Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T18:36:05.089Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

REPATRIATION OF FAMILY MEMBERS OF FOREIGN FIGHTERS: INDIVIDUAL RIGHT OR STATE PREROGATIVE?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 November 2020

Alessandra Spadaro Open the ORCID record for Alessandra Spadaro [Opens in a new window]
Alessandra Spadaro*
Affiliation:
Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article analyses the decisions of Belgian and Dutch courts concerning the repatriation of the family members of foreign fighters who are now detained in dire conditions in North-East Syria. The article shows that, under international law, these women and children have no individual right to be repatriated by their State of nationality, based on either consular assistance, the extraterritorial applicability of human rights treaties, or the right of return to one's own country. Nonetheless there are good reasons why States should exercise their prerogative to repatriate.

Keywords

human rightsforeign fightersISISSyriaconsular assistanceextraterritorial jurisdictionrepatriationnationalityreturn
Type
Shorter Articles
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 70 , Issue 1 , January 2021 , pp. 251 - 265
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 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.)

References

1 ‘Syria’ (RULAC 2018) <http://www.rulac.org/browse/countries/syria#collapse1accord>.

2 Schmidinger, T, Rojava: Revolution, War and the Future of Syria's Kurds (Pluto Press 2018) 129CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Expert Meeting Report, ‘ISIS Members Detained in North-East Syria - Legal and Security Challenges and Recommendations for Their Judgment Under International and National Law’, Geneva, 23 May 2019 (Fight for Humanity 2019) 1.

4 Schmidinger (n 2) 111, 139.

5 See ‘Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic’ (1 February 2018) UN Doc A/HRC/37/72, Annex III, paras 4, 9, 15.

6 OCHA ‘In Al Hol Camp’ Situation Report No 4 (29 May 2019) 1, 4.

7 OCHA Syria, ‘Humanitarian Impact of the Military Operation in Northeastern Syria’ Flash Update #7 (16–18 October 2019).

8 OCHA ‘Al Hol Camp’ Situation Report No 1 (2019) 1, 5.

9 A Spadaro, ‘Caught in the Crossfire: Responsibilities for ISIS Members Detained in North-East Syria Following Turkey's Operation Peace Spring – Part I’ Armed Groups and International Law (4 November 2019) <https://armedgroups-internationallaw.org/2019/11/04/caught-in-the-crossfire-responsibilities-for-isis-members-detained-in-north-east-syria-following-turkeys-operation-peace-spring-part-i/>.

10 ‘Ninth Report of the Secretary-General on the Threat Posed by ISIL (Da'esh) to International Peace and Security and the Range of United Nations Efforts in Support of Member States in Countering the Threat’ (31 July 2019) UN Doc S/2019/612, para 47.

11 T Mehra, ‘European Countries Are Being Challenged in Court to Repatriate Their Foreign Fighters and Families’ (7 November 2019) <https://icct.nl/publication/european-countries-are-being-challenged-in-court-to-repatriate-their-foreign-fighters-and-families/>.

12 Ordonnance, 19/129/C (Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles, Section civile) 30 October 2019; Arrêt, 2019/KR/60 (Cour d'appel Bruxelles, 18Fe chambre affaires civiles) 5 March 2020. I am grateful to Thomas Van Poecke for sharing a copy of the decisions with me.

13 The Hague District Court, ECLI: NL: RBDHA: 2019: 11909, Judgment of 11 November 2019, Case No C-09-581588-KG ZA 19-999; The Hague Court of Appeal, ECLI: NL: GHDHA: 2019: 3208, Judgment of 22 November 2019, Case No 200.269.321/01; Supreme Court, ECLI: NL: HR: 2020: 1148, Judgment of 26 June 2020, Case No 19/05666.

14 Ordonnance, 19/129/C (n 12), section 4.

15 ibid, section 5.

16 ibid, section 7.

17 ibid, section 32.

18 ibid, section 34.

19 ibid, section 38.

20 ibid, section 39, referring to the exclusion clause of art 83 of the Consular Code.

21 ibid, section 40, referring to art 78(6) of the Consular Code.

22 ibid, section 42.

23 Arrêt, 2019/KR/60 (n 12), section 18.

24 ibid, section 20.

25 ibid, sections 21, 26.

26 Al-Skeini et al v United Kingdom, Appl No 55721/07, Grand Chamber Judgment of 7 July 2011.

27 Ordonnance, 19/129/C (n 12), section 48.

28 ibid, section 49.

29 ibid, section 52.

30 Arrêt, 2019/KR/60 (n 12), section 31. The Court acknowledged that the ECtHR may well reach a different conclusion on this issue in the future, and referred to a case now pending before the ECtHR concerning the repatriation of French nationals from Al Hol: H.F. et M.F. c. France, Requête no 24384/19 introduite le 6 May 2019, Exposé des faits et questions aux parties (Cinquième Section, Communiquée le 23 janvier 2020, Publié le 10 février 2020).

31 Arrêt, 2019/KR/60 (n 12), section 35.

32 ibid section 37, referring to art 63(2) of the Consular Code.

33 District Court (n 13), section 2.4.

34 ibid, section 3.1.

35 ibid, section 4.6; Court of Appeal (n 13), section 4.2.

36 District Court, sections 4.5, 4.14; Court of Appeal, section 6.3; Supreme Court (n 13), sections 3.2.1, 3.5.3.

37 Court of Appeal, section 6.3; Supreme Court (n 13), section 3.5.3.

38 District Court (n 13), section 4.10.

39 ibid, sections 4.16, 4.17, 4.22.

40 ibid, section 4.15.

41 ibid, sections, 4.24–4.25.

42 Court of Appeal, section 7.10–7.11; Supreme Court (n 13), section 3.17.5.

43 Court of Appeal, section 7.12; Supreme Court (n 13), section 3.18.6.

44 Court of Appeal, section 7.13; Supreme Court (n 13), section 3.19.4.

45 Court of Appeal (n 13) section 7.14.

46 ILC, ‘Draft Articles on Consular Relations, with Commentaries’, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1961) vol. II, commentary to Article 5, para 10.

47 See eg Council Directive (EU) 2015/637 of 20 April 2015 on the coordination and cooperation measures to facilitate consular protection for unrepresented citizens of the Union in third countries and repealing Decision 95/553/EC, art 9.

48 ILC, ‘Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection with Commentaries’ Yearbook of the International Law Commission (2006) vol. II, Part Two, commentary to Article 1, paras 2, 9–10.

49 LaGrand (Germany v United States of America), Judgment, ICJ Rep (2001) 466, para 74.

50 ibid, para 77.

51 Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v United States of America), Judgment, ICJ Rep (2004) 12, para 40.

52 ibid, para 124.

53 Jadhav (India v Pakistan), Judgment, ICJ Rep (2019) 418, paras 102, 107, 118, 133.

54 IACtHR, Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, of 1 October 1999, Requested by the United Mexican States, ‘The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law’, paras 80, 124, 136.

55 Peters, A, Beyond Human Rights: The Legal Status of the Individual in International Law (Cambridge University Press 2016) 348CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lee, LT and Quigley, JB, Consular Law and Practice (3rd edn, Oxford University Press 2008) 135Google Scholar; Dienelt, A, ‘Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963)’ Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford University Press 2011) para 8Google Scholar.

56 eg German Law on Consular Officers, Their Functions and Powers (Konsulargesetz) of 11 September 1974, arts 5(1) and 7; Finnish Consular Services Act (Konsulipalvelulaki) 498/1999 (as amended), Sections 11ff.; Estonian Consular Act (Konsulaarseadus) of 20 May 2009 (as amended), Ch 5.

57 Swiss Federal Law on Swiss Persons Abroad (Loi sur les Suisses de l’étranger, LSEtr) of 26 September 2014, Art 43(1): ‘Il n'existe aucun droit à la protection consulaire.’

58 See also Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, art 46.

59 CARE (Citizens Consular Assistance Regulation in Europe) Project, ‘Consular and Diplomatic Protection. Legal Framework in EU Member States’ (2010) 608–14.

60 Vermeer-Künzli, A, ‘Where the Law Becomes Irrelevant: Consular Assistance and the European Union’ (2011) 60 ICLQ 965, 970CrossRefGoogle Scholar; P Vigni, ‘Diplomatic and Consular Protection in EU Law: Misleading Combination or Creative Solution?’ (2010) EUI Working Papers, European University Institute, Department of Law.

61 Vermeer-Künzli (n 60) 993.

62 Council Directive (EU) 2015/637 of 20 April 2015 on the coordination and cooperation measures to facilitate consular protection for unrepresented citizens of the Union in third countries and repealing Decision 95/553/EC.

63 ibid, Recital (5) of the Preamble.

64 See eg Austrian Consular Law (Konsulargesetz – KonsG) of 22 May 2019, Section 3; and Italian Legislative Decree No 71 (Ordinamento e funzioni degli uffici consolari) of 3 February 2011 as implemented by the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation's Circular No 2 (Interventi di assistenza in favore dei connazionali all'estero) of 31 July 2018.

65 Ordonnance, 19/129/C (n 12) section 38.

66 House of Representatives, Explanatory Note 34733 (R2020) No 3, Provisions for implementing Council Directive (EU) 2015/637 on the coordination and cooperation measures to facilitate consular protection for unrepresented citizens of the Union in third countries and repealing Decision 95/553/EC (Consular Protection of EU Citizens Act), 8 June 2017.

67 See Vermeer-Künzli (n 60) 989.

68 ibid 990.

69 Edwards, A, ‘The Meaning of Nationality in International Law in an Era of Human Rights’ in Edwards, A and van Waas, L (eds), Nationality and Statelessness under International Law (Cambridge University Press 2014) 35CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

70 ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions. Application of the Death Penalty to Foreign Nationals and the Provision of Consular Assistance by the Home State’ (2019) A/74/318.

71 Art 1 ECHR, art 2 CRC, art 2 ICCPR.

72 Al-Skeini (n 26) para 131.

73 Bankovic et al. v Belgium et al., Appl No 52207/99, Grand Chamber Decision as to the admissibility of the application of 12 December 2001, para 70; Ilaşcu et al. v Moldova and Russia, Appl No 48787/99, Judgment of 8 July 2004, paras 314–316; Loizidou v Turkey, Appl No 15318/89, Judgment (merits) of 18 December 1996, para 52; Jaloud v The Netherlands, Appl No 47708/08, Grand Chamber Judgment of 20 November 2014, para 139.

74 Al-Skeini (n 26) paras 131–140.

75 Cyprus v Turkey, Appls No 6780/74 and No 6950/75, Decision on the admissibility of the applications of 26 May 1975, para 8; X. v United Kingdom, Appl No 7547/76, Decision on the admissibility of the application of 15 December 1977; M. v Denmark, Appl No 17392/90, Decision on the admissibility of the application of 14 October 1992. See also Bankovic (n 73) para 73; and Al-Skeini (n 26) para 134. Conversely in M.N. and Others v Belgium, Appl No 3599/18, Decision (Grand Chamber) of 5 March 2020, the ECtHR held that Belgium had no jurisdiction over a Syrian family who was denied a visa to move to Belgium and apply for asylum there because the applicants were not Belgian nationals seeking to receive the assistance of their embassy or consulate abroad, including by having a passport issued to them.

76 Lichtenszstejn v Uruguay, Comm No 77/1980, Views of the HRC of 25 March 1982, UN Doc A/38/40, at 166, para 6.1. See also Vidal Martins v Uruguay, Comm No R.13/57, Views of the HRC of 2 April 1980, UN Doc A/37/40, at 157, para 7; Varela Nunez v Uruguay, Comm No 108/1981, Views of the HRC of 22 July 1983, UN Doc CCPR/C/19/D/108/1981, at 225, para 6.1; Montero v Uruguay, Comm No 106/1981, Views of the HRC of 31 March 1983, UN Doc CCPR/C/OP/2, at 136, para 5.

77 Shany, Y, ‘Taking Universality Seriously: A Functional Approach to Extraterritoriality in International Human Rights Law’ (2013) 7 Law and Ethics of Human Rights 47, 69CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

78 Milanovic, M, Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties: Law, Principles, and Policy (Oxford University Press 2011) 210, 215CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

79 Ben-Naftali, O and Shany, Y, ‘Living in Denial: The Application of Human Rights in the Occupied Territories’ (2003) 37 IsraelLRev 17, 64Google Scholar.

80 HRC, ‘General Comment No. 36 (2018) on article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the right to life’ (30 October 2018) UN Doc CCPR/C/GC/36, para 63; HRC, ‘General Comment No. 31, The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant’ (26 May 2004) UN Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add. 13, para 10; Kindler v Canada, Comm No 470/1991, Views of the HRC of 25 September 1991, UN Doc CCPR/C/48/D/470/1991, para 6.1; Chitat Ng v Canada, Comm No 469/1991, Views of the HRC of 5 November 1993, UN Doc CCPR/C/49/D/469/1991, para 6.2.

81 ‘Annex to the Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions: Investigation into the Unlawful Death of Mr. Jamal Khashoggi’ (19 June 2019) UN Doc A/HRC/41/CRP.1, paras 360–361. See also ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Application of the Death Penalty to Foreign Nationals and the Provision of Consular Assistance by the Home State’ (20 August 2019) UN Doc A/74/318, para 34.

82 ‘Visit to Belgium, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms While Countering Terrorism’ (27 February 2019) UN Doc A/HRC/40/52/Add.5, para 79; ‘Extra-territorial Jurisdiction of States over Children and Their Guardians in Camps, Prisons, or Elsewhere in the Northern Syrian Arab Republic’ <https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Executions/UNSRsPublicJurisdictionAnalysis2020.pdf> para 3.

83 Besson, S, ‘The Extraterritoriality of the European Convention on Human Rights: Why Human Rights Depend on Jurisdiction and What Jurisdiction Amounts To’ (2012) 25 LJIL 857, 867–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

84 Milanovic, M, ‘The Murder of Jamal Khashoggi: Immunities, Inviolability and the Human Right to Life’ (2020) 20 HRLRev 1, 21Google Scholar.

85 Besson (n 83) 872.

86 See also art 13(2) of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights; art 3(2) of ECHR Protocol No 4; art 10(2) CRC.

87 HRC, ‘CCPR General Comment No. 27: Article 12 (Freedom of Movement)’ (1 November 1999) UN Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.9, para 21.

88 Edwards (n 69) 35–6.

89 GS Goodwin-Gill, ‘Mr Al-Jedda, Deprivation of Citizenship, and International Law’ (2014) <https://www.parliament.uk/documents/joint-committees/human-rights/GSGG-DeprivationCitizenshipRevDft.pdf> 12–14.

90 eg AFP ‘Netherlands Strips Four Suspected Foreign Fighters of Citizenship’ Middle East Eye (14 September 2017) <https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/netherlands-strips-four-suspected-foreign-fighters-citizenship>.

91 Art 8(1) CRS; art 4 ECN.

92 Under art 8(3)(a)(ii) CRS this is only possible if the State's national law provided this as a ground of deprivation of nationality at the moment of accession to the Convention and the State made a declaration to this effect; see also art 7(1)(d) ECN.

93 Report of the Secretary General, ‘Human Rights and Arbitrary Deprivation of Nationality’ (19 December 2013) UN Doc A/HRC/25/28, para 13.

94 Brandvoll, J, ‘Deprivation of Nationality. Limitations on Rendering Persons Stateless under International Law’ in Edwards, A and van Waas, L (eds), Nationality and Statelessness under International Law (Cambridge University Press 2014) 202Google Scholar.

95 T Mehra and C Paulussen, ‘The Repatriation of Foreign Fighters and Their Families: Options, Obligations, Morality and Long-Term Thinking’ (6 March 2019) <https://icct.nl/publication/the-repatriation-of-foreign-fighters-and-their-families-options-obligations-morality-and-long-term-thinking/>.

96 ibid.

97 See eg arts 4(2) and 14 of the Agreement attached to Council Decision 2004/80/EC of 17 December 2003 concerning the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation; Arts 4(2) and 16 of the Agreement attached to Council Decision 2007/341/EC of 19 April 2007 on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the Russian Federation on readmission; Arts 4(3) and 14 of the Agreement attached to Council Decision 2005/372/EC concerning the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation.

98 Begum v Special Immigration Appeals Commission and Others [2020] EWCA Civ 918, para 121.

99 ibid.