SALE V. HAITIAN

Sale v. Haitian Centers Council



Sale v. Haitian Centers Council

Introduction

The Haitian Centers council raised a case against a new law that restricts the Haitian refugees in United States. The logic behind this case of Haitian Center based on Act 33 that safeguards the refugees. The court decision went against the favor of Haitians Centers. There were various pros and cons behind this decision.

The Basis of Argument

The arguments against seeing such actions as contrary to Act 33 accepted by the majority of the Supreme Court of the United States in the decision of Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, a challenge to the American policy of interdicting Haitians in search of protection in international waters, and returning them to Haiti (Lescroart, 2003). The Court observed the argument that “the text and negotiating history of Article 33 both completely silent with respect to the Article's possible application to actions taken by a country outside its own borders. Moreover, it noted that the original continental European understanding of enforcement, which spoke to rejections which occurred at, or from within, a state's borders were in line with the textual reference in Act 33 to the duty to avoid “return.” said by the Court to denote “a defensive act of resistance or exclusion at a border rather than an act of transporting someone to [their home state, or some other country]. In the context of the Convention, to return means to 'repulse' rather than to 'reinstate. Indeed, the Court determined that only a territory-based under- standing would allow the primary duty set by Act 33(1) to be read in consonance with the right of states under Act 33(2) to deny protection against refoulement to persons who pose a danger to the security “of the country in which he is [emphasis added]. In view of the American Supreme Court, reading Act 33(1) to apply to extraterritorial deterrence. It may emerge anomaly that is absurd and harmful aliens on the seas that are would be entitled with the benefit of Act 33(l) while those residing in the country that sought to expel them would not.

International Refugee Law Reliance

It seems more reasonable relied on to assume that the coverage of Act. 33(2) limited to those already in the country because it understood that Act. 33(1) obligated the signatory states only with respect to aliens within its territory. Thus, the prohibition against refoulment determined to accrue to ...