Verwaltungsrecht 1210, 1212 (German Federal Administrative Court); Hashmat v Canada (MEI) [1997] F.CJ. No. 598 (Canadian Federal Court).

70 Thirunavukkarasu v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) 1993 CarswellNat 160, 22 Imm LR (2d) 241 (Canadian Federal Court of Appeal); Al-Amidi v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Sathananthan v Canada (Minister for Citizenship and Immigration) [1999] 4 FC 52 (Federal Court of Canada); Judgment of 29 May 2008 No 10 C 1107, BVerwGE 131 (German Federal Administrative Court); Judgment of 29 May 2008 1B 97/06 (German Federal Administrative Court); Randhawa v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 52 FCR 437; 124 ALR 265 (Federal Court of Australia); Salah Sheekh v The Netherlands App No 1948/04 ECHR (11 January 2007).

71 Art 31(1) of the VCLT provides that a treaty must be interpreted in good faith.

72 Hathaway and Foster (n 58) 334.

73 AH (Sudan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] UKHL 49 (UK House of Lords); Judgment of 8 December 1998 No 9 C 17/98, B VerwGE 108 (German Federal Administrative Court); Ahmed v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 156 NR 221 (FCA) (Canadian Federal Court of Appreal); Rasaratnam v Canada [1992] FC 706, 709-11 (Canadian Federal Court); Salah Sheekh v The Netherlands App No 1948/04 ECHR (11 January 2007).

74 UNHCR (n 61); Goodwin-Gill and McAdam (n 61); Hathaway and Foster (n 61); Eaton (n 28); de Moffarts (n 61); Januzi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] UKHL 5; [2006] 2 AC 426 (UK House of Lords); Art 8, Council Directive (EC) 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (recast) [2011] OJ L337/9; Randhawa v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 52 FCR 437; 124 ALR 265 (Federal Court of Australia); Thirunavukkarasu v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) 1993 CarswellNat 160; 22 Imm LR (2d) 241 (Canadian Federal Court of Appeal); Butler v Attorney General [1999] NZAR 205 (New Zealand Court of Appeal); Nalliah Karanakaran v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2000] 3 All ER 449 (Court of Appeal (Civil Division) of England and Wales); SZATV v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] HCA 40 (High Court of Australia).

75 Hathaway and Foster (n 58);see also UNHCR (n 61).

76 Zimmermann (n 25); Goodwin-Gill and McAdam (n 61); Hathaway and Foster, (n 58)

77 For example, the European Union's Qualification Directive has explicitly adopted the human rights approach by defining ‘an act of persecution’ as an act that is ‘sufficiently serious by its nature or repetition as to constitute a severe violation of basic human rights, in particular the rights from which derogation cannot be made’ or an ‘accumulation of various measures, including violations of human rights’; Art 9(1)(a) Council Directive (EC) 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (recast) [2011] OJ L337/9.

78 For example, the Qualification Directive notes that the violation(s) must be ‘sufficiently serious by its nature or repetition’; art 9(1)(a) ibid.

79 Goodwin-Gill and McAdam (n 61). Hathaway and Foster suggest that three steps should be taken in dermining whether a human rights violation falls within the scope of persecution, namely (i) is the interest at stake within the ambit of a human rights normas defined by a widely ratified international human rights treaty? If not, it is unlikely to constitute a serious harm amounting to persecution as the human right should be considered a generally agreed interpretative guidance for the 1951 Convention, as evidence by wide ratification; (ii) even if the harm threatened is addressed by a broadly agreed human rights norm, is the risk nonetheless one deemed acceptable by reference to the scope of the right as codified? For example, certain rights may need to be limited in scope to protect public society, order, health or morals; (iii) there will occasionally be cases in which—despite the fact that the risk alleged implicates a broadly subscribed international human rights norm and considerations neither of internal limitation nor of emergency derogation apply—it may nonetheless be clear upon thoughtful and conscientious reflection that the threat is so far at the margins of a rights violation as to amount to a de minimis harm. See Hathaway and Foster (n 58).

80 Goodwin-Gill and McAdam (n 61); Hathaway and Foster (n 58) Schultz (n 24); Shi Chen v Holder [2010] F.3d 324 (Seventh Circuit, United States Court of Appeals); M93 of 2004 v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2006] FMCA 252 (Federal Magistrates Court of Australia); BG (Fiji) [2012] NZIPT 800091 (New Zealand Immigration and Protection Tribunal); BVerwG [2013] 10 C 23.12 (German Federal Administarative Court).

81 ECRE, ‘Actors of Protection and the Application of the Internal Protection Alternative’ (2014) <https://www.refworld.org/docid/543bbdb50.html>; Hathaway and Foster (n 58) R Marx, ‘The Criteria of Applying the “Internal Flight Alternative” Test in National Refugee Status Determination Procedures’ (2002) 14 IJRL 179; Schultz (n 24); B Ní Ghráinne, ‘The Internal Protection Alternative and Human Rights Considerations – Irrelevant or Indispensable?’ (2015) 27(1) IJRL 29; Eaton (n 28); K Hailbronner and D Thym (eds), EU Immigration and Asylum Law (Hart 2016); Zimmermann (n 25); Sufi and Elmi v the United Kingdom App Nos 8319/07 and 11449/07 ECHR (28 November 2011); Salah Sheekh v The Netherlands App No 1948/04 ECHR (11 January 2007).

82 See the analysis in Schultz (n 24), Ch 5.

83 Goodwin-Gill and McAdam (n 61).

84 Hathaway and Foster (n 58); Sufi and Elmi v the United Kingdom App Nos 8319/07 and 11449/07 ECHR (28 November 2011); Eaton (n 28); Zimmermann (n 25).

85 A Anderson, M Foster, H Lambert and J McAdam, ‘Imminence in Refugee and Human Rights Law: A Misplaced Notion for International Protection’ (2019) 68(1) ICLQ 118.

86 AT Arulanatham, ‘Restructured Safe Havens: A Proposal for Reform of the Refugee Protection System’ (2000) 22(1) HumRtsQ 1.

87 ibid.

88 B Ní Ghráinne, ‘What Are “Safe Zones” and How Do They Work?’ RTÉ Brainstorm (26 September 2019) <https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2019/0922/1077488-what-are-safe-zones-and-how-do-they-work/>; B Ní Ghráinne, ‘The Syrian Safe Zone and International Law’ Institute of International Relations Prague (2020) <https://www.iir.cz/en/article/brid-ni-ghrainne-the-syrian-safe-zone-and-international-law>.

89 Barutciski (n 6).

90 Art 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the use of force in international relations. A safe zone can be lawfully established with consent of the State or if authorised by the Security Council pursuant to Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

91 Soosaipillai v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) [1999] No IMM-4846-98, Fed Ct Trial Lexis 834 (Canadian Federal Court); Judgment of 14 December 1993 9 C 4592, DVBl 109 (1994) (German Federal Administrative Court); Thirunavukkarasu v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) 1993 CarswellNat 160; 22 Imm LR (2d) 241 (Canadian Federal Court of Appeal); Storey (n 25); Ramanathan v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 1998 CarswellNat 1687; 152 FTR 305 (Federal Court of Canada); Gnanam v SSHD (1999) Imm AR 436 (Court of Appeal of England and Wales); Decision of 10 June 1997 – AWB 96/10979 (The Netherlands Court of Zwolle); Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsgrecht 65 (1997) (German Federal Constitutional Court); Abubakar v MEI (1993) FCJ 887 (Canadian Federal Court of Appeal); Singh v Canada (Ml..1), [1993] FCJ No. 630 (Federal Court of Canada); Kahlon v Canada (IRB) [1993] FCJ no. 811 (Federal Court of Canada).

92 UNHCR, ‘UNHCR's Operational Experience with Internally Displaced Persons’ (September 1994).

93 WD Clarance, ‘Open Relief Centres: A Pragmatic Approach to Emergency Relief and Monitoring during Conflict in a Country of Origin’ (1991) 3 IJRL 320.

94 UNHCR, ‘Open Relief Centres in Sri Lanka as of 1990’ <https://www.unhcr.org/42d648fb4.pdf>. For discussion see ibid.

95 UN General Assembly, Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (6 October 1993) UN Doc A/48/12.

96 Chimni (n 6) 847.

97 Hyndman.

98 Landgren (n 6); CM Tiso, 'Safe Haven Refugee Program', (1994) 8(4) Georgetown Immigration Law Journal 575; Chimni (n 6); UNHCR (n 92); Commission on Human Rights, ‘Report of the Representative of the Secretary-General, Mr. Francis M. Deng, submitted pursuant to Commission on Human Rights resolutions 1993/95 and 1994/68’ (2 February 1995) UN Doc E/CN.4/1995/50; UNHCR, (n 95).

99 Chimni (n 6); Frelick (n6);Clarance (n 93); ; Tiso (n 98); Landgren (n 6); Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Division of International Protection, September 1994; UNHCR (n 95).

100 Landgren (n 6); Tiso (n 98); Chimni (n 6); UNHCR (n 92); Commission on Human Rights, ‘Report of the Representative of the Secretary-General, Mr. Francis M. Deng, submitted pursuant to Commission on Human Rights resolutions 1993/95 and 1994/68’ (2 February 1995) UN Doc E/CN.4/1995/50; UNHCR (n 95).

101 Tiso (n 98).

102 Tiso (n 98).

103 UNHCR (n 95).

104 Commission on Human Rights, 50th session, ‘Further Promotion and Encouragement of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, including the Question of the Programme and Mothods of Work of the Commission’ (9 February 1994) UN Doc E/CN.4/1994/35.

105 ‘Report of UNHCR 1994’ (1 January 1995) UN Doc A/48/12. For discussion see Tiso (n 98).

106 Although the concept of IPA was well established in Australian jurisprudence at the time, Australian courts did not consider that the ORCs constituted an IPA. See V94/01232 [1994] RRTA 324 (3 March 1994) (Australian Refugee Review Tribunal); V93/00078 [1994] RRTA 606 (11 April 1994) (Australian Refugee Review Tribunal); V94/02151 [1994] RRTA 2379 (4 November 1994) (Australian Refugee Review Tribunal). For discussion see Chimni (n 6)); Frelick (n 6).

107 ‘Sri Lanka: Internal Flight Alternatives’ Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (1 December 1992) <https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6a83bc.html>. For discussion see Arulnatham (n 96); Chimni (n 6).

108 United Nations, ‘General Assembly Third Committee 53rd Meeting: Summary Record’ (24 November 1989) UN Doc A/C.3/44/SR.53. For discussion see ‘Operation Provide Comfort: A Forgotten Mission with Possible Lessons for Syria’ Foreign Policy (6 February 2017) <https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/06/operation-provide-comfort-a-forgotten-mission-with-possible-lessons-for-syria/>.

109 B Gellman, ‘Kurds Contend US Encouraged Rebellion via “Voice of Free Iraq”’ The Washington Post (9 April 1991) <https://www.washingtonpositst.com/archive/politics/1991/04/09/kurds-contend-us-encouraged-rebellion-via-voice-of-free-iraq/a28c33b4-0bcf-4005-849b-8202ba1f36de/>; DE Clary, ‘Operation Provide Comfort: A Strategic Analysis’ Air War College, Air University (1994) <https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a280675.pdf>.

110 Letter from the Permanent Representative of Turkey to the UN addressed to the President of the Security Council (2 April 1991) UN Doc S/22435. For discussion see Yamashita (n 21).

111 Long (n 6)[101].

112 United Nations Regional Humanitarian Plan of Action Relating to the Crisis between Iraq and Kuwait, Second Update, 9 April 1991 in M Weller (ed), Iraq and Kuwait: The Hostilities and Their Aftermath (Cambridge Grotius Publications Ltd 1993). For discussion see Long, ‘In Search of Sanctuary’ 476.

113 Letter from the Permanent Representative of Turkey to the UN addressed to the President of the Security Council (2 April 1991) UN Doc S/22435. For discussion see Long (n 6)[107].

114 Long (n 6) [108].

115 Long (n 6) [109].

116 UNSC Res 688 (5 April 1991) UN Doc S/RES/688; The US, UK, and France interpreted Security Council Resolution 688's reference to the ‘massive flow of refugees towards and across international frontiers’ as justifying the creation of a safe zone for Kurds in Iraq without Iraqi consent. This article argues that this was a misinterpretation of the resolution because (i) the resolution reaffirmed the ‘sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of Iraq’ and (ii) UNSC resolutions authorising the use of force usually do so explicitly. See UNSC Res 688 (5 April 1991) UN Doc S/RES/688.

117 Yamashita (n 21).

118 Weekly compilation of Presidential Documents vol 27. No 16, ‘US The President's News Conference’ (16 April 1991) in Weller (n 113)) 717.

119 ibid. For discussion see Yamashita (n 21).

120 See (n 119) 717.

121 Letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary General (21 April 1991) UN Doc S/22513.

122 Long (n 6) [120].

123 Yamashita (n 21).

124 Long (n 6) [130]; Sandoz, ‘Safety Zones for Internally Displaced Persons,’ in Al-Nauimi and Meese (n 6) 917; E Cotran, ‘The Establishment of a Safe Haven for Kurds in Iraq’ in Al-Nauimi and Meese (n 6).

125 Goodwin-Gill and McAdam (n 61), 219.

126 These criteria are addressed in B Ní Ghráinne, ‘The Internal Protection Alternative and Human Rights Considerations – Irrelevant or Indispensable?’ (2015) 27(1) IJRL 29; and B Ní Ghráinne ‘The Internal Protection Alternative’ in C Costello, M Foster and J McAdam, The Oxford Handbook of International Refugee Law (Oxford University Press 2020, forthcoming).

127 Hathaway and Foster (n 58)

128 Council Directive (EC) 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (recast) [2011] OJ L337/9; Joined cases C-175/08, C-176/08, C-178/08 and C-179/08 Aydin Salahadin Abdulla (C-175/08), Kamil Hasan (C-176/08), Ahmed Adem, Hamrin Mosa Rashi (C-178/08) and Dler Jamal (C-179/08) v Bundesrepublik Deutschland EU:C:2010:105 [2010] ECR I-01493.

129 Joined cases C-175/08, C-176/08, C-178/08 and C-179/08 Aydin Salahadin Abdulla (C-175/08), Kamil Hasan (C-176/08), Ahmed Adem, Hamrin Mosa Rashi (C-178/08) and Dler Jamal (C-179/08) v Bundesrepublik Deutschland EU:C:2010:105 [2010] ECR I-01493.

130 Coleman states in fn 160 that the rejection of Iraqi Kurds at the Turkish border in 1991 was lawful, because of the existence of a safe area in Iraq. However, Coleman does not go into further detail as to why such practice was lawful. See N Coleman, ‘Non-Refoulement Revised: Renewed Review of the Status of the Principle of Non-Refoulement as Customary International Law’ (2003) 5(1) European Journal of Migration and Law 23.

131 BR Posen, ‘Military Responses to Refugee Disasters’ (1996) 21(1) International Security 72.

132 Desert Storm was a 1991 bombing campaign that forced Iraq to end its occupation of Kuwait. See Encyclopedia Britannica ‘25th Anniversary of Operation Desert Storm’ <https://www.britannica.com/story/25th-anniversary-of-operation-desert-storm>.

133 UN General Assembly, ‘Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to General Assembly Resolution 53/35’ (15 November 1999) UN Doc A/54/549, [15].

134 ‘The Bosnia Crisis: Serbs, Croats and Muslims: who hates who and why: Tony Barber in Zagreb traces the ancient roots of a culture clash that has shattered what was Yugoslavia into warring pieces’ The Independent (9 August 1992) <https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/the-bosnia-crisis-serbs-croats-and-muslims-who-hates-who-and-why-tony-barber-in-zagreb-traces-the-1539305.html>.

135 UN General Assembly (n 133).

136 Yamashita (n 21).

137 Barutciski (n 6); Coleman (n 130).

138 Frelick (n 6).

139 UN General Assembly, ‘Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to General Assembly Resolution 53/35’ (15 November 1999) UN Doc A/54/549 [49]–[51]. For discussion see Frelick 9; Chimni (n 6)839.

140 ICRC, ‘ICRC Position Paper: The Establishment of Protected Zones for Endangered Citizens in Bosnia and Hertzegovina’ (30 October 1992) <https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/bosnia-and-herzegovina-constitution-safe-areas>.

141 L Franco, An Examination of Safety Zones for Internally Displaced Persons as a Contribution toward Prevention and Solution of Refugee Problems in Al-Nauimi and Meese (n 6); Landgren (n 6).

142 Frelick notes that preventing refugee flows was also in Croatia's interest, because if everyone left Bosnia, who would fight the enemy? On 21 July 1992, the governments of Bosnia and Croatia announced an agreement to return refugees to so-called ‘safe havens’ in Bosnia and Herzegovina. See Frelick (n 6).

143 For example, German asylum adjudicators granted 59 asylum requests from Bosnians and denied 1,913. See the discussion in Frelick (n 6); Barutciski (n 6); Arulanatham (n 86).

144 Frelick (n 6); Landgren (n 6).

145 UNSC Res 819 (16 April 1993) UN Doc S/RES/819; UNSC Res 824 (6 May 1993) UN Doc S/RES/824. The term used in the resolution was ‘safe area’. However, as aforementioned in (n 2) the term ‘safe area’ is used interchangeably with ‘safe zones’.

146 UNSC Res 836 (4 June 1993) UN Doc S/RES/836.

147 Barutciski (n 6), 90.

148 UNSC, ‘Report of the Secretary General pursuant to Security Council Resolution 959’ (1994) UN Doc S/1994/1389.

149 UN General Assembly, ‘Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to General Assembly Resolution 53/35’ (15 November 1999) UN Doc A/54/549 [59]–[65]. For discussion see S Haspeslagh, ‘The Bosnian “Safe Havens”’ <http://www.beyondintractability.org/cic_documents/Safe-Havens-Bosnia.pdf> 2.

150 ICTY, The Prosecutor. Radislav Krstić, Judgement, IT-98-33-T (2 August 2001) [1].

151 Haspeslagh (n 150); Yamashita (n 21); UN General Assembly, ‘Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to General Assembly Resolution 53/35’ (15 November 1999) UN Doc A/54/549; The Hague Institute for Global Justice, ‘International Decision-Making in the Age of Genocide: Srebrenica 1993–1995’ Rapporteur Report, The Hague (29 June–1 July 2015; D Rohde, Endgame: The Betrayal and Fall of Srebrenica: Europe's Worst Massacre since World War II (Westview Press 1997); JCH Blom, ‘NIOD Report: Srebrenica. Reconstruction, Background, Consequences and Analyses of the Fall of a Safe Area’ (2002).

152 ICTY, Prosecutor v Radovan Karadžić, Judgment, IT-95-5/18-T (24 March 2016) 2030–62.

153 ibid [4985].

154 ibid [4993].

155 For a definition of persecution, see section III.

156 See section III for further discussion.

157 Indirect refoulement may occur when an individual is sent to a place where the conditions there are so unreasonable that they may in desperation return to the territory of their persecutors or another area where there is a real risk of serious harm.

158 V94/01232 [1994] RRTA 324 (3 March 1994) (Australian Refugee Review Tribunal); V93/00078 [1994] RRTA 606 (11 April 1994) (Australian Refugee Review Tribunal); V94/02151 [1994] RRTA 2379 (4 November 1994) (Australian Refugee Review Tribunal).

159 L Henkin, How Nations Behave (Council on Foreign Relations 1979).

160 Hudec, RE, Enforcing International Trade Law: The Evolution of the Modern GATT Legal System (Butterworths 1993)Google Scholar; Hudec, RE, The GATT Legal System and World Trade Diplomacy (Lexis 1990)Google Scholar; C Reitz, Enforcement of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (1996) 17 University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Business Law 555; Bulterman, MK and Kuijer, M (eds), Compliance with Judgments of International Courts (Brill 1995)Google Scholar; Churchill, RR and Young, JR, ‘Compliance with Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and Decisions of the Committee of Ministers: The Experience of the United Kingdom, 1975–87’ (1992) 62 BYBIL 283Google Scholar; Kosař, D et al. , Domestic Judicial Treatment of European Court of Human Rights Case Law: Beyond Compliance (Routledge 2020, forthcoming)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For an explanation of the rare occasions in which States do not comply see Smekal, H and Šipulová, K, ‘DH v Czech Republic Six Years Later: On the Power of an International Human Rights Court to Push through Systemic Change’ (2014) 32(3) NQHR 288Google Scholar.