庇护国际法律制度研究
|
摘要
庇护制度是一项古老的法律制度，在近千年的历史发展过程中经久不衰。它萌芽于人类崇拜神灵的迷信思想；发展于中世纪基督教势力的增长；成熟于民族国家产生后的外交实践；成名于法国、美国大革命后对政治犯和寻求自由者的保护；转型于世界大战后难民潮和关闭边境制度的客观现实；最终融于当代人权保护理念和实践而重获新生。庇护制度从古至今不断发展，经历了无数的政治制度变迁、见证了人类发展的历程。庇护制度总是能同所处历史阶段的时代特点产生结合，不断地发展壮大。庇护制度同当代人权保护和难民保护制度的结合再次赋予了庇护制度新的活力，在新的时代背景下其将继续发挥重要的作用。
庇护从产生的第一天起，就同权力、宗教、利益、人权产生了纠缠不清的复杂关系。作为法律概念的庇护更是充满了误解、模糊和神秘。本文的主要目的就是通过梳理庇护发展的历史脉络，明确不同庇护发展的不同阶段的特点，确定当代庇护的法律概念；通过明确国家在庇护制度方面承担的国际人权法和难民法义务，确定庇护制度同国际法的关系；从国家所承担国际法义务的角度分析个人所享有的庇护权利以及取得庇护的条件。最后，本文的研究还是要回归到中国问题，中国作为发展中的世界大国必须重视难民庇护问题。庇护问题是当代人权保护的重要一个环节，是中国真正崛起前必经正视、必须解决的重大国际法问题。全文共分五章，字符数共计约二十万。涵盖了庇护发展的历史、庇护的对象、庇护实施的条件、受庇护者的权利等重要问题。
导言部分，本文首先介绍了联合国难民署关于当代全球庇护实践的报告，其中包括了世界40多个主要庇护国家近两年接受庇护人数的最新数量。从目前庇护制度保护的巨量人数，直观地说明了庇护制度在当今国际法制度中的重要程度。随后笔者列举分析了文章写作前及写作过程中收集、掌握的文献资料。总体上讲，国外学者关于庇护问题的研究比国内学者起步早、范围广、程度深。国外学者在庇护制度的基本问题层面已经不存在大的争议和冲突，大量的文献资料能够反映出观点上的一致性。他们的研究重点已经深入到更深的理论层次或者更细致的制度层面。反观我国学界，总体上而言尚未产生对庇护问题的研究热情。庇护的历史、庇护的概念、庇护实施条件、保护对象等基本问题都没有解决，都处于模糊的认识阶段。解决庇护制度的基本问题也就成了本文写作的重要目标。文章主要采用文本研究、历史分析、比较分析、案例分析、图表分析等研究方法。
文章第一章是关于庇护的概念和保护对象等基本问题的概述。从庇护的历史、庇护的概念、庇护的保护对象、庇护与人权和主权的关系等方面展开的论述。首先，本章重述了从古希腊、古罗马时期到基督教中世纪，再到民族国家产生，再到两次世界大战等历史时期庇护制度发展的历史，对这些历史特点的了解有助于加深对当代庇护制度的正确认识。本章简要阐述了庇护的两种表现形式：领土庇护和外交庇护。当代国际法所承认和认可的、各国实践最长实施的是领土庇护，因此本文的主要研究对象是领土庇护，而非外交庇护。外交庇护在整体上为当代国际法所禁止，其仅在拉丁美洲有限的范围内根据区域性条约有法律效力。其次，本章重点论述了庇护制度的保护对象问题。国内学者倾向于认同庇护的对象为政治犯，而非政治难民。本章从政治犯受保护的历史角度展开论述，证明政治犯作为庇护的对象仅仅是法国大革命后一阶段历史时期的特点，如今已经产生了变化。无论是国际组织实践还是各国国内立法、司法的实践均表明，当代庇护制度的保护对象已经扩展到政治难民。政治犯标准已经被当代的受迫害标准所代替。最后，本章讨论了庇护制度同国家主权、人权保护之间的关系。当代庇护权有两层含义，恰好同主权和人权保护一一对应。庇护权首先属于施加庇护的国家，是国家主权的一部分。国家有权根据国际法确定的主权独立原则，自由裁量是否授予某人以庇护。国家授予庇护的意思表示不受其他国家强制，目前没有任何条约要求国家必须实施庇护。同时，寻求庇护者来源国不能视庇护国实施庇护的行为为不友好、敌对行为。此外，庇护权属于个人可以享受的权利，目前国际法只赋予个人申请庇护的权利。但是在庇护申请前、申请过程中及授予庇护后，庇护国和来源国都必须尊重申请人的人权。人权保护理念已经深入到庇护制度的各个阶段。
第二章是关于庇护的国际法依据，包括国际条约、国际习惯法和一般法律原则三个方面。首先本章从国际难民条约和国际人权条约两个方面论述了国家承担的国际法义务。其中国际难民条约主要是1951年《难民地位公约》及其1967年附加议定书，该公约是难民庇护领域最主要的国际法文件。当今各国主流做法是根据1951年难民公约规定的难民概念制定本国实施庇护的标准条件。公约还规定了难民不推回原则，涉及到寻求庇护者申请庇护之前、来到庇护国之初的权利。与庇护制度相关的国际人权法条约主要是指《世界人权宣言》、《公民权利和政治权利国际条约》、《经济、社会和文化权利国际公约》，这些人权公约涉及到庇护程序各个阶段寻求庇护者能够享受的政治权利、经济权利的保障。其次，本章阐述了庇护国际法依据中的习惯法规则，主要涉及到难民不推回原则。本章主要从规则的造法属性、国家实践时间的长久性、广泛存在的国家实践的一致性等三方面论证了难民不推回原则已经构成了国际法上的习惯法规则。最后，本章探讨了庇护国际法渊源的一般法律原则。一般法律原则在目前庇护国际法渊源中并不占有最重要的地位，但是世界各国主流立法趋于一致的事实本身，就证明在庇护制度领域存在着这样的一般法律原则。在将来国际条约或者习惯法不能解决某些具体问题的时候，关于庇护的一般法律原则有可能发挥一定的作用。
第三章是关于实施庇护的申请标准和申请程序，从国家应当遵循的国际法的视角分为实施庇护的前提条件、拒绝庇护的理由、停止庇护的原因、庇护审查程序等四个问题进行了论述。首先，庇护国实施庇护的前提条件是本章乃至本文的重点问题，其中重点论述了“有正当理由的恐惧”、“迫害”、“五种迫害原因”、“身处国外”、“不受本国保护”等五个方面的要件。这是1951年《难民公约》规定的构成难民身份的五个前提要件，如今已经被世界各国接受为授予庇护的前提条件。因此符合1951年《难民公约》难民身份的人往往能够在庇护国取得庇护，但是最终能否取得庇护还要看庇护国是否根据该公约制定了国内庇护法。其次，本章阐述了庇护国拒绝授予庇护的三种情形：已经受到联合国保护或援助的人、被认为无需国际保护的人以及确定为不得保护的人。已经受到联合国保护的人特指几种联合国针对特定地区的难民采取的保护、救助对象，这种人不能再接受其他庇护国的庇护；无需国际保护的人主要是指已经获得庇护国国籍的人不能再享受庇护待遇，而是享有等同于该国国民的权利、义务；不得保护的人是指曾犯过国际罪行的人、犯过严重非政治罪行的人以及违反联合国宗旨和原则的人。再次，本章阐述了停止实施庇护的终止条件：“受庇护者自愿接受本国保护”、“受庇护者自愿重新取得原国籍”、“受庇护者取得新国籍且受其保护”、“受庇护者在过去畏惧迫害的国家重新定居”、“受庇护者成为难民的理由不复存在”等五个方面。最后，本章论述了公平、快捷的庇护审查程序，这也是国际社会关注的保护寻求庇护者权利的一个重要方面。在此问题上并没有现存的国际法条约，庇护程序方面的国际法规则主要而是以国际组织决议的方式存在。国际组织决议鼓励庇护国给予寻求庇护者公平快捷的审查程序，在程序中提供必要的协助、保障寻求庇护者最基本的人权、保障程序合理公正，主要涉及程序的基本原则、查明事实的方式和允许上诉等若干方面。
第四章是关于寻求庇护者在庇护各阶段能够享受的多种权利。本章以庇护申请的时间顺序从三个方面进行的论述：寻求庇护者入境前后不被推回的权利；申请者提出庇护申请之后的接待待遇；向寻求庇护者实施庇护之后的正式待遇。首先，本章论述了难民不推回原则的法律依据，包括国际难民条约、人权条约和国际习惯法两个方面；在难民不推回原则的具体内容方面，本章涉及难民不推回原则约束的对象、禁止的行为、保护的对象、适用的地域范围、针对的五种威胁等问题。其次，关于寻求庇护者的接待待遇方面，本章阐述了国际人权法公约、国际难民法公约中规定的庇护接待待遇标准；着重介绍了联合国难民署针对寻求庇护者的接待待遇和接待政策的建议决议，该建议对于各庇护国理解本国国际法义务有重要价值。庇护国不仅需要保障寻求庇护者个体最低的生理需求以及人格尊严，还要尽力保护老弱病残等特殊群体的特殊需求。最后，本章阐述了政治难民可以享受的正式待遇。该种待遇一般是指1951年《难民公约》授予“合法居留于庇护国的难民”或“在庇护国经常居住的难民”的诸多待遇。具体包括：经济、社会权利，例如就业权、自由职业从业权、社会救济权、住房权、知识产权等；公民权利和政治权利，例如取得旅行证件的权利、自由结社的权利、出席法院的权利等；难民享有的最终安置的权利，包括自愿遣返、自愿回国定居、重新安置、就地入籍等四个方面。
第五章是关于中国难民庇护制度的现状及其完善建议。涉及到中国难民庇护实践、面临的法律问题、中国参与的国际条约、中国国内立法和司法实践是否符合国际法义务以及对完善中国难民庇护制度的建议等若干方面。首先关于中国难民庇护的历史，中国目前难民庇护的历史实践集中体现在对于印支难民、朝鲜脱北者、缅甸果敢难民的救助上，这些实践为我国庇护立法和司法的进一步完善提供了现实基础。但是在这些实践中也暴露出若干问题，例如中国目前未明确可以接受庇护对象，不承认政治难民的概念；不能完全履行难民不推回义务，尤其是对朝鲜脱北者；缺乏专门的难民申请和甄别程序等方面。其次，本章论述了中国参与的庇护相关条约以及中国应当承担的国际法义务。中国大量参与了庇护相关的国际公约，例如难民公约和数项人权公约，根据这些公约我国主要承担的国际法义务包括：难民身份的确定标准、不推回原则、寻求庇护者在庇护各个阶段可以享受的待遇标准问题。再次，本章还评析了我国国内立法关于庇护问题的相关规定，包括宪法条款和具体部门法、行政规章的规定等方面。最后本章对完善我国的庇护立法和实践提出了若干建议：从国内法上承认难民概念，完善甄别难民地位的标准；确定寻求庇护者在庇护程序的各个阶段的待遇标准；创设专门的难民甄别程序并明确专门的主管机关。
Asylum, an ancient legal system, has developed from thousands years of humanhistory. Asylum stood at the cradle of human's worship of superstition, developed inthe growth of the Christian church, matured in diplomatic practice of nation-state,famed for the protection of political offender after the France Revolution, transformedto protect refugees after World War II, reborn in the protection of human rights.Asylum has experienced numerous political and institutional changes and witnessedthe history of human development. The history of asylum is always related to thecharacteristic temper of an age and gains the force to growth. Currently, Asylum hasbeen combined within the system of human rights and will continue to play animportant role in the future.
Since the day it was born, asylum has always complicated relationships withpower, religion, interests and human rights. The concept of asylum is filled withmisunderstanding, fuzzy and mysterious. The main purpose of this dissertation is toclarify the different characteristics of asylum in its different development stages anddetermine the contemporary legal concept of asylum, determine the legalresponsibilities of asylum country by review its commitment to international humanrights law and refugee law, make sure individuals in what extent to enjoy the right ofasylum and enjoy what kind of human rights in the process of asylum. Finally, thestudy returns to the respective issues of China. As a developing power in the world,China shall pay attention to the issue of asylum. Asylum is an important part of thecontemporary human rights protection. China's huge development shall be harmonious with the protection of human rights. The dissertation is divided into fivechapters. The number of characters of this dissertation is totally about two hundredthousand, including the development history of the asylum, object of asylumprotection, conditions of asylum implementation, rights of asylum seekers and otherimportant issues.
In the introductory section, the dissertation first introduces the UNHCR report oncontemporary global practice of asylum, including the number of asylum seekersreceived by40major asylum countries in the past two years. The figure of massiveasylum seekers visually illustrates the importance of the institution of asylum in theinternational legal system today. Then the author analyzed the academic materialswhich collected in the process of writing. Overall, foreign scholars moved far away onasylum issues than domestic scholars, either on wide range or degree of depth.Foreign scholars have come into agree for some basic problem of asylum which arestill been controversy and conflict within China scholars. Lots of literatures of Westresearchers reflect the point of view of consistency. The focus of their research hasgone into the deeper theoretical level. On the other hand, our scholars generally haveno much interest for research on the issue of asylum. Asylum history, the concept ofasylum, asylum implementation conditions, protected objects, and other basic issuesare not resolved. We still misunderstanding for those basic asylum problems. Solvethe basic problems of the asylum system will become important goal of this writing.The main research methods of this study include historical analysis, comparativeanalysis, case studies, charts analysis and other methods.
The first chapter is an overview of the basic questions about the concept ofasylum and protection objects. The first chapter is mainly discusses the history ofasylum, the object of protection of asylum, the modern concept of asylum, therelationship between human rights and sovereignty. First, the chapter restated asylumin the age of ancient Greece, ancient Rome and medieval Christianity, and thendiscusses the asylum after the born of nation-state and the situation after the twoworld wars and other historical period. These historical characteristics help to deepenour understanding of contemporary institution of asylum. Subsequently, the chapter explains the two forms of the asylum, and territorial asylum and diplomatic asylum.The territorial asylum is recognized by contemporary international law and nationalpractices. The main object of this paper is territorial asylum rather than diplomaticasylum. Diplomatic asylum is generally prohibited by the contemporary internationallaw, only recognized within a limited range of areas, such as South America wherediplomatic asylum has legal force according to regional treaties. Secondly, thischapter focuses on the problem of protection object of asylum. Domestic scholars tendto agree that asylum is made to protect political offenders rather than politicalrefugees. This chapter discussed the history of protection for political offender andfinds that political offender once been protection object of asylum in the period ofFrench Revolution. It has been changed till now. The practice of internationalorganizations, national domestic legislation and judicial practice show that theprotection object of contemporary asylum system has been extended to the politicalrefugees. The “political offender Standard” has been taken place by “persecutionstandards”. Finally, the chapter discusses the relationship between asylum system andthe national sovereignty and human rights. Contemporary right of asylum has twomeanings, each of them related to sovereignty and human rights protection. Theasylum right is owned by sovereignty countries in the first place, which is part of thenational sovereignty. According to the principle of sovereignty and independence, thestate has the right under international law to determine whether or not to grant asylumto a person. There is no treaty requires countries must implement asylum. Meanwhile,the country of origin can't consider the implementation of the asylum as unfriendlyand hostile behavior. In addition, the right of asylum also belongs to individuals.However, modern international law only grants individuals the right to apply forasylum. In the process of asylum, including application, examination andimplementation of asylum, the country of asylum and related countries shall respectthe human rights of the asylum seekers. The spirit of human rights protection has gonedeep in the process of asylum.
The second chapter is the basis of the international law on asylum, includinginternational treaties, customary international law and general principles of law. First, this chapter discusses the asylum country's obligations under international law frominternational refugee treaties and international human rights treaties. Internationalrefugee treaties mainly refer to the1951Convention relating to the Status of Refugeesand its1967Protocol. The Convention is the most important international law in thefield of asylum. The asylum countries tend to develop their domestic asylum lawaccording to the1951Refugee Convention. The Convention also provides theprinciple of non-refoulement of refugees. International human rights treaties inasylum system mainly refer to the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights",International Treaty on Civil and Political Rights and the International Convention onEconomic, Social and Cultural Rights. These human rights conventions make sureasylum seekers enjoy various rights during the asylum procedure. Secondly, thechapter explains international customary law in asylum which mainly related to theprinciple of non-refoulement. This chapter focuses on the nature of the principle, suchas its law-making purpose, national practices and widespread consistency. Finally, thechapter discusses the general principles of law which as is one kind of source ofinternational law,. In the asylum field, general principles of law does not occupy themost important position, but the fact of the world mainstream legislation consistentitself prove the existence of such a general principle of law. It may play a role infuture when international treaty or customary law could not solve some specificproblems.
The third chapter concerns the examination criteria for implementation of theasylum and the procedures for application. It has been divided into four parts: thecriteria of implementation of asylum, denying asylum, stopping asylum andapplication proceedings. First, the criteria for examination is the most important issuesof this article, which focuses on the justified fear of "persecution","five kinds ofpersecution," living abroad, out of their own country's protection. This criterion camefrom five premise condition for refugee status under the1951Refugee Conventionwhich has been accepted as the precondition for the grant of asylum in most asylumcountries in the world. Therefore, individuals qualified as the refugee status under1951Refugee Convention are often able to obtain asylum in the country of asylum. Secondly, the chapter explains three reasons for the countries of asylum refused togrant asylum: persons have been protected or assistance by United Nations, or personsdetermined to be not deserve to be protected, or person who have committedinternational crimes or serious non-political crimes and violation of the purposes andprinciples of the United Nations. Thirdly, this chapter explains the terminationcondition to stop the implementation of the asylum: asylees voluntarily accept theirorigin country's protection, the asylees voluntary resettled on their origin country,asylees acquired a new nationality, and reasons caused the asylees fear have no longerexists. Finally, the chapter discusses the fair and efficient asylum application process.For this issue, the rules of international law exists but in the way of the resolutions ofinternational organizations. Resolutions of international organizations to encouragethe countries of asylum to give asylum seekers a fair and speedy review process, toprovide the necessary assistance in the program, and to protect asylum-seekers' mostbasic human rights. The procedure mainly related to the basic principles of theapplication, to ascertain the facts and to allow the appeal certain aspects.
The fourth chapter is about asylum-seekers' variety of rights in each stages ofasylum. This chapter discusses of the three types of rights in chronological order: notpush back asylum-seekers to their origin frontier or area; asylum applicant's receptiontreatment; formal treatment after grant of asylum. First, the chapter discusses the legalbasis of the principle of non-refoulement of refugees which including the internationalrefugee treaty, two human rights treaties and customary international law. This partdeals with problems within the principle, such as prohibited conduct, the object ofprotection, the territorial scope of the five targeted threats. Secondly, this chapterdescribes the standards for the treatment of asylum reception which set byinternational human rights law and international refugee Convention. This part alsofocuses on a proposed resolution of the UN Refugee Agency for the treatment ofasylum-seekers in reception and hospitality policy. The proposal is important tounderstand convention obligations under international law for the countries of asylum.The asylum country is not only requested to protect asylum-seekers' physiologicalneeds and human dignity, but also need to protect the sick and elderly and other special groups. Finally, the chapter explains the formal treatment of political refugees.The formal treatment generally refers individual qualified refugee status under the1951Refugee Convention whom received legal residence in the country of asylum.The formal treatment included economic and social rights, which means the right toemployment, the right to freelance practitioners, the right to social assistance, housingrights, intellectual property rights. The treatment also refers to civil and politicalrights, such as the right to obtain travel documents, the right to freedom of association,the right to attend the court etc. Refugees enjoy the right of final settlement, includingvoluntary repatriation, return home voluntarily, resettlement and naturalization.
Chapter V is about the status of China's asylum system and suggestions for itsimprovement. Those legal issues include China's participation in international treaties,domestic legislation and judicial practice compliance with obligations underinternational law. First, the asylum historical practice of China is mainly related toIndo-Chinese refugees, North Korean defectors, Burma refugees. These practicesprovide the realistic basis for further improvement of China's asylum legislation andjudicial practice. But these practices also have revealed some serious problems, suchas China does not recognize the concept of political refugees, not completely fulfillnon-refoulement obligations, lack of specialized applications procedures. Secondly,the chapter discusses China's participation in the asylum-related treaties. China isheavily involved in the asylum of the relevant international conventions, such as theRefugee Convention and Conventions on Human Rights. China's major conventionobligations under international law include criteria for determining refugee status, theprinciple of non-refoulement, treatment standards for asylum seekers. This chaptercomment on the relevant provisions of China's domestic legislation on asylum issues,including constitutional provisions, sector-specific law and administrative rules.Finally, this chapter contains some recommendations for the Improvement of theasylum legislation and practice of China. Such as Recognize the concept of refugee;improve the standard of treatment for refugee status; determine the examinationstandards for grant asylum to seekers; creation of a special refugee procedures andexplicitly specialized competent authorities.
庇护从产生的第一天起，就同权力、宗教、利益、人权产生了纠缠不清的复杂关系。作为法律概念的庇护更是充满了误解、模糊和神秘。本文的主要目的就是通过梳理庇护发展的历史脉络，明确不同庇护发展的不同阶段的特点，确定当代庇护的法律概念；通过明确国家在庇护制度方面承担的国际人权法和难民法义务，确定庇护制度同国际法的关系；从国家所承担国际法义务的角度分析个人所享有的庇护权利以及取得庇护的条件。最后，本文的研究还是要回归到中国问题，中国作为发展中的世界大国必须重视难民庇护问题。庇护问题是当代人权保护的重要一个环节，是中国真正崛起前必经正视、必须解决的重大国际法问题。全文共分五章，字符数共计约二十万。涵盖了庇护发展的历史、庇护的对象、庇护实施的条件、受庇护者的权利等重要问题。
导言部分，本文首先介绍了联合国难民署关于当代全球庇护实践的报告，其中包括了世界40多个主要庇护国家近两年接受庇护人数的最新数量。从目前庇护制度保护的巨量人数，直观地说明了庇护制度在当今国际法制度中的重要程度。随后笔者列举分析了文章写作前及写作过程中收集、掌握的文献资料。总体上讲，国外学者关于庇护问题的研究比国内学者起步早、范围广、程度深。国外学者在庇护制度的基本问题层面已经不存在大的争议和冲突，大量的文献资料能够反映出观点上的一致性。他们的研究重点已经深入到更深的理论层次或者更细致的制度层面。反观我国学界，总体上而言尚未产生对庇护问题的研究热情。庇护的历史、庇护的概念、庇护实施条件、保护对象等基本问题都没有解决，都处于模糊的认识阶段。解决庇护制度的基本问题也就成了本文写作的重要目标。文章主要采用文本研究、历史分析、比较分析、案例分析、图表分析等研究方法。
文章第一章是关于庇护的概念和保护对象等基本问题的概述。从庇护的历史、庇护的概念、庇护的保护对象、庇护与人权和主权的关系等方面展开的论述。首先，本章重述了从古希腊、古罗马时期到基督教中世纪，再到民族国家产生，再到两次世界大战等历史时期庇护制度发展的历史，对这些历史特点的了解有助于加深对当代庇护制度的正确认识。本章简要阐述了庇护的两种表现形式：领土庇护和外交庇护。当代国际法所承认和认可的、各国实践最长实施的是领土庇护，因此本文的主要研究对象是领土庇护，而非外交庇护。外交庇护在整体上为当代国际法所禁止，其仅在拉丁美洲有限的范围内根据区域性条约有法律效力。其次，本章重点论述了庇护制度的保护对象问题。国内学者倾向于认同庇护的对象为政治犯，而非政治难民。本章从政治犯受保护的历史角度展开论述，证明政治犯作为庇护的对象仅仅是法国大革命后一阶段历史时期的特点，如今已经产生了变化。无论是国际组织实践还是各国国内立法、司法的实践均表明，当代庇护制度的保护对象已经扩展到政治难民。政治犯标准已经被当代的受迫害标准所代替。最后，本章讨论了庇护制度同国家主权、人权保护之间的关系。当代庇护权有两层含义，恰好同主权和人权保护一一对应。庇护权首先属于施加庇护的国家，是国家主权的一部分。国家有权根据国际法确定的主权独立原则，自由裁量是否授予某人以庇护。国家授予庇护的意思表示不受其他国家强制，目前没有任何条约要求国家必须实施庇护。同时，寻求庇护者来源国不能视庇护国实施庇护的行为为不友好、敌对行为。此外，庇护权属于个人可以享受的权利，目前国际法只赋予个人申请庇护的权利。但是在庇护申请前、申请过程中及授予庇护后，庇护国和来源国都必须尊重申请人的人权。人权保护理念已经深入到庇护制度的各个阶段。
第二章是关于庇护的国际法依据，包括国际条约、国际习惯法和一般法律原则三个方面。首先本章从国际难民条约和国际人权条约两个方面论述了国家承担的国际法义务。其中国际难民条约主要是1951年《难民地位公约》及其1967年附加议定书，该公约是难民庇护领域最主要的国际法文件。当今各国主流做法是根据1951年难民公约规定的难民概念制定本国实施庇护的标准条件。公约还规定了难民不推回原则，涉及到寻求庇护者申请庇护之前、来到庇护国之初的权利。与庇护制度相关的国际人权法条约主要是指《世界人权宣言》、《公民权利和政治权利国际条约》、《经济、社会和文化权利国际公约》，这些人权公约涉及到庇护程序各个阶段寻求庇护者能够享受的政治权利、经济权利的保障。其次，本章阐述了庇护国际法依据中的习惯法规则，主要涉及到难民不推回原则。本章主要从规则的造法属性、国家实践时间的长久性、广泛存在的国家实践的一致性等三方面论证了难民不推回原则已经构成了国际法上的习惯法规则。最后，本章探讨了庇护国际法渊源的一般法律原则。一般法律原则在目前庇护国际法渊源中并不占有最重要的地位，但是世界各国主流立法趋于一致的事实本身，就证明在庇护制度领域存在着这样的一般法律原则。在将来国际条约或者习惯法不能解决某些具体问题的时候，关于庇护的一般法律原则有可能发挥一定的作用。
第三章是关于实施庇护的申请标准和申请程序，从国家应当遵循的国际法的视角分为实施庇护的前提条件、拒绝庇护的理由、停止庇护的原因、庇护审查程序等四个问题进行了论述。首先，庇护国实施庇护的前提条件是本章乃至本文的重点问题，其中重点论述了“有正当理由的恐惧”、“迫害”、“五种迫害原因”、“身处国外”、“不受本国保护”等五个方面的要件。这是1951年《难民公约》规定的构成难民身份的五个前提要件，如今已经被世界各国接受为授予庇护的前提条件。因此符合1951年《难民公约》难民身份的人往往能够在庇护国取得庇护，但是最终能否取得庇护还要看庇护国是否根据该公约制定了国内庇护法。其次，本章阐述了庇护国拒绝授予庇护的三种情形：已经受到联合国保护或援助的人、被认为无需国际保护的人以及确定为不得保护的人。已经受到联合国保护的人特指几种联合国针对特定地区的难民采取的保护、救助对象，这种人不能再接受其他庇护国的庇护；无需国际保护的人主要是指已经获得庇护国国籍的人不能再享受庇护待遇，而是享有等同于该国国民的权利、义务；不得保护的人是指曾犯过国际罪行的人、犯过严重非政治罪行的人以及违反联合国宗旨和原则的人。再次，本章阐述了停止实施庇护的终止条件：“受庇护者自愿接受本国保护”、“受庇护者自愿重新取得原国籍”、“受庇护者取得新国籍且受其保护”、“受庇护者在过去畏惧迫害的国家重新定居”、“受庇护者成为难民的理由不复存在”等五个方面。最后，本章论述了公平、快捷的庇护审查程序，这也是国际社会关注的保护寻求庇护者权利的一个重要方面。在此问题上并没有现存的国际法条约，庇护程序方面的国际法规则主要而是以国际组织决议的方式存在。国际组织决议鼓励庇护国给予寻求庇护者公平快捷的审查程序，在程序中提供必要的协助、保障寻求庇护者最基本的人权、保障程序合理公正，主要涉及程序的基本原则、查明事实的方式和允许上诉等若干方面。
第四章是关于寻求庇护者在庇护各阶段能够享受的多种权利。本章以庇护申请的时间顺序从三个方面进行的论述：寻求庇护者入境前后不被推回的权利；申请者提出庇护申请之后的接待待遇；向寻求庇护者实施庇护之后的正式待遇。首先，本章论述了难民不推回原则的法律依据，包括国际难民条约、人权条约和国际习惯法两个方面；在难民不推回原则的具体内容方面，本章涉及难民不推回原则约束的对象、禁止的行为、保护的对象、适用的地域范围、针对的五种威胁等问题。其次，关于寻求庇护者的接待待遇方面，本章阐述了国际人权法公约、国际难民法公约中规定的庇护接待待遇标准；着重介绍了联合国难民署针对寻求庇护者的接待待遇和接待政策的建议决议，该建议对于各庇护国理解本国国际法义务有重要价值。庇护国不仅需要保障寻求庇护者个体最低的生理需求以及人格尊严，还要尽力保护老弱病残等特殊群体的特殊需求。最后，本章阐述了政治难民可以享受的正式待遇。该种待遇一般是指1951年《难民公约》授予“合法居留于庇护国的难民”或“在庇护国经常居住的难民”的诸多待遇。具体包括：经济、社会权利，例如就业权、自由职业从业权、社会救济权、住房权、知识产权等；公民权利和政治权利，例如取得旅行证件的权利、自由结社的权利、出席法院的权利等；难民享有的最终安置的权利，包括自愿遣返、自愿回国定居、重新安置、就地入籍等四个方面。
第五章是关于中国难民庇护制度的现状及其完善建议。涉及到中国难民庇护实践、面临的法律问题、中国参与的国际条约、中国国内立法和司法实践是否符合国际法义务以及对完善中国难民庇护制度的建议等若干方面。首先关于中国难民庇护的历史，中国目前难民庇护的历史实践集中体现在对于印支难民、朝鲜脱北者、缅甸果敢难民的救助上，这些实践为我国庇护立法和司法的进一步完善提供了现实基础。但是在这些实践中也暴露出若干问题，例如中国目前未明确可以接受庇护对象，不承认政治难民的概念；不能完全履行难民不推回义务，尤其是对朝鲜脱北者；缺乏专门的难民申请和甄别程序等方面。其次，本章论述了中国参与的庇护相关条约以及中国应当承担的国际法义务。中国大量参与了庇护相关的国际公约，例如难民公约和数项人权公约，根据这些公约我国主要承担的国际法义务包括：难民身份的确定标准、不推回原则、寻求庇护者在庇护各个阶段可以享受的待遇标准问题。再次，本章还评析了我国国内立法关于庇护问题的相关规定，包括宪法条款和具体部门法、行政规章的规定等方面。最后本章对完善我国的庇护立法和实践提出了若干建议：从国内法上承认难民概念，完善甄别难民地位的标准；确定寻求庇护者在庇护程序的各个阶段的待遇标准；创设专门的难民甄别程序并明确专门的主管机关。
Asylum, an ancient legal system, has developed from thousands years of humanhistory. Asylum stood at the cradle of human's worship of superstition, developed inthe growth of the Christian church, matured in diplomatic practice of nation-state,famed for the protection of political offender after the France Revolution, transformedto protect refugees after World War II, reborn in the protection of human rights.Asylum has experienced numerous political and institutional changes and witnessedthe history of human development. The history of asylum is always related to thecharacteristic temper of an age and gains the force to growth. Currently, Asylum hasbeen combined within the system of human rights and will continue to play animportant role in the future.
Since the day it was born, asylum has always complicated relationships withpower, religion, interests and human rights. The concept of asylum is filled withmisunderstanding, fuzzy and mysterious. The main purpose of this dissertation is toclarify the different characteristics of asylum in its different development stages anddetermine the contemporary legal concept of asylum, determine the legalresponsibilities of asylum country by review its commitment to international humanrights law and refugee law, make sure individuals in what extent to enjoy the right ofasylum and enjoy what kind of human rights in the process of asylum. Finally, thestudy returns to the respective issues of China. As a developing power in the world,China shall pay attention to the issue of asylum. Asylum is an important part of thecontemporary human rights protection. China's huge development shall be harmonious with the protection of human rights. The dissertation is divided into fivechapters. The number of characters of this dissertation is totally about two hundredthousand, including the development history of the asylum, object of asylumprotection, conditions of asylum implementation, rights of asylum seekers and otherimportant issues.
In the introductory section, the dissertation first introduces the UNHCR report oncontemporary global practice of asylum, including the number of asylum seekersreceived by40major asylum countries in the past two years. The figure of massiveasylum seekers visually illustrates the importance of the institution of asylum in theinternational legal system today. Then the author analyzed the academic materialswhich collected in the process of writing. Overall, foreign scholars moved far away onasylum issues than domestic scholars, either on wide range or degree of depth.Foreign scholars have come into agree for some basic problem of asylum which arestill been controversy and conflict within China scholars. Lots of literatures of Westresearchers reflect the point of view of consistency. The focus of their research hasgone into the deeper theoretical level. On the other hand, our scholars generally haveno much interest for research on the issue of asylum. Asylum history, the concept ofasylum, asylum implementation conditions, protected objects, and other basic issuesare not resolved. We still misunderstanding for those basic asylum problems. Solvethe basic problems of the asylum system will become important goal of this writing.The main research methods of this study include historical analysis, comparativeanalysis, case studies, charts analysis and other methods.
The first chapter is an overview of the basic questions about the concept ofasylum and protection objects. The first chapter is mainly discusses the history ofasylum, the object of protection of asylum, the modern concept of asylum, therelationship between human rights and sovereignty. First, the chapter restated asylumin the age of ancient Greece, ancient Rome and medieval Christianity, and thendiscusses the asylum after the born of nation-state and the situation after the twoworld wars and other historical period. These historical characteristics help to deepenour understanding of contemporary institution of asylum. Subsequently, the chapter explains the two forms of the asylum, and territorial asylum and diplomatic asylum.The territorial asylum is recognized by contemporary international law and nationalpractices. The main object of this paper is territorial asylum rather than diplomaticasylum. Diplomatic asylum is generally prohibited by the contemporary internationallaw, only recognized within a limited range of areas, such as South America wherediplomatic asylum has legal force according to regional treaties. Secondly, thischapter focuses on the problem of protection object of asylum. Domestic scholars tendto agree that asylum is made to protect political offenders rather than politicalrefugees. This chapter discussed the history of protection for political offender andfinds that political offender once been protection object of asylum in the period ofFrench Revolution. It has been changed till now. The practice of internationalorganizations, national domestic legislation and judicial practice show that theprotection object of contemporary asylum system has been extended to the politicalrefugees. The “political offender Standard” has been taken place by “persecutionstandards”. Finally, the chapter discusses the relationship between asylum system andthe national sovereignty and human rights. Contemporary right of asylum has twomeanings, each of them related to sovereignty and human rights protection. Theasylum right is owned by sovereignty countries in the first place, which is part of thenational sovereignty. According to the principle of sovereignty and independence, thestate has the right under international law to determine whether or not to grant asylumto a person. There is no treaty requires countries must implement asylum. Meanwhile,the country of origin can't consider the implementation of the asylum as unfriendlyand hostile behavior. In addition, the right of asylum also belongs to individuals.However, modern international law only grants individuals the right to apply forasylum. In the process of asylum, including application, examination andimplementation of asylum, the country of asylum and related countries shall respectthe human rights of the asylum seekers. The spirit of human rights protection has gonedeep in the process of asylum.
The second chapter is the basis of the international law on asylum, includinginternational treaties, customary international law and general principles of law. First, this chapter discusses the asylum country's obligations under international law frominternational refugee treaties and international human rights treaties. Internationalrefugee treaties mainly refer to the1951Convention relating to the Status of Refugeesand its1967Protocol. The Convention is the most important international law in thefield of asylum. The asylum countries tend to develop their domestic asylum lawaccording to the1951Refugee Convention. The Convention also provides theprinciple of non-refoulement of refugees. International human rights treaties inasylum system mainly refer to the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights",International Treaty on Civil and Political Rights and the International Convention onEconomic, Social and Cultural Rights. These human rights conventions make sureasylum seekers enjoy various rights during the asylum procedure. Secondly, thechapter explains international customary law in asylum which mainly related to theprinciple of non-refoulement. This chapter focuses on the nature of the principle, suchas its law-making purpose, national practices and widespread consistency. Finally, thechapter discusses the general principles of law which as is one kind of source ofinternational law,. In the asylum field, general principles of law does not occupy themost important position, but the fact of the world mainstream legislation consistentitself prove the existence of such a general principle of law. It may play a role infuture when international treaty or customary law could not solve some specificproblems.
The third chapter concerns the examination criteria for implementation of theasylum and the procedures for application. It has been divided into four parts: thecriteria of implementation of asylum, denying asylum, stopping asylum andapplication proceedings. First, the criteria for examination is the most important issuesof this article, which focuses on the justified fear of "persecution","five kinds ofpersecution," living abroad, out of their own country's protection. This criterion camefrom five premise condition for refugee status under the1951Refugee Conventionwhich has been accepted as the precondition for the grant of asylum in most asylumcountries in the world. Therefore, individuals qualified as the refugee status under1951Refugee Convention are often able to obtain asylum in the country of asylum. Secondly, the chapter explains three reasons for the countries of asylum refused togrant asylum: persons have been protected or assistance by United Nations, or personsdetermined to be not deserve to be protected, or person who have committedinternational crimes or serious non-political crimes and violation of the purposes andprinciples of the United Nations. Thirdly, this chapter explains the terminationcondition to stop the implementation of the asylum: asylees voluntarily accept theirorigin country's protection, the asylees voluntary resettled on their origin country,asylees acquired a new nationality, and reasons caused the asylees fear have no longerexists. Finally, the chapter discusses the fair and efficient asylum application process.For this issue, the rules of international law exists but in the way of the resolutions ofinternational organizations. Resolutions of international organizations to encouragethe countries of asylum to give asylum seekers a fair and speedy review process, toprovide the necessary assistance in the program, and to protect asylum-seekers' mostbasic human rights. The procedure mainly related to the basic principles of theapplication, to ascertain the facts and to allow the appeal certain aspects.
The fourth chapter is about asylum-seekers' variety of rights in each stages ofasylum. This chapter discusses of the three types of rights in chronological order: notpush back asylum-seekers to their origin frontier or area; asylum applicant's receptiontreatment; formal treatment after grant of asylum. First, the chapter discusses the legalbasis of the principle of non-refoulement of refugees which including the internationalrefugee treaty, two human rights treaties and customary international law. This partdeals with problems within the principle, such as prohibited conduct, the object ofprotection, the territorial scope of the five targeted threats. Secondly, this chapterdescribes the standards for the treatment of asylum reception which set byinternational human rights law and international refugee Convention. This part alsofocuses on a proposed resolution of the UN Refugee Agency for the treatment ofasylum-seekers in reception and hospitality policy. The proposal is important tounderstand convention obligations under international law for the countries of asylum.The asylum country is not only requested to protect asylum-seekers' physiologicalneeds and human dignity, but also need to protect the sick and elderly and other special groups. Finally, the chapter explains the formal treatment of political refugees.The formal treatment generally refers individual qualified refugee status under the1951Refugee Convention whom received legal residence in the country of asylum.The formal treatment included economic and social rights, which means the right toemployment, the right to freelance practitioners, the right to social assistance, housingrights, intellectual property rights. The treatment also refers to civil and politicalrights, such as the right to obtain travel documents, the right to freedom of association,the right to attend the court etc. Refugees enjoy the right of final settlement, includingvoluntary repatriation, return home voluntarily, resettlement and naturalization.
Chapter V is about the status of China's asylum system and suggestions for itsimprovement. Those legal issues include China's participation in international treaties,domestic legislation and judicial practice compliance with obligations underinternational law. First, the asylum historical practice of China is mainly related toIndo-Chinese refugees, North Korean defectors, Burma refugees. These practicesprovide the realistic basis for further improvement of China's asylum legislation andjudicial practice. But these practices also have revealed some serious problems, suchas China does not recognize the concept of political refugees, not completely fulfillnon-refoulement obligations, lack of specialized applications procedures. Secondly,the chapter discusses China's participation in the asylum-related treaties. China isheavily involved in the asylum of the relevant international conventions, such as theRefugee Convention and Conventions on Human Rights. China's major conventionobligations under international law include criteria for determining refugee status, theprinciple of non-refoulement, treatment standards for asylum seekers. This chaptercomment on the relevant provisions of China's domestic legislation on asylum issues,including constitutional provisions, sector-specific law and administrative rules.Finally, this chapter contains some recommendations for the Improvement of theasylum legislation and practice of China. Such as Recognize the concept of refugee;improve the standard of treatment for refugee status; determine the examinationstandards for grant asylum to seekers; creation of a special refugee procedures andexplicitly specialized competent authorities.
引文
1M. G. KALADHARAN NAYAR, Right of Asylum in International Law: Its Status and Prospects, SAINT LOUISUNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL,1972, Vol.17, p17.
1M. G. KALADHARAN NAYAR, Right of Asylum in International Law: Its Status and Prospects, SAINT LOUISUNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL,1972, Vol.17, p19.
2联合国，1967年《领土庇护宣言》，第2条，第1段。
3联合国，1967年《领土庇护宣言》，第2条，第2段。
1Gilbert Jaeger, Refugee Asylum: Policy and Legislative Developments, International Migration Review, Vol.15,No.1/2,1981, pp.52-68.
2郝鲁怡：《欧盟难民与庇护一体化法律制度研究》，载《河北法学》，2010年7月第7期；孟昱妍，陈烁：《论国际法视角下的外交庇护》，载《人民论坛》，2010年第32期；林欣：《论引渡与庇护制度的新动向》，载《中国社会科学》，1985年第6期；路易斯·亨金著，张潇剑译：《庇护权案——哥伦比亚诉秘鲁》，载《国外法学》，1987年第4期。
3周鲠生著：《国际法》，商务印书馆，1976年5月第1版，第309页。
梁西主编：《国际法》，武汉大学出版社，2004年4月第2版，第218页；周忠海主编：《国际法》，中国政法大学出版社，2004年9月第1版，第290页；邵沙平主编：《国际法》，中国人民大学出版社，2007年
1月第1版，第229页。
3曾令良、饶戈平主编：《国际法》，法律出版社，2005年6月第1版，第222页；邵津主编：《国际法》，北京大学出版社和高等教育出版社，2008年12月第3版，第85页；程晓霞、余民才主编：《国际法》，中国人民大学出版社，2011年6月第4版，第66页。
4王铁崖主编：《国际法》，法律出版社，1981年7月第1版，第268页；王虎华主编：《国际公法学》（第三版），北京大学出版社2008年版，第119页。
5梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版
1See Ulrich Sinn, Greek Sanctuaries as Places of Refuge, in Greek Sanctuaries: New Approaches. Edited byNANNO MARINATOS and ROBIN HXGG. London and New York: Routledge1993, p.90.
2Matthew E. Price, POLITICS OR HUMANITARIANISM? RECOVERING THE POLITICAL ROOTS OFASYLUM, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, Vol.19,2005, p.277.
1Rob W.M. Schumacher, Three Related Sanctuaries of Poseidonat, in Greek Sanctuaries: New Approaches. Editedby NANNO MARINATOS and ROBIN HXGG. London and New York: Routledge1993. pp.68-69.
2MATTHEW E. PRICE, Politics or Humanitarianism: Recovering the Political Roots of Asylum, GeorgetownImmigration Law Journal,2004-2005, Vol.19, p.286.
3Matthew E. Price, POLITICS OR HUMANITARIANISM? RECOVERING THE POLITICAL ROOTS OFASYLUM, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, Vol.19,2005, p.277.
4MATTHEW E. PRICE, Politics or Humanitarianism: Recovering the Political Roots of Asylum, GeorgetownImmigration Law Journal,2004-2005, Vol.19, p.286.
1P. WEIS, United Nations Declaration on Territorial Asylum, The Canadian Yearbook of International Law,1969,p.119.
2Manuel R. Garcia-Mora, International Law and Asylum as a Human Right, Public Affair Press, Washington,
3D. C.1956, p.41.Hugo Grotius, De Jure Belli Ac Pacis Libri Tres, Francis W. Kelsey, Trans., Clarendon Press1925, At11.21.5.
4See: Manuel R. Garcia-Mora, International Law and Asylum as a Human Right, Public Affair Press, Washington,D. C.1956, p.27.
5SAMUEL PUFENDORF, DE JURE NATURAE ET GENTIUM LIBRI OCTO,(C.H. Oldfather&W.A.Oldfather, trans.), Clarendon Press1934, at111.3.10.
1MATTHEW E. PRICE, Politics or Humanitarianism: Recovering the Political Roots of Asylum, GeorgetownImmigration Law Journal,2004-2005, Vol.19, p.21.
2沃尔夫用“被放逐者”代表为逃避惩罚主动逃跑的人和被动的被统治者放逐的人两类人。MATTHEW E.PRICE, Politics or Humanitarianism: Recovering the Political Roots of Asylum, Georgetown Immigration LawJournal,2004-2005, Vol.19, p.23.
3CHRISTIAN WOLFF, Jus GENTILIM METHODO SCIENTIFICA PERTRACTATUM，(Joseph H. Drake,Trans.), Clarendon Press1934,&150.
4Emer De Vattel, The Law of Nations or The Principles Of Natural Law,(Charles G.Fenwick Trans.), SlatkineReprints-Henry Dunant Institute1983, at1.19.230.
5同上注，at2.9.125.
6同上注，at2.8.104.
1P. WEIS, United Nations Declaration on Territorial Asylum, The Canadian Yearbook of International Law,1969,p.120.
2M. G. Kaladharan Nayar, Right Of Asylum In International Law: Its Status And Prospects, Saint LouisUniversity Law Journal,1972, Vol.17, P.17.
3United Nations General Assembly, Resolution8(I) of February12,1946.
11951年《联合国关于难民地位公约》，第一章，第一条，（一）乙。
2E. Feller, International refugee protection50years on: The protection challenges of the past,Present and future,2001, Available online at: http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/581-606_feller.pdf,(Lastvisited on May15,2012,8:10P.M.).
1Alice Edwards, Human Rights, Refugees And The Right To Enjoy Asylum, International Journal Of RefugeeLaw,2005, Vol.17, p.297.
2Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, UN World Conference on Human Rights,1993, UN doc. A/CONF.157/23,12July1993, para.23.
3International Organization for Migration, International Migration Law Glossary On Migration, InternationalOrganization for Migration Publisher,2004, p.7.
2M. G. Kaladharan Nayar, Right Of Asylum In International Law： Its Status And Prospects, Saint LouisUniversity Law Journal,1972, Vol.17, p.22.
1J. Brierly, The Law Of Nations (4th Ed),1949, P.177.
2Morgenstern F, Diplomatic Asylum, The Law Quarterly Review,1951, Vol.67, p.362; A. Grahl-Madsen, TheStatus of Refugees in International Law (Vol. II), Leiden: Sijthoff (1972), pp.46-47.
3S. Riveles, Diplomatic Asylum as a Human Right: The Case of the Durban Six, Human Rights Quarterly,1989,Vol.11, p.158.
4L.H. Legault, Canadian Practice in International Law during1979as Reflected Mainly in Public Correspondenceand Statements of the Department of External Affairs, Canadian Yearbook of International Law,1980, Vol.18,pp.304-305.
5C.V. Cole, Is There Safe Refuge in Canadian Missions Abroad? International Journal of Refugee Law,1997, Vol.
69, p.662.P. Porcino, Toward Codification of Diplomatic Asylum, New York University Journal of International Law andPolitics,1976, Vol.8, pp.445-446; S.P. Sinha, Asylum and International Law, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff,1971,p.238; B. Gilbert, The Practice of Asylum in Legations and Consulates of the United States, American Journal ofInternational Law,1909, Vol.3, p.585; A.M. Rossitto, Diplomatic Asylum in the United States and Latin America:A Comparative Analysis, Brooklyn Journal of International Law,1987, Vol.13, p.114.
1G. Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee in International Law, Oxford: Clarendon Press,1996, p.143; E. Lauterpacht andD. Bethlehem,‘The Scope and Content of the Principle of Non-Refoulement’, in E. Feller, V. Türk, F. Nicholson
2(eds.), Refugee Protection in International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2003),87, p.114.Gregor Noll, SEEKING ASYLUM AT EMBASSIES: A RIGHT TO ENTRY UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW?International Journal of Refugee Law,2005, Vol.17, p.553.
3Gregor Noll, SEEKING ASYLUM AT EMBASSIES: A RIGHT TO ENTRY UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW?International Journal of Refugee Law,2005, Vol.17, p.572.
4Captain Richard L. Fruchterman, ASYLUM: THEORY AND PRACTICE, JAG Journal, Vol.26,1972, p.169.
1MOORE, A DIGEST OF INTERNATIONAL LAW755(1906).
2Captain Richard L. Fruchterman, ASYLUM: THEORY AND PRACTICE, JAG Journal, Vol.26,1972, p.171.
3SINHA, ASYLUM AND INTERNATIONAL LAW10(Martenus Nyhoff, The Hague1971).
4Captain Richard L. Fruchterman, ASYLUM: THEORY AND PRACTICE, JAG Journal, Vol.26,1972, p.177.
1Jari Pirjola, European Asylum Policy: Inclusions and Exclusions under the Surface of Universal Human Rights
2Language, European Journal of Migration and Law, Vol.11,2009, p.354.“The term ‘asylum’ means the protection offered by a State on its territory or elsewhere to individual who cameto seek it”. See Grahl-Madsen, The status of refugee in international law, Volume II, Leyden:A.W. Sijthoff1972, p.
482; G. Noll, Negotiating Asylum, The Hague: Nijhoff Publishers2000, p.15; Bouteillet-Paquet, L’ Europe et ledroit d’ asile, Paris: l’ Harmattan,2001, p.33; Hemme Battjes, European Asylum Law and International Law,Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden/Boston,2006, pp.5-6.
1周鲠生著：《国际法》，商务印书馆，1976年5月第1版，第309页。
2周鲠生著：《国际法》，商务印书馆，1976年5月第1版，第310页。
3同上注，第311页。
4梁西主编：《国际法》，武汉大学出版社，2004年4月第2版，第218页；周忠海主编：《国际法》，中国政法大学出版社，2004年9月第1版，第290页；邵沙平主编：《国际法》，中国人民大学出版社，2007年1月第1版，第229页。
6曾令良、饶戈平主编：《国际法》，法律出版社，2005年6月第1版，第222页；邵津主编：《国际法》，北京大学出版社和高等教育出版社，2008年12月第3版，第85页；程晓霞、余民才主编：《国际法》，中国人民大学出版社，2011年6月第4版，第66页。
7王铁崖主编：《国际法》，法律出版社，1981年7月第1版，第268页；王虎华主编：《国际公法学》（第三版），北京大学出版社2008年版，第119页。
2P. Weis, United Nations Declaration On Territorial Asylum, The Canadian Yearbook Of International Law,1969,P27; Roman Boed, The State Of The Right Of Asylum In International Law, Duke Journal Of Comparative&International Law, Vol.5,1994-1995, p.1;
1日本国际法学会编，《国际法辞典》，外交学院国际法教研室译，世界知识出版社，1985年5月第1版，第402页。
2UNHCR: Asylum Levels and Trends in Industrialized Countries2011, Available online at: http://www.unhcr.org/4e9beaa19.html,(Last visited on May19,2012,8:00A.M.), p.3.
3International Organization for Migration, International Migration Law Glossary On Migration, InternationalOrganization for Migration Publisher,2004, p.10.
1Daniel Kanstroom, Wer Sind Wir Wieder? Laws of Asylum, Immigration, and Citizenship in the Struggle for theSoul of the New Germany, YALE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, Vol.18,1993, p.163.
2G. Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee in International Law, Oxford: Clarendon Press,1996, p.143.
3International Organization for Migration, International Migration Law Glossary On Migration, InternationalOrganization for Migration Publisher,2004, p.23.
4Mjchelle Foster, International Refugee Law and Socio-Economic Rights: Refuge from Deprivation, CambridgeUniversity Press,2007, p.6.
5王虎华主编：《国际公法学》（第三版），北京大学出版社2008年版，第120页。
6Matthew Lippman, CIVIL RESISTANCE: THE DICTATES OF CONSCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL LAWVERSUS THE AMERICAN JUDICIARY, Florida Journal of International Law, Vol.6,1990, p.5.
1Nadia Yakoob, POLITICAL OFFENDER OR SERIOUS CRIMINAL? CHALLENGING THEINTERPRETATION OF "SERIOUS, NONPOLITICAL CRIMES" IN INS V. AGUIRRE-AGUIRRE, GeorgetownImmigration Law Journal, Vol.14,2000, p.545.
2HUGO GROTIUS, DE JURE BELLI AC PACIS LIBRI TRES (Francis W. Kelsey, trans., Clarendon Press1925),at II.21.5.
3Nadia Yakoob, POLITICAL OFFENDER OR SERIOUS CRIMINAL? CHALLENGING THEINTERPRETATION OF "SERIOUS, NONPOLITICAL CRIMES" IN INS V. AGUIRRE-AGUIRRE, GeorgetownImmigration Law Journal, Vol.14,2000, p.545.
4VALERIE EPPS, The Validity of the Political Offender Exception in Extradition Treaties in Anglo-AmericanJurisprudencet, Harvard International Law Journal, VOLUME20, Num.1, WINTER I979, p.61.
5HUGO GROTIUS, DE JURE BELLI AC PACIS LIBRI TRES (Francis W. Kelsey, trans., Clarendon Press1925),at II.21.5.
1Matthew E. Price, POLITICS OR HUMANITARIANISM? RECOVERING THE POLITICAL ROOTS OFASYLUM, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, Vol.19,2005, p.277.
2Christine E. Cervasio, EXTRADITION AND THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT: THE FUTUREOF THE POLITICAL OFFENSE DOCTRINE, Pace International Law Review, Vol.11,1999, p.419.
3In re Meunier,2Q.B.415(1894), Article120of the Constitution of1793states that “la France donne asile auxetrangers bannis de leur patrie pour la cause de la liberte.”
4Nadia Yakoob, POLITICAL OFFENDER OR SERIOUS CRIMINAL? CHALLENGING THEINTERPRETATION OF "SERIOUS, NONPOLITICAL CRIMES" IN INS V. AGUIRRE-AGUIRRE, GeorgetownImmigration Law Journal, Vol.14,2000, p.545.
5VALERIE EPPS, The Validity of the Political Offender Exception in Extradition Treaties in Anglo-AmericanJurisprudencet, Harvard International Law Journal, VOLUME20, Num.1, WINTER I979, p.61.
6Barbara Ann Banoff, Christopher H. Pyle,"TO SURRENDER POLITICAL OFFENDERS": THE POLITICALOFFENSE EXCEPTION TO EXTRADITION IN UNITED STATES LAW, New York University Journal ofInternational Law&Politics, Vol.16,1984, p.169.
7James L. Taulbee, POLITICAL CRIMES, HUMAN RIGHTS AND CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONALPRACTICE, Emory International Law Review, Vol.4,1990, p.43.
8VALERIE EPPS, The Validity of the Political Offender Exception in Extradition Treaties in Anglo-AmericanJurisprudencet, Harvard International Law Journal, VOLUME20, Num.1, WINTER I979, p.61.
1Barbara Ann Banoff, Christopher H. Pyle,"TO SURRENDER POLITICAL OFFENDERS": THE POLITICALOFFENSE EXCEPTION TO EXTRADITION IN UNITED STATES LAW, New York University Journal ofInternational Law&Politics, Vol.16,1984, p.176.
2M. G. Kaladharan Nayar, Right Of Asylum In International Law Its Status And Prospects, Saint Louis UniversityLaw Journal,1972, Vol.17, p.17.
3Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Governor Pinckney, April1,1792, in3MEMOIR, CORRESPONDENCE, ANDMISCELLANIES FROM THE PAPERS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON160(Thomas Jefferson Randolph ed.,1830)
4Matthew E. Price, POLITICS OR HUMANITARIANISM? RECOVERING THE POLITICAL ROOTS OFASYLUM, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, Vol.19,2005, p.277.
5ATLE GRAHL-MADSEN, TERRITORIAL ASYLUM, Chapter11, Almqvist&Wiksell Press,1980.
1VALERIE EPPS, The Validity of the Political Offender Exception in Extradition Treaties in Anglo-AmericanJurisprudencet, Harvard International Law Journal, VOLUME20, Num.1, WINTER I979, p.61.
2Barbara Ann Banoff, Christopher H. Pyle,"TO SURRENDER POLITICAL OFFENDERS": THE POLITICALOFFENSE EXCEPTION TO EXTRADITION IN UNITED STATES LAW, New York University Journal ofInternational Law&Politics, Vol.16,1984, p.169.
3Jennifer M. Corey, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE v. DOHERTY: THE POLITICS OFEXTRADITION, DEPORTATION, AND ASYLUM, Maryland Journal of International Law and Trade, Vol.16,41992, p.83.E.g., Namkung v. Boyd,266F.2d385(D.C. Cir.1955); United States v. Shaughnessy,2o6F.2d392(2d Cir.1953); Sunjka v. Esperdy,182F. Supp.599(S.D.N.Y.x96o), aff'd sub nom. Sovich v. Esperdy,319F.2d21(2d Cir.1963), cert. denied,364U.S.815(1964). It has recently been suggested that other avenues of review may beavailable, see the concurring opinion of Goldberg, C.J. in Pierre v. United States,525F.ud933,936(5th Cir.1976).
1Michelle N. Lewis, THE POLITICAL-OFFENSE EXCEPTION: RECONCILING THE TENSION BETWEENHUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC ORDER, George Washington Law Review, Vol.63,1995,p.585.
2Doherty v. INS,980F.2d at1111.
3Nadia Yakoob, POLITICAL OFFENDER OR SERIOUS CRIMINAL? CHALLENGING THEINTERPRETATION OF "SERIOUS, NONPOLITICAL CRIMES" IN INS V. AGUIRRE-AGUIRRE, GeorgetownImmigration Law Journal, Vol.14,2000, p.545.
1Saskia Sassen, Guests and Aliens, Nueva York, The New Press,1999.
2Matthew E. Price, POLITICS OR HUMANITARIANISM? RECOVERING THE POLITICAL ROOTS OFASYLUM, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, Vol.19,2005, p.277.
3Matthew E. Price, POLITICS OR HUMANITARIANISM? RECOVERING THE POLITICAL ROOTS OFASYLUM, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, Vol.19,2005, p.277.
1Matthew E. Price, POLITICS OR HUMANITARIANISM? RECOVERING THE POLITICAL ROOTS OFASYLUM, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, Vol.19,2005, p.277.
2Daniel J. Steinbock, INTERPRETING THE REFUGEE DEFINITION, UCLA Law Review, Vol.45,1998, p.733.
3Matthew E. Price, POLITICS OR HUMANITARIANISM? RECOVERING THE POLITICAL ROOTS OFASYLUM, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, Vol.19,2005, p.277.
12PATRICK DELOUVIN, Evolution of Asylum in France, Journal of Refugee Studies, Vol.13, No.1,2000, p.67.PATRICK DELOUVIN, Evolution of Asylum in France, Journal of Refugee Studies, Vol.13, No.1,2000, p.69.
3Immigration Act of1917, Pub. L. No.64-301,39Stat.874(people considered undesirable included idiots,imbeciles, epeleptics, alcoholics, paupers, people not able to earn a living, polygamists, anarchists, criminals ofmoral turpitude prostitutes, etc.)
4Displaced Persons Act of1948, ch.647,62Stat.1009.
5The Immigration and Nationality Act, Pub. L. No.82-414,66Stat.163(June27,1952)(codified as amended at8U.S.C.§1101-1525(1982)).
67Act of Sept.11,1957, Pub. L. No.85-316,71Stat.639(amending8U.S.C.§15).Refugee Act of1980, Pub. L. No.96-212,94Stat.102at§208(codified at8U.S.C.§1158)(grantingdiscretion), and§201(a)(codified at8U.S.C.§1101sec.101(a) para.42)(defining refugee).
8Ode, Paul H. Jr, SECTION243(h) OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT OF1952ASAMENDED BY THE REFUGEE ACT OF1980: A PROGNOSIS AND A PROPOSAL, COPNELLINTERNATIONAL LAW JOUNAL, Vol.13,1980, p.291.
12The MacNeil/Lehrer Report, Library No.1074, Show No.5094, transcript at8(November8,1979).Michelle N. Lewis, THE POLITICAL-OFFENSE EXCEPTION: RECONCILING THE TENSION BETWEENHUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC ORDER, George Washington Law Review, Vol.63,1995,p.585.
3Us Citizenship and Immigration Services–Asylum Division, Asylum Officer Basic Training Course, EligibilityPart I: Definitions; Past Persecution, March6,2009, p.5.
1Captain Richard L. Fruchterman, ASYLUM: THEORY AND PRACTICE, JAG Journal, Vol.26,1972, p.180.
23Lorne Waldman, Canadian Immigration&Refugee Law Practice, LexisNexis Canada Inc.2010, p.392.Rosemary Byrne, Gregor Noll, Jens Vedsted-Hansen, New Asylum Countries? Migration Control and RefugeeProtection in an Enlarged Europan Union, Kluwer Law International, The Hague/London/New York,2002, p.33.
4F.R.G. Const., art.79. The Constitutional amendment fell outside art.79(3), which prohibits amendments to art.1
(human dignity) and art.20(structural provisions of the Constitution).
1Rosemary Byrne, Gregor Noll, Jens Vedsted-Hansen, New Asylum Countries? Migration Control and RefugeeProtection in an Enlarged Europan Union, Kluwer Law International, The Hague/London/New York,2002, pp.85-86.
5See Maurice Kamto, Third report on the expulsion of aliens, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/581.
1EC Council Directive2004/83/EC on Minimum Standards for the Qualification and Status of ThirdCountry Nationals or Stateless Persons as Refugees or as Persons who Otherwise need InternationalProtection and the Content of the Protection Granted (“Qualification Directive”)(Apr.29,2004),2004OJL304/12
(Aug.30,2004).
3王虎华主编：《国际公法学》（第三版），北京大学出版社2008年版，第454页。
1王虎华：《论国家主权与国际人权的辩证关系》，载《华东政法学院学报》2002年第5期。
2M. O. Hudson, World Court Reports, Vol.1, p.143(1934).
3Manuel R. Garcia-Mora, International Law and Asylum as a Human Right, Public Affair Press, Washington,D. C.1956, p.45.
4United States, ex rel. Donnelly v. Mulligan, U.S. Marshal,72Fed.2d.220,(1934), pp.220-223.
5E. Haddad, The refugee: the individual between sovereigns, Global Society, Vol.17,2003, p.297.
6M. Weiner, Ethics, national sovereignty and the control of immigration, International Migration Review, Vol.30,1996, p.188.
1Thomas Gammeltoft-Hansen, Access to Asylum: International Refugee Law and the Globalisation of MigrationControl, Cambridge University Press,2011, p.13.
2T. E. Aalberts and W. Werner, Sovereignty beyond borders: Sovereignty, self-defense, and the disciplining of thestate, in Adler-Nissen and Gammeltoft-Hansen, Sovereignty Games, pp.129-150.
3Remark made by the Israeli delegate, Nehemiah Robinson, Ad Hoc Committee on Statelessness and RelatedProblems, First Session,20thmeeting, E/AC.32/SR.20, para.49.
4Manuel R. Garcia-Mora, International Law and Asylum as a Human Right, Public Affair Press, Washington,D. C.1956, p.3.
5《联合国宪章》第1条，第3款。
1ALICE EDWARDS, Human Rights, Refugees and the Right to Enjoy Asylum, International Journal of RefugeeLaw,2005, Vol.17, p.297.
2Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, UN World Conference on Human Rights,1993,UN doc. A/CONF.157/23,12July1993, para.23.
1M. G. Kaladharan Nayar, Right Of Asylum In International Law: Its Status And Prospects, Saint LouisUniversity Law Journal,1972, Vol.17, p.17.
2《联合国宪章》第1条第3款；第55条c款；第56条。31948年《世界人权宣言》第1条；第2条。
4《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》第2条第1款。51951年《难民公约》序言。
1Mark Gibney, Certain Violence, Uncertain Protection, in Global Changes in Asylum Regimes, Daniele Jolyedited, Palgrave Macmillan Ltd,2002, p.18.
2Hemme Battjes, European Asylum Law and International Law, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden/Boston,2006, p.9.
3Hemme Battjes, European Asylum Law and International Law, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden/Boston,2006, p.12.
1Hemme Battjes, European Asylum Law and International Law, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden/Boston,22006, p.13.Mark Symes, Peter Jorro, Adrian Berry, Asylum Law and Practice, Bloomsbery Professional,2010, p.631.
3Jari Pirjola, European Asylum Policy: Inclusions and Exclusions under the Surface of Universal Human RightsLanguage, European Journal of Migration and Law, Vol.11,2009, p.354.
4Us Citizenship And Immigration Services–Asylum Division, Asylum Officer Basic Training Course,International Human Rights Law, March1,2005, p.4.
1王虎华主编：《国际公法学》（第三版），北京大学出版社2008年版，第14页。
2United Nations, Multilateral Treaties Deposited with the Secretary-General, Available online at:
4梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版，第52页。
1James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees Under International Law, Cambridge University Press,2005, p.109.
2梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版，第54页。
11969年《非洲难民公约》第2条第1款；第5条。
21969年《非洲难民公约》第1条第2款。
31969年《非洲难民公约》第2条第3款。
41969年《非洲难民公约》第2条第6款。
51969年《非洲难民公约》第3条。
6See UNHCR, OAS General Assembly: an Inter-American Initiative on Regugee, Refugees,1986, Vol.27, p.5.
11984年《卡塔赫纳宣言》第3条第5款；第6款；第7款。21984年《卡塔赫纳宣言》第3条第6款；第11款；第13款。
3梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版，第60页。
4James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees Under International Law, Cambridge University Press,2005, p.119.
5UNHCR Executive Committee Conclusion No.81,“General Conclusion on International Protection”,1997, atpara. E, available at www.unhcr. ch (Last visited on June14,2012,8:10P.M.).
6王虎华主编：《国际公法学》（第三版），北京大学出版社2008年版，第464页。
1王铁崖主编：《国际法》，法律出版社1995年版，第207页，转引自王虎华主编：《国际公法学》（第三版），北京大学出版社2008年版，第465页。
2Hurst Hannum, The Status of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in National and International Law,Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law,1995/1996, Vol.25, p.290.
3徐显明：《国际人权法》，法律出版社2004年版，第64页，转引自王虎华主编：《国际公法学》（第三版），北京大学出版社2008年版，第465页。
4See Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States (Third)§701, Reporters’ Notes4-6,1987.
5Manuel R. Garcia-Mora, International Law and Asylum as a Human Right, Public Affair Press, Washington,D. C.1956, p.151.
6See Martin, Refugees and Migration, United Nations Legal Order, Vol.1, Schachter and Joyner, eds, CambridgeUniversity Press,1995.
7UN Human Rights Committee,“General Comment No.31: The nature of the general legal obligations of statesparties to the Covenant”,2004, UN Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.7, May12,2004, p.192, para.10.
7Mark Symes, Peter Jorro, Adrian Berry, Asylum Law and Practice, Bloomsbery Professional,2010, p.631.
8Us Citizenship And Immigration Services–Asylum Division, Asylum Officer Basic Training Course,International Human Rights Law, March1,2005, p.8.
1The UNHCR submission in Gashi(1997)INLR96. Roder Haines wrote in the Refugee Status Appeals Authorityin Refugee Appeal No1/92Re SA,30, April1992.
2王虎华主编：《国际公法学》（第三版），北京大学出版社2008年版，第466页。
3Mark Symes, Peter Jorro, Adrian Berry, Asylum Law and Practice, Bloomsbery Professional Press,2010, p.129.
4The UNHCR submission in Gashi(1997)INLR96. Roder Haines wrote in the Refugee Status Appeals Authorityin Refugee Appeal No1/92Re SA,30, April1992.
2US CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES–ASYLUM DIVISION, ASYLUM OFFICER BASICTRAINING COURSE, International Human Rights Law, MARCH1,2005, p.13.
3Lorne Waldman, Canadian Immigration&Refugee Law Practice, LexisNexis Canada Inc.2011, p.418.
4Clive Walker&Russell L. Weaver, The United Kingdom Bill of Rights1998: The Modernization of Rights in
1Inna Nazarova, Alienating “Human” From “Right”: U.S. and UK Non-Compliance With Asylum ObligationsUnder International Human Rights Law, Fordham International Law Journal, Vol.25,2002, p.1349.
6王虎华主编：《国际公法学》（第三版），北京大学出版社2008年版，第468页。
1王虎华主编：《国际公法学》（第三版），北京大学出版社2008年版，第468页。
4王虎华主编：《国际公法学》（第三版），北京大学出版社2008年版，第469页。
1王虎华主编：《国际公法学》（第三版），北京大学出版社2008年版，第16页。
2James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees Under International Law, Cambridge University Press,2005, p.24.
3Lauterpacht, E., ed., international law: The Collected Papers of Hersch Lauterpacht, Cambridge University Press,1970, p.62.
4B. Simma and P. Alston, The Sources of Human Rights Law: Custom, Jus Cogens, and General Principles, TheYear Book of International Law, Vol.12,1988-1989, p.82.
5James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees Under International Law, Cambridge University Press,2005, p.26.61951年《难民公约》第33条。
1ExCom General Conclusion on International Protection No.79,1996, para(j); ExCom General Conclusion onInternational Protection No.81,1997, para(i); ExCom Conclusion No.82on Safeguarding Asylum,1997,para(d)(i).
3UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES, THE SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THEPRINCIPLE OF NON-REFOULEMENT,20June2001, p.77, para.218, Available online at: http://www.unhcr.org/419c75ce4.html,(Last visited on June25,2012,8:10P.M.)
4UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES, THE SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THEPRINCIPLE OF NON-REFOULEMENT,20June2001, p.92, para.253.1, Available online at: http://www.unhcr.org/419c75ce4.html,(Last visited on June25,2012,8:10P.M.)
5UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES, THE SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THEPRINCIPLE OF NON-REFOULEMENT,20June2001, p.92, para.253.2, Available online at: http://www.unhcr.org/419c75ce4.html,(Last visited on June25,2012,8:10P.M.)
6UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES, THE SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THEPRINCIPLE OF NON-REFOULEMENT,20June2001, p.92, para.253.3, Available online at: http://www.unhcr.org/419c75ce4.html,(Last visited on June25,2012,8:10P.M.)
1UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES, THE SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THEPRINCIPLE OF NON-REFOULEMENT,20June2001, p.73, para.209.Available online at: http://www.unhcr.org/419c75c e4.html,(Last visited on June24,2012,8:10P.M.)
2Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America),Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, ICJ Reports1984, p.392, at para.74.
3UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES, THE SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THEPRINCIPLE OF NON-REFOULEMENT,20June2001, p.74, para.213.Available online at: http://www.unhcr.org/419c75c e4.html,(Last visited on June24,2012,8:10P.M.)
4ExCom Conclusion No.6on Non-Refoulement (1977) para(a).
1UNHCR, Note on International Protection submitted, UN Doc A/AC.96/898,3July1998, para10-14.
2D W Greig, The Protection of Refugees and Customary International Law, Australian Year Book of InternationalLaw,1983, Vol.8, pp.125-127.
3G S Goodwin-Gill and J McAdam, The Refugee in Internaitonal Law(3rdedn), Oxford University Press, Oxford42007, p.219; p.227; p.229-232; p.347.Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua(Merits) ICJ Reports (1986)14, para186.
5UNHCR Advisory Opinion on the Extraterritorial Application of Non-Refoulement Obligations under the1951Convention Relation to the Status of Refugees and its1967Protocol,26January2007, available at:http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/45f17a1a4.html, para.15.
6Declaration reaffirming the commitment of signatory States to the1951Convention,13December2001, para4.
1Gretchen Borchelt, The Safe Third Country Practice in the European Union: A Misguided Approach to AsylumLaw and a Violation of International Human Rights Standards, Columbia Human Rights Law Review,2002, Vol.
33, p.473.
2Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America),Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, ICJ Reports1984, p.392, at para.73, Merits, Judgment, ICJ Reports31986, p.14, at paragraphs174-179.Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua(Merits) ICJ Reports (1986)14, para176-178..
4Sir E Lauterpacht and D Bethlehem, The Scope and Content of the Principle of Non-refoulement,20June2001,Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b33574d1.pdf. para.195.
5王虎华主编：《国际公法学》（第三版），北京大学出版社2008年版，第19页。
6王虎华主编：《国际公法学》（第三版），北京大学出版社2008年版，第20页。
1James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees Under International Law, Cambridge University Press,2005, p.26.
2UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES, THE SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THEPRINCIPLE OF NON-REFOULEMENT,20June2001, p.74, para.213.Available online at: http://www.unhcr.org/419c75c e4.html,(Last visited on June24,2012,8:10P.M.)
3Lorne Waldman, Canadian Immigration&Refugee Law Practice, LexisNexis Canada Inc.2011, p.418.
1See Maurice Kamto, Third report on the expulsion of aliens, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/581.
2EC Council Directive2004/83/EC on Minimum Standards for the Qualification and Status of ThirdCountry Nationals or Stateless Persons as Refugees or as Persons who Otherwise need InternationalProtection and the Content of the Protection Granted (“Qualification Directive”)(Apr.29,2004),2004OJL304/12
(Aug.30,2004).
3【意】安东尼奥·卡塞斯著，蔡从燕等译，《国际法》，法律出版社，2009年10月第1版，第256页。
4黎巴嫩籍法官Ammoun曾在针对北海大陆架案发布的反对意见中指出，“文明国家”一词具有严重的歧视性，已经落后于时代。
5【意】安东尼奥·卡塞斯著，蔡从燕等译，《国际法》，法律出版社，2009年10月第1版，第256页。
1【意】安东尼奥·卡塞斯著，蔡从燕等译，《国际法》，法律出版社，2009年10月第1版，第257页。
2【意】安东尼奥·卡塞斯著，蔡从燕等译，《国际法》，法律出版社，2009年10月第1版，第258页。
3【意】安东尼奥·卡塞斯著，蔡从燕等译，《国际法》，法律出版社，2009年10月第1版，第259页。
1梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版，第71页。
2UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES, Handbook on Procedures and Criteria forDetermining Refugee Status under the1951Convention and the1967Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees,
2James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees Under International Law, Cambridge University Press,2005, p.97.
3New Zealand Refugee Status Appeals Authority in Refugee Appeal No.17/92Re SSS(9July1992).
4High Court of Australia, Minister for Immigration Ethnic Affairs v. Guo,144ALR567,1997.
1James. C. Hathaway, The Law of Refugee Status, Butterworths,1991, p.88.
2EC Council, EC Council Directive2004/83/EC on Minimum Standards for the Qualification and Status of ThirdCountry Nationals or Stateless Persons as Refugees or as Persons who Otherwise need International Protection andthe Content of the Protection Granted, Ariticle4.4.
3Keene L. J in the Court of Appeal of Britain in Nenni v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, EWCA Civ1077,26July2004.
6James. C. Hathaway, The Law of Refugee Status, Butterworths,1991, pp.201-203..
1UNHCR Executive Committee Conclusion No.69,1992.
2De Monigny J in the Federal Court of Canada in Christopher v. Canada Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,2005FC730,20May,2005.
3James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees Under International Law, Cambridge University Press,2005, p.109.
45Judge Pregerson in Canales-Vargas v. Gonzales, US9thCircuit Court of Appeals, Case No.03-71737.New Zealand Refugee Status Appeals Authority in Appeal No.135/92, Re RS,27August1991.
2联合国难民署编，《国际难民法指南》（中文本），2004年修订，第145页。
3International Organization for Migration, International Migration Law Glossary On Migration, InternationalOrganization for Migration Publisher,2004, p.47.
4G. Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee in International Law, Oxford: Clarendon Press,1996, pp.66-67,转引自梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版，第72页。
1D.Vanheule, A comparison of the judicial interpretations of the notion refugee, in Europe and Refugee: A
challenge? The Hague: Kluwer Law International,1997, pp.98-102.James. C. Hathaway, The Law of Refugee Status, Butterworths,1991, pp.105-108; G. Goodwin-Gill, TheRefugee in International Law, Oxford: Clarendon Press,1996, pp.66-67; Hemme Battjes, European Asylum Lawand International Law, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden/Boston,2006, p.231; Spijkerboer&Vermeulen,Vluchtelingenrecht, Nijmegen: Ars Aequi Libri,2005, pp.33-34.
5Hemme Battjes, European Asylum Law and International Law, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden/Boston,2006, pp.231-232.
1Hemme Battjes, European Asylum Law and International Law, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden/Boston,2006, p.232.
2Mark Symes, Peter Jorro, Adrian Berry, Asylum Law and Practice, Bloomsbery Professional Press,2010, p.129;D.Vanheule, A comparison of the judicial interpretations of the notion refugee, in Europe and Refugee: A challenge?The Hague: Kluwer Law International,1997, pp.98-102.
3Mark Symes, Peter Jorro, Adrian Berry, Asylum Law and Practice, Bloomsbery Professional Press,2010, p.151.
4James. C. Hathaway, The Law of Refugee Status, Butterworths,1991, p.122.
5Mark Symes, Peter Jorro, Adrian Berry, Asylum Law and Practice, Bloomsbery Professional Press,2010, p.152.
2Joint Judgment of High Court of Australia in Chen Shi Hai v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affair,
170ALR553,2000.
3The Court of Appeal of Britain in Holub&Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department, EWCA Civ343,
20December2000.
4The Court of Appeal of Britain in Popik v Secretary of State for the Home Department, EWCA Civ19360,9
5July1999.Mark Symes, Peter Jorro, Adrian Berry, Asylum Law and Practice, Bloomsbery Professional Press,2010, p.133.
2EC Council, EC Council Directive2004/83/EC on Minimum Standards for the Qualification and Status of ThirdCountry Nationals or Stateless Persons as Refugees or as Persons who Otherwise need International Protection andthe Content of the Protection Granted, Ariticle4.1.c.
34Stuart-Smith LJ in Demirkaya v. Secretary of State for the Home Department,1999, Imm AR498.The European Court on Human Rights sitting as a Grand Chamber in Selmouni v France, Application No.25803/94,28July1999.
5Madjwick J in Duzkiker v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs,1999FCA391,31March2000.
6Pregerson CJ in the US Court of Appeals in Maini v Immigration and Naturalization Service, No.98-70894,9thCir,2000.
1Hemme Battjes, European Asylum Law and International Law, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden/Boston,2006, p.142.
2Hemme Battjes, European Asylum Law and International Law, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden/Boston,2006, p.143.EC Council, EC Council Directive2004/83/EC on Minimum Standards for the Qualification and Status of ThirdCountry Nationals or Stateless Persons as Refugees or as Persons who Otherwise need International Protection andthe Content of the Protection Granted, Ariticle9.2.
5Mark Symes, Peter Jorro, Adrian Berry, Asylum Law and Practice, Bloomsbery Professional Press,2010, p.148.
6Mark Symes, Peter Jorro, Adrian Berry, Asylum Law and Practice, Bloomsbery Professional Press,2010, p.149.
1McHugh J in the High Court of Australia in Chan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs,1989,169CLR
379.
1许崇德主编：《中华法学大辞典》（宪法卷），中国检察出版社1995年版，第880页。
6梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版，第76页。71948年《防止及惩治灭绝种族罪公约》第2条：“本公约内所称灭绝种族系指蓄意全部或局部消灭某一民
4梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版，第88页。
4王虎华主编：《国际公法学》（第三版），北京大学出版社2008年版，第105页。
6梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版，第89页。
2梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版，第89页。
4联合国难民署编：《甄别难民地位的程序与标准手册》（中文本），1995年版，第12页。转引自梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版，第92页。
7Maryjoleine Zieck, UNHCR and Voluntary Repatriation of Refugee: A Legal Analysis, Martinue NijhoffPublishers,1997, p.53.
4古兰·梅伦德尔：《第56号研究报告：索马里难民》，斯堪的纳维亚非洲研究所，1980年，第31页。转引自梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版，第101页。
3【英】劳特派特修订，王铁崖等译，《奥本海国际法》（上卷第二分册）商务印书馆，1972年12月第1版，第169页
2梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版，第105页。
1《国际军事法庭审判德国首要战犯判决书》，汤宗舜、江左译，世界知识出版社，1995年版，第20页。
2Henry Lj in the New Zealand Court of Appeal in S v Refugee Status Appeals Authority,1998, NZLR91.
4联合国难民署编：《难民》（中文本），2001年，总第123期，第15页。转引自梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版，第129页。
1梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版，第130页。
4梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版，第135页。
1联合国难民署执行委员会，《关于难民国际保护问题的结论》（中文本），1985年版，第14-15页。
3梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版，第146页。
1G. Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee in International Law, Oxford: Clarendon Press,1996, p.332
1JAMES C. HATHAWAY, Leveraging Asylum, TEXAS INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL, VOL.45,2010, p.
503.21951年《难民公约》第33条第1款。
1P. WEIS, United Nations Declaration on Territorial Asylum, The Canadian Yearbook of International Law,1969,p118; PATRICK DELOUVIN, The Evolution of Asylum in France, Journal of Refugee Studies, Vol.13, No.1,2000, p.63.
2梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版，第219页。
1See Soering v. United Kingdom (1989),98ILR270, at para.88; Cruz Varas v. Sweden (1991)108ILR283, atpara.69and Vilvarajah v. United Kingdom (1991)108ILR321, at paras.73-74and79-81; Chahal v. UnitedKingdom (1997),108ILR385, at para.75; Ahmed v. Austria (1997),24EHRR278, at paras.39-40; T.I. v. UnitedKingdom, Application No.43844/98, Decision as to Admissibility,7March2000, at p.15.
2王虎华主编：《国际公法学》（第三版），北京大学出版社2008年版，第468页。
3Thomas Gammeltoft-Hansen, Access to Asylum: International Refugee Law and the Globalisation of MigrationControl, Cambridge University Press,2011, p.50.
1UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES, THE SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THEPRINCIPLE OF NON-REFOULEMENT,20June2001, Available online at: http://www.unhcr.org/419c75ce
4.html,(Last visited on June14,2012,8:10P.M.). para.59, p.22.
2国际法委员会《国家责任条款草案》第6条规定：“由另一国交由一国支配的机关，若为行使支配该机关
4Protection of Refugees in Mass Influx Situations: Overall Protection Framework, EC/GC/01/4,19February2001, at paragraph6.
2Application No.43844/98, T.I. v. United Kingdom, decision of the European Court of Human Rights of7March2000(unreported), at pp.15-16.
3Lorne Waldman, Canadian Immigration&Refugee Law Practice, LexisNexis Canada Inc.2011, p.598.
1Grahl-Madsen A, Commentary on the Refugee Convention1951, reprinted by UNHCR, Geneva,1997, pp.235-256.
2Paul Weis, The Refugee Convention, Cambridge University Press,1995, p.342.
1James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees Under International Law, Cambridge University Press,2005, p.764.
1James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees Under International Law, Cambridge University Press,2005, p.786.
2UNHCR, Information Note on Implementation of the1951Convention and the1967protocol relating to theStatus of Refugees, UN Doc. EC/SCP/66, July22,1991, at para.84.
3Grahl-Madsen A, Commentary on the Refugee Convention1951, reprinted by UNHCR, Geneva,1997, p.78.
1James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees Under International Law, Cambridge University Press,2005, p.800.
2U.S. Committee for refugees, world refugee survey,2003, p.102.
3James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees Under International Law, Cambridge University Press,2005, p.806.
1A. Obondoh, Economic Inequalities and Social Exclusion-The Core Objects of the structural Reform Agenda,Eco News Africa, Nov.2001.
2James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees Under International Law, Cambridge University Press,2005, p.809.
3Paul Weis, The Refugee Convention, Cambridge University Press,1995, p.163.
5James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees Under International Law, Cambridge University Press,2005, p.825.
11966年《经济、社会和文化权利国际公约》第11条第1款规定：“第十一条：一、本公约缔约围确认人人有权享受其本人及家属所需之适当生活程度，包括适当之衣食住及不断改善之生活环境。缔约国将采取适当步骤确保此种权利之实现，同时确认在此方面基于自由同意之国际合作极为重要。”
2UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No.4: The Right to adequatehousing,1991, UN Doc. HRI/GEN/1/1Rev.7, May12,2004, at19, para.7.
3UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No.4: The Right to adequatehousing,1991, UN Doc. HRI/GEN/1/1Rev.7, May12,2004, at19, para.8.
4James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees Under International Law, Cambridge University Press,2005, p.834.
1Statement of Sir Leslie Brass of the United Kingdom at the session of the Ad Hoc Committee, UN Doc.E/AC.32/SR.10, Jan.24,1950, p.9.21951年《难民公约》第7条第1款：“除本公约载有更有利的规定外，缔约国应给予难民以一般外国人所获得的待遇。。”
3梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版，第52页。
1UNHCR, Note on follow-up to the earlier Conclusion of the Executive Committee on Travel Documents forRefugees, UN Doc. EC/SCP/48, July3,1987, at para.2.
2James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees Under International Law, Cambridge University Press,2005, p.846.
1Statement of Mr. Hoeg of Denmark, UN Doc. A/CONF.2/SR.17, July12,1951, p.9.
2M. Mubanga-Chipoya, Analysis of the current trends and developments regarding the right to leave any countryincluding one’s own, and to return to one’s own country, and to some other rights or considerations arisingtherefrom, UN Doc. E/CN.4Sub.2/1987/10, at21ff.
3M. Nowak, UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,1993,(Nowak, ICCPR Commentary), p.204.
1J. Sorenson, Opposition, Exile and Identity: The Eritrean Case, Journal of Refugee Studies, Vol.3,1990, p.313.
2M. Castillo and J. Hathaway, Temporary protection, in Reconceiving International Refugee Law (Edited by J.Hathaway), Kluwer Law International,1997, p.11.
3P. Van Arsdale, The Role of Mutual Assistance Associations in Refugee Acculturation and Service Delivery, inSelected Papers on Refugee Issues II (Edited by M. Hopkins and N. Donnelly), American AnthropologicalAssociation,1993, p.156.
4James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees Under International Law, Cambridge University Press,2005, p.876.
5UNHCR, Information Note on Implementation of the1951Convention and the1967protocol relating to theStatus of Refugees, UN Doc. EC/SCP/66, July22,1991, at para.76.
6梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版，第188页。
7王铁崖主编；《国际法》，法律出版社1995年版，第180页。
1梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版，第188页。
1James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees Under International Law, Cambridge University Press,2005, p.910.
1General Assembly, Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, GA, Res.38/121,A/38/PV.100,16Dec.1983, para.8.
2International Organization for Migration, International Migration Law Glossary On Migration, InternationalOrganization for Migration Publisher,2004, p.36.
3梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版，第373页。
4James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees Under International Law, Cambridge University Press,2005, p.917.
1UNHCR, Handbook on voluntary repatriation: international protection, Available online at: http://www.unhcr.org/publ/PUBL/3bfe68d32.pdf,(Last visited on August24,2012,8:10P.M.), p.11.
2James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees Under International Law, Cambridge University Press,2005, p.953.
3James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees Under International Law, Cambridge University Press,2005, p.958.
4B. Stein, Policy Challenges Regarding Repatriation in the1990s: Is1992the Year for Voluntary Repatriation?Research Paper of Oxford Refugee Studies Centre, United Kingdom,1993.
1Another800refugee to return home to Burundi, UN Integrated Regional Information Networks, May30,2002;Thousands of Angolan refugees living in Zambia return home, SAPA-AP, June13,2002.
2P. Weis, The Concept of the Refugee in International Law, Journal du Droit International, Vol.87,1960, p.978.
3James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees Under International Law, Cambridge University Press,2005, pp.
961-963.
1International Organization for Migration, International Migration Law Glossary On Migration, InternationalOrganization for Migration Publisher,2004, p.55.
2梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版，第373页。
4Grahl-Madsen A, Commentary on the Refugee Convention1951, reprinted by UNHCR, Geneva,1997, p.224.
1James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees Under International Law, Cambridge University Press,2005, p.986.
2James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees Under International Law, Cambridge University Press,2005, p.990.
1梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版，第269页。
2梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版，第270页。
1James D Seymour, China: Background Paper on the Situation of North Koreans in China, Writenet IndependentAnalysis,2005, Available online at:www.ilw.com/lawyers/articles/2005,0629-northkorean.pdf,(Last visited on11September,2012), p.11.
3Tom Malinowski, Advancing Human Rights in North Korea: Testimony by Tom Malinowski Before the USSenate Committee on Foreign Relations (2003), available online at: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/03/02/usint7793_txt.htm(Last visited on September82012,5:00P.M.,).
4Amnesty International, Starved of Rights: Human Rights and the Food Crisis in the Democratic People'sRepublic of Korea,2004, p.13.
1Amnesty International, Starved of Rights: Human Rights and the Food Crisis in the Democratic People'sRepublic of Korea,2004, pp.6-11.
5David Hawk, The Hidden Gulag Exposing North Korea's Prison Camps: Prisoners' Testimonies and SatellitePhotographs, US Committee for Human Rights in North Korea,2003, p.15; Amnesty International, Starved of
6Rights: Human Rights and the Food Crisis in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea,2004, p.22, p.31.Lee Keum soon, Cross-Border Movement of North Korean Citizens, East Asian Review, Vol.16(1), pp.45-46;Amnesty International, Starved of Rights: Human Rights and the Food Crisis in the Democratic People's Republicof Korea,2004, p.28.
7UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: Democratic People'sRepublic of Korea, UN Doc CCPR/CO/72/PRK (2001), para.19.
1Lord Hylton, Hansard Volume (House of Lords Debates), House of Lords vol.660(70)(21Apr.2004), Column
304; Hyde, North Korean Human Rights Act of2004, House of Representatives Report108-478, Session2(2004),p.15; Lord Alton of Liverpool, Hansard Volume (House of Lords Debates), House of Lords vol.660(70)(21Apr.2004), Column295.
2James D Seymour, China: Background Paper on the Situation of North Koreans in China (2005),19, WritenetIndependent Analysis,2005, available at www.ilw.com/lawyers/articles/2005,0629-northkorean.pdf (11September,2012).
1Elim Chan, North Korean Refugees and International Refugee Law, International Journal of Refugee Law, Vol.Lord Alton of Liverpool Hansard Volume (House of Lords Debates), House of Lords vol.660(70)(21Apr.2004),Column295.
3Vitit Muntarbhorn, Question of the Violation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom in Any Part of theWorld: Situation of Human Rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, UN Doc E/CN.4/2005/34,2005,p.5.
1Vitit Muntarbhorn, Question of the Violation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom in Any Part of theWorld: Situation of Human Rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, UN Doc E/CN.4/2005/34,2005,p.11, p.14.
1United Nations, Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees,28July1951(189UNTS150); UNHCRRefWorld, Issue13,2004, Vol.2; United Nations, Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees,31January1967
(606UNTS267), UNHCR RefWorld, Issue13,2004, Vol.2;另见王虎华主编：《国际公法学》（第三版），北京大学出版社2008年版，第140页。
2联合国，1951年《难民公约》，第1条第1款第2项。
3JAMES C. HATHAWAY, Leveraging Asylum, TEXAS INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL, VOL.45,2010, p.503.
2王虎华主编：《国际公法学》（第三版），北京大学出版社2008年版，第477页。
31966年《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》第9条第1款；第7条；第16条。
1梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版，第259页。
11985《外国人出入境管理法》第31条。22012《中华人民共和国出境入境管理法》第89条。
1联合国，1951年《难民公约》，第1条第1款第2项。
2梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版，第146页。
3联合国难民署执行委员会，《确定难民的地位》，1977年第8号决议，转引自梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版，第146页。
1、梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版。
2、【意】安东尼奥·卡塞斯著，蔡从燕等译，《国际法》，法律出版社，2009年10月第1版。
3、【英】劳特派特修订，王铁崖等译，《奥本海国际法》（上卷第二分册）商务印书馆，1972年12月第1版。
4、周鲠生著：《国际法》，商务印书馆，1976年5月第1版。
5、【英】詹宁斯瓦茨修订，王铁崖、李适时等译，《奥本海国际法》（第一卷，第二分册），中国大百科全书出版社，1998年4月第1版。
6、汤宗舜、江左译，《国际军事法庭审判德国首要战犯判决书》，世界知识出版社，1995年版。
1、王铁崖主编：《国际法》，法律出版社，1981年7月第1版。
2、王虎华主编：《国际公法学》（第三版），北京大学出版社2008年版。
3、梁西主编：《国际法》，武汉大学出版社，2004年4月第2版。
4、周忠海主编：《国际法》，中国政法大学出版社，2004年9月第1版。
5、邵沙平主编：《国际法》，中国人民大学出版社，2007年1月第1版。
6、曾令良、饶戈平主编：《国际法》，法律出版社，2005年6月第1版。
7、邵津主编：《国际法》，北京大学出版社和高等教育出版社，2008年12月第3版。
8、程晓霞、余民才主编：《国际法》，中国人民大学出版社，2011年6月第4版。
9、日本国际法学会编，外交学院国际法教研室译，《国际法辞典》，世界知识出版社，1985年5月第1版。
10、徐显明：《国际人权法》，法律出版社，2004年版。
11、联合国难民署编：《甄别难民地位的程序与标准手册》（中文本），1995年版。
12、许光建主编：《联合国宪章诠释》，山西教育出版社1999年版。
13、联合国难民署：《难民》（中文本），2001年，总第123期。
14、联合国难民署执行委员会，《关于难民国际保护问题的结论》（中文本），1985年版。
15、联合国难民署编：《与难民地位申请人的面谈》（中文本），1996年版，第15页。
1、王虎华：《论国家主权与国际人权的辩证关系》，载《华东政法学院学报》2002年第5期。
2、郝鲁怡：《欧盟难民与庇护一体化法律制度研究》，载《河北法学》，2010年7月第7期。
3、薄燕：《对环境被迫移民问题的若干思考》，载《国际论坛》，2006年3月第2期。
4、甘开鹏：《二战后国际难民政策的历史演变》，载《海南师范大学学报》（社会科学版），2010年第5期。
5、徐军华、李若翰：《论国际法语境下的“环境难民”》，载《国际论坛》，2011年1月第1期。
6、甘开鹏：《论难民国际保护的基本原则》，载《重庆工商大学学报》（社会科学版），2010年第2期。
7、秦炜：《论我国对难民的法律保护》，中国政法大学硕士学位论文。
8、张爱宁：《难民保护面临的国际法问题及对策》，载《政法论坛》，2007年第6期。
9、任平丽：《难民不推回原则研究》，外交学院2008级硕士研究生学位论文。
10、钟俊辉：《难民权利保护问题研究》，西南政法大学硕士研究生学位论文。
1、丁补之，《沉默群体：30万难民在中国》，《南方周末》，2009年10月15日，网址：http://www.infzm.com/content/35919/1.
1.网易，《难民，怎样帮助国家的邻居》，2011年6月20日发布，网址：http://news.163.com/11/0620/03/76VA507700014JHT.html.
2.韩联网，《日媒：中国政府已中断脱北者强制遣返》，2012年4月18日发布，网址：http://chinese.yonhapnews.co.kr/international/2012/04/18/0304000000ACK20120418001200881.HTML
3.联合国人权高级专员办事处网站中国专页，网址：http://www.ohchr.org/CH/Countries/AsiaRegion/Pages/CNIndex.aspx
1. United States, ex rel. Donnelly v. Mulligan, U.S. Marshal,72Fed.2d.220,(1934), pp.220-223.
2. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v.United States of America), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, ICJ Reports1984.
3. New Zealand Refugee Status Appeals Authority in Refugee Appeal No.17/92Re SSS(9July1992).
4. High Court of Australia, Minister for Immigration Ethnic Affairs v. Guo,144ALR567,1997.
5. Keene L. J in the Court of Appeal of Britain in Nenni v. Secretary of State forthe Home Department, EWCA Civ1077,26July2004.
6. De Monigny J in the Federal Court of Canada in Christopher v. CanadaMinister of Citizenship and Immigration,2005FC730,20May,2005.
7. Canales-Vargas v. Gonzales, US9thCircuit Court of Appeals, Case No.03-71737.
8. New Zealand Refugee Status Appeals Authority in Appeal No.135/92, Re RS,27August1991.
9. Joint Judgment of High Court of Australia in Chen Shi Hai v Minister forImmigration and Multicultural Affair,170ALR553,2000.
10. The Court of Appeal of Britain in Holub&Anor v Secretary of State for theHome Department, EWCA Civ343,20December2000.
11. The Court of Appeal of Britain in Popik v Secretary of State for the HomeDepartment, EWCA Civ19360,9July1999.
12. Stuart-Smith LJ in Demirkaya v. Secretary of State for the Home Department,1999, Imm AR498.
13. The European Court on Human Rights sitting as a Grand Chamber inSelmouni v France, Application No.25803/94,28July1999.
14. Madjwick J in Duzkiker v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs,1999FCA391,31March2000.
15. Pregerson CJ in the US Court of Appeals in Maini v Immigration andNaturalization Service, No.98-70894,9thCir,2000.
16. McHugh J in the High Court of Australia in Chan v Minister for Immigrationand Ethnic Affairs,1989,169CLR379.
17. MacGuigan JA in Musial v Minister of Employment and Immigration,1FC290,1981.
18. McHugh J in the High Court of Australia in Applicant A v Minister forImmigration and Ethnic Affairs,190CLR225,1997.
19. Henry Lj in the New Zealand Court of Appeal in S v Refugee Status AppealsAuthority,1998, NZLR91.
20. Soering v. United Kingdom (1989),98ILR270.
21. Cruz Varas v. Sweden (1991)108ILR283.
22. Vilvarajah v. United Kingdom (1991)108ILR321.
23. Chahal v. United Kingdom (1997),108ILR385.
24. Ahmed v. Austria (1997),24EHRR278.
25. T.I. v. United Kingdom, Application No.43844/98, Decision as toAdmissibility,7March2000.
1. Thomas Gammeltoft-Hansen, Access to Asylum: International Refugee Lawand the Globalisation of Migration Control, Cambridge University Press,2011.
2. Daniele Joly, Global Changes in Asylum Regimes, Palgrave Macmillan Ltd,2002.
3. Manuel R. Garcia-Mora, International Law and Asylum as a Human Right,Public Affair Press, Washington, D. C.1956.
4. Hemme Battjes, European Asylum Law and International Law, MartinusNijhoff Publishers, Leiden/Boston,2006.
5. James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees Under International Law,Cambridge University Press,2005.
6. Mjchelle Foster, International Refugee Law and Socio-Economic Rights:Refuge from Deprivation, Cambridge University Press,2007.
7. Agnes Hurwitz, The Collective Responsibility of States to Protect Refugees,Oxford Universtity Press,2009.
8. Carol Bohmer, Amy Shuman, Rejecting Refugees: Political Asylum in the21st Century, Routledge Publisher,2008.
9. Rosemary Byrne, Gregor Noll, Jens Vedsted-Hansen, New Asylum Countries?Migration Control and Refugee Protection in an Enlarged Europan Union, KluwerLaw International, The Hague/London/New York,2002.
10. Lorne Waldman, Canadian Immigration&Refugee Law Practice, LexisNexisCanada Inc.2011.
11. Mark Symes, Peter Jorro, Adrian Berry, Asylum Law and Practice,Bloomsbery Professional Press,2010.
12. Mark Gibney, Certain Violence, Uncertain Protection, in Global Changes inAsylum Regimes, Daniele Joly edited, Palgrave Macmillan Ltd,2002.
13. International Organization for Migration, International Migration LawGlossary On Migration, International Organization for Migration Publisher,2004.
14. A. Obondoh, Economic Inequalities and Social Exclusion-The Core Objectsof the structural Reform Agenda, Eco News Africa, Nov.2001.
15. M. Mubanga-Chipoya, Analysis of the current trends and developmentsregarding the right to leave any country including one’s own, and to return to one’sown country, and to some other rights or considerations arising therefrom, UN Doc.E/CN.4Sub.2/1987/10.
16. G. Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee in International Law, Oxford: Clarendon Press,1996.
17. M. Nowak, UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,1993,(Nowak,ICCPR Commentary).
18. James. C. Hathaway, The Law of Refugee Status, Butterworths,1991.
19. Paul Weis, The Refugee Convention, Cambridge University Press,1995.
20. Grahl-Madsen A, Commentary on the Refugee Convention1951, reprintedby UNHCR, Geneva,1997.
21. Ulrich Sinn, Greek Sanctuaries as Places of Refuge, in Greek Sanctuaries:New Approaches. Edited by NANNO MARINATOS and ROBIN HXGG. London andNew York: Routledge1993.
22. Emer De Vattel, The Law of Nations or The Principles Of Natural Law,(Charles G.Fenwick Trans.), Slatkine Reprints-Henry Dunant Institute1983.
23. David Hawk, The Hidden Gulag Exposing North Korea's Prison Camps:Prisoners' Testimonies and Satellite Photographs, US Committee for Human Rights inNorth Korea,2003.
24. Amnesty International, Starved of Rights: Human Rights and the Food Crisisin the Democratic People's Republic of Korea,2004
25. Grahl-Madsen, The status of refugee in international law, Volume II,Leyden:A.W. Sijthoff1972.
26. G. Noll, Negotiating Asylum, The Hague: Nijhoff Publishers2000.
27. Bouteillet-Paquet, L’ Europe et le droit d’ asile, Paris: l’ Harmattan,2001.
28. J. Brierly, The Law Of Nations (4th Ed),1949.
29. A. Grahl-Madsen, The Status of Refugees in International Law (Vol. II),Leiden: Sijthoff,1972.
30. S.P. Sinha, Asylum and International Law, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff,1971.
31. Maurice Kamto, Third report on the expulsion of aliens, U.N. Doc.A/CN.4/581.
32. Vitit Muntarbhorn, Question of the Violation of Human Rights andFundamental Freedom in Any Part of the World: Situation of Human Rights in theDemocratic People's Republic of Korea, UN Doc E/CN.4/2005/34,2005.
33. D.Vanheule, A comparison of the judicial interpretations of the notionrefugee, in Europe and Refugee: A challenge? The Hague: Kluwer Law International,1997.
34. Maryjoleine Zieck, UNHCR and Voluntary Repatriation of Refugee: A LegalAnalysis, Martinue Nijhoff Publishers,1997.
1. G S Goodwin-Gill and J McAdam, The Refugee in Internaitonal Law(3rdedn), Oxford University Press, Oxford2007.
2. UNHCR, Information Note on Implementation of the1951Convention andthe1967protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, UN Doc. EC/SCP/66, July22,1991.
3. UNHCR, OAS General Assembly: an Inter-American Initiative on Regugee,Refugees,1986, Vol.27.
4. State Department of U.S.A, Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of theUnited States (Third)§701, Reporters’ Notes4-6,1987.
5. UN Human Rights Committee,“General Comment No.31: The nature of thegeneral legal obligations of states parties to the Covenant”,2004, UN Doc.HRI/GEN/1/Rev.7, May12,2004.
6. Lauterpacht, E., ed., international law: The Collected Papers of HerschLauterpacht, Cambridge University Press,1970.
7. Amnesty International, Starved of Rights: Human Rights and the Food Crisisin the Democratic People's Republic of Korea,2004.
1. Gretchen Borchelt, THE SAFE THIRD COUNTRY PRACTICE IN THEEUROPEAN UNION: A MISGUIDED APPROACH TO ASYLUM LAW AND AVIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS STANDARDS, ColumbiaHuman Rights Law Review,2002, Vol.33.
2. Jari Pirjola, European Asylum Policy: Inclusions and Exclusions under theSurface of Universal Human Rights Language, European Journal of Migration andLaw, Vol.11,2009.
3. PATRICK DELOUVIN, The Evolution of Asylum in France, Journal ofRefugee Studies, Vol.13, No.1,2000.
4. AOIFE DUFFY, Expulsion to Face Torture? Non-refoulement inInternationalLaw, International Journal of Refugee Law,2008, Vol.20.
5. ALICE EDWARDS, Human Rights, Refugees, and the Right to EnjoyAsylum, International Journal of Refugee Law,2005, Vol.17.
6. E. Lauterpacht and D. Bethlehem,‘The Scope and Content of the Principle ofNon-Refoulement’, in E. Feller, V. Türk, F. Nicholson (eds.), Refugee Protection inInternational Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2003.
7. MATTHEW E. PRICE, Politics or Humanitarianism: Recovering thePolitical Roots of Asylum, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal,2004-2005, Vol.19.
8. M. G. KALADHARAN NAYAR, Right of Asylum in International Law： ItsStatus and Prospects, SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL,1972, Vol.17.
9. Gregor Noll, SEEKING ASYLUM AT EMBASSIES: A RIGHT TO ENTRYUNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW? International Journal of Refugee Law,2005, Vol.17.
10. Morgenstern F, Diplomatic Asylum, The Law Quarterly Review,1951, Vol.67
11. Violeta Moreno-Lax, SEEKING ASYLUM IN THE MEDITERRANEAN:AGAINST A FRAGMENTARY READING OF EU MEMBER STATES'OBLIGATIONS ACCRUING AT SEA, International Journal of Refugee Law, July,2011, Vol.23.
12. Tom Malinowski, Advancing Human Rights in North Korea: Testimony byTom Malinowski Before the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations (2003),available online at: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/03/02/usint7793_txt.htm
13. Inna Nazarova, ALIENATING “HUMAN” FROM “RIGHT”: U.S. AND UKNON-COMPLIANCE WITH ASYLUM OBLIGATIONS UNDERINTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, Fordham International Law Journal,Vol.25.2002.
14. E. Haddad, The refugee: the individual between sovereigns, Global Society,Vol.17,2003.
15. P. WEIS, United Nations Declaration on Territorial Asylum, The CanadianYearbook of International Law,1969.
16. Daniel Kanstroom, Wer Sind Wir Wieder? Laws of Asylum, Immigration,and Citizenship in the Struggle for the Soul of the New Germany, YALE JOURNALOF INTERNATIONAL LAW, Vol.18,1993.
17. JAMES C. HATHAWAY, Leveraging Asylum, TEXAS INTERNATIONALLAW JOURNAL, VOL.45,2010.
18. Elim Chan, North Korean Refugees and International Refugee Law,International Journal of Refugee Law, Vol.19,2007, IJRL200719(215)
19. ALBERTA FABBRICOTTI, The Concept of Inhuman or DegradingTreatment in International Law and its Application in Aslum Cases, InternationalJournal of Refugee Law,1998, Vol.10.
20. US CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES–ASYLUMDIVISION, ASYLUM OFFICER BASIC TRAINING COURSE, InternationalHuman Rights Law, MARCH1,2005.
21. Martin, Refugees and Migration, United Nations Legal Order, Vol.1,Schachter and Joyner, eds, Cambridge University Press,1995.
22. J. Sorenson, Opposition, Exile and Identity: The Eritrean Case, Journal ofRefugee Studies, Vol.3,1990.
23. US CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES–ASYLUMDIVISION, ASYLUM OFFICER BASIC TRAINING COURSE, ELIGIBILITYPART I: DEFINITIONS; PAST PERSECUTION, MARCH6,2009.
24. ROMAN BOED, THE STATE OF THE RIGHT OF ASYLUM ININTERNATIONAL LAW, DUKE JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE&INTERNATIONAL LAW, Vol.5,1994-1995.
25. P. Van Arsdale, The Role of Mutual Assistance Associations in RefugeeAcculturation and Service Delivery, in Selected Papers on Refugee Issues II (Editedby M. Hopkins and N. Donnelly), American Anthropological Association,1993.
26. S. Riveles, Diplomatic Asylum as a Human Right: The Case of the DurbanSix, Human Rights Quarterly,1989, Vol.11.
27. L.H. Legault, Canadian Practice in International Law during1979asReflected Mainly in Public Correspondence and Statements of the Department ofExternal Affairs, Canadian Yearbook of International Law,1980, Vol.18.
28. C.V. Cole, Is There Safe Refuge in Canadian Missions Abroad? InternationalJournal of Refugee Law,1997, Vol.9.
29. P. Porcino, Toward Codification of Diplomatic Asylum, New York UniversityJournal of International Law and Politics,1976, Vol.8.
30. B. Simma and P. Alston, The Sources of Human Rights Law: Custom, JusCogens, and General Principles, The Year Book of International Law, Vol.12,1988-1989, p.82.
31. A.M. Rossitto, Diplomatic Asylum in the United States and Latin America: AComparative Analysis, Brooklyn Journal of International Law,1987, Vol.13.
32. M. Weiner, Ethics, national sovereignty and the control of immigration,International Migration Review, Vol.30,1996.
33. Clive Walker&Russell L. Weaver, The United Kingdom Bill of Rights1998:The Modernization of Rights in the Old World, U. Mich. J. L. Reform, Vol.33,2000.
34. D.W. Greig, The Protection of Refugees and Customary International Law,Australian Year Book of International Law,1983, Vol.8.
35. James D Seymour, China: Background Paper on the Situation of NorthKoreans in China, Writenet Independent Analysis,2005,:www.ilw.com/lawyers/articles/2005,0629-northkorean.pdf.
36. Lee Keum soon, Cross-Border Movement of North Korean Citizens, EastAsian Review, Vol.16(1).
37. James L. Taulbee, POLITICAL CRIMES, HUMAN RIGHTS ANDCONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL PRACTICE, Emory International LawReview, Vol.4,1990.
38. Erika Feller, THE EVOLUTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL REFUGEEPROTECTION REGIME, Washington University Journal of Law and Policy, Vol.5,2001.
39. Matthew Lippman, CIVIL RESISTANCE: THE DICTATES OFCONSCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL LAW VERSUS THE AMERICANJUDICIARY, Florida Journal of International Law, Vol.6,1990.
40. Martin J. Friedman, Criminal Responsibility and the Political Offender, THEAMERICAN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW, Vol.24,1974-1975.
41. Linda J. Kleb, A WELL-FOUNDED FEAR OF PERSECUTION—ADDINGSUBSTANCE TO THE ELUSIVE STANDARDS OF THE1980REFUGEE ACTINS v. CARDOZA-FONSECA,107S.CT.1207(1987), Hamline Journal of PublicLaw and Policy, Vol.9,1988.
42. Shauna Labman, LOOKING BACK, MOVING FORWARD: THEHISTORY AND FUTURE OF REFUGEE PROTECTION, Chicago-Kent Journal ofInternational and Comparative Law, Vol.10,2010.
43. Christine E. Cervasio, EXTRADITION AND THE INTERNATIONALCRIMINAL COURT: THE FUTURE OF THE POLITICAL OFFENSE DOCTRINE,Pace International Law Review, Vol.11,1999.
44. Ode, Paul H. Jr, SECTION243(h) OF THE IMMIGRATION ANDNATIONALITY ACT OF1952AS AMENDED BY THE REFUGEE ACT OF1980:A PROGNOSIS AND A PROPOSAL, COPNELL INTERNATIONAL LAWJOUNAL, Vol.13,1980.
45. Nadia Yakoob, POLITICAL OFFENDER OR SERIOUS CRIMINAL?CHALLENGING THE INTERPRETATION OF "SERIOUS, NONPOLITICALCRIMES" IN INS V. AGUIRRE-AGUIRRE, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal,Vol.14,2000.
46. Walter K?lin, NON-STATE AGENTS OF PERSECUTION AND THEINABILITY OF THE STATE TO PROTECT, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal,Vol.15,2001.
47. Barry Gilbert, THE RIGHT OF ASYLUM IN THE LEGATIONS OF THEUNITED STATES IN CENTRAL AND SOUTH AMERICA, Harvard Law Review,Vol.15,1901.
48. Jennifer M. Corey, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE v.DOHERTY: THE POLITICS OF EXTRADITION, DEPORTATION, AND ASYLUM,Maryland Journal of International Law and Trade, Vol.16,1992.
49. Keith D. Nunes, DETENTIONS OF POLITICAL, RACIAL ANDRELIGIOUS PERSECUTEES AND DISSENTERS: ASYLUM AND HUMANDIGNITY, New York Law School Journal of Human Rights, Vol.16,2000.
50. Barbara Ann Banoff, Christopher H. Pyle,"TO SURRENDER POLITICALOFFENDERS": THE POLITICAL OFFENSE EXCEPTION TO EXTRADITION INUNITED STATES LAW, New York University Journal of International Law&Politics, Vol.16,1984.
51. Yen Tran, THE CLOSING OF THE SAGA OF THE VIETNAMESEASYLUM SEEKERS: THE IMPLICATIONS ON IN-TERNATIONAL REFUGEESAND HUMAN RIGHTS LAWS, Houston Journal of International Law, Vol.17,1995.
52. Pamela Loughman, CARRON v. MCMAHON: THE WIDENING SCOPEOF THE POLITICAL OFFENSE EXCEPTION TO EXTRADITION, BrooklynJournal of International Law, Vol.18,1992.
53. PATRICK DELOUVIN, Evolution of Asylum in France, Journal of RefugeeStudies, Vol.13, No.1,2000.
54. Gilbert Jaeger, Refugee Asylum: Policy and Legislative Developments,International Migration Review, Vol.15, No.1/2,1981.
55. Matthew E. Price, POLITICS OR HUMANITARIANISM? RECOVERINGTHE POLITICAL ROOTS OF ASYLUM, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, Vol.19,2005.
56. VALERIE EPPS, The Validity of the Political Offender Exception inExtradition Treaties in Anglo-American Jurisprudencet, Harvard International LawJournal, VOLUME20, Num.1, WINTER I979.
57. Michael J. Parrish, REDEFINING THE REFUGEE: THE UNIVERSALDECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AS A BASIS FOR REFUGEEPROTECTION, Cardozo Law Review, Vol.22, November,2000.
58. Alexandra McGinley, THE AFTERMATH OF THE NATO BOMBING:APPROACHES FOR ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM OF SERBIANCONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS, Fordham International Law Journal, Vol.23,2000.
59. Alyce S. Ahn, PROSECUTION OR PERSECUTION: CONTRADICTIONSBETWEEN U.S. FOREIGN POLICY&THE ADJUDICATION OF ASYLUMCLAIMS INVOLVING THE HARBORING OF NORTH KOREAN REFUGEES,Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, Vol.24,2010.
60. Maryellen Fullerton, A COMPARATIVE LOOK AT REFUGEE STATUSBASED ON PERSECUTION DUE TO MEMBERSHIP IN A PARTICULARSOCIAL GROUP, Cornell International Law Journal, Vol.26,1993.
61. Captain Richard L. Fruchterman, ASYLUM: THEORY AND PRACTICE,JAG Journal, Vol.26,1972.
62. Michael G. Heyman, IMMIGRATION LAW IN THE SUPREME COURT:THE FLAGGING SPIRIT OF THE LAW, Journal of Legislation, Vol.28,2002.
63. Jeffrey Dillman, INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE AND ASYLUM LAW,Howard Law Journal, Vol.34,1991.
64. Michelle N. Lewis, THE POLITICAL-OFFENSE EXCEPTION:RECONCILING THE TENSION BETWEEN HUMAN RIGHTS ANDINTERNATIONAL PUBLIC ORDER, George Washington Law Review, Vol.63,1995.
65. Craig A. Fielden, PERSECUTION ON ACCOUNT OF POLITICALOPINION:“REFUGEE” STATUS AFTER INS v. ELIAS-ZACARIAS,112S. CT.812(1992), Washington Law Review, Vol.67,1992.
66. Louise W. Holborn, The Legal Status of Political Refugees,1920-1938, TheAmerican Journal of International Law, Vol.32, No.4,1938.
67. Daniel J. Steinbock, INTERPRETING THE REFUGEE DEFINITION,UCLA Law Review, Vol.45,1998.
68. M. G. KALADHARAN NAYAR, Right of Asylum in International Law： ItsStatus and Prospects, SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL, Vol.17,1972.
69. James L. Taulbee, POLITICAL CRIMES, HUMAN RIGHTS ANDCONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL PRACTICE, Emory International LawReview, Vol.4,1990.
70. Erika Feller, THE EVOLUTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL REFUGEEPROTECTION REGIME, Washington University Journal of Law and Policy, Vol.5,2001.
71. Matthew Lippman, CIVIL RESISTANCE: THE DICTATES OFCONSCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL LAW VERSUS THE AMERICANJUDICIARY, Florida Journal of International Law, Vol.6,1990.
72. Martin J. Friedman, Criminal Responsibility and the Political Offender, THEAMERICAN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW, Vol.24,1974-1975.
73. Linda J. Kleb, A WELL-FOUNDED FEAR OF PERSECUTION—ADDINGSUBSTANCE TO THE ELUSIVE STANDARDS OF THE1980REFUGEE ACTINS v. CARDOZA-FONSECA,107S.CT.1207(1987), Hamline Journal of PublicLaw and Policy, Vol.9,1988.
74. Shauna Labman, LOOKING BACK, MOVING FORWARD: THEHISTORY AND FUTURE OF REFUGEE PROTECTION, Chicago-Kent Journal ofInternational and Comparative Law, Vol.10,2010.
75. Christine E. Cervasio, EXTRADITION AND THE INTERNATIONALCRIMINAL COURT: THE FUTURE OF THE POLITICAL OFFENSE DOCTRINE,Pace International Law Review, Vol.11,1999.
76. Ode, Paul H. Jr, SECTION243(h) OF THE IMMIGRATION ANDNATIONALITY ACT OF1952AS AMENDED BY THE REFUGEE ACT OF1980:A PROGNOSIS AND A PROPOSAL, COPNELL INTERNATIONAL LAWJOUNAL, Vol.13,1980.
77. Nadia Yakoob, POLITICAL OFFENDER OR SERIOUS CRIMINAL?CHALLENGING THE INTERPRETATION OF "SERIOUS, NONPOLITICALCRIMES" IN INS V. AGUIRRE-AGUIRRE, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal,Vol.14,2000.
78. Walter K?lin, NON-STATE AGENTS OF PERSECUTION AND THEINABILITY OF THE STATE TO PROTECT, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal,Vol.15,2001.
79. Barry Gilbert, THE RIGHT OF ASYLUM IN THE LEGATIONS OF THEUNITED STATES IN CENTRAL AND SOUTH AMERICA, Harvard Law Review,Vol.15,1901.
80. Jennifer M. Corey, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE v.DOHERTY: THE POLITICS OF EXTRADITION, DEPORTATION, AND ASYLUM,Maryland Journal of International Law and Trade, Vol.16,1992.
81. Keith D. Nunes, DETENTIONS OF POLITICAL, RACIAL ANDRELIGIOUS PERSECUTEES AND DISSENTERS: ASYLUM AND HUMANDIGNITY, New York Law School Journal of Human Rights, Vol.16,2000.
82. Barbara Ann Banoff, Christopher H. Pyle,"TO SURRENDER POLITICALOFFENDERS": THE POLITICAL OFFENSE EXCEPTION TO EXTRADITION INUNITED STATES LAW, New York University Journal of International Law&Politics, Vol.16,1984.
83. Yen Tran, THE CLOSING OF THE SAGA OF THE VIETNAMESEASYLUM SEEKERS: THE IMPLICATIONS ON IN-TERNATIONAL REFUGEESAND HUMAN RIGHTS LAWS, Houston Journal of International Law, Vol.17,1995.
84. Pamela Loughman, CARRON v. MCMAHON: THE WIDENING SCOPEOF THE POLITICAL OFFENSE EXCEPTION TO EXTRADITION, BrooklynJournal of International Law, Vol.18,1992.
85. PATRICK DELOUVIN, Evolution of Asylum in France, Journal of RefugeeStudies, Vol.13, No.1,2000.
86. Gilbert Jaeger, Refugee Asylum: Policy and Legislative Developments,International Migration Review, Vol.15, No.1/2,1981.
87. Matthew E. Price, POLITICS OR HUMANITARIANISM? RECOVERINGTHE POLITICAL ROOTS OF ASYLUM, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, Vol.19,2005.
88. VALERIE EPPS, The Validity of the Political Offender Exception inExtradition Treaties in Anglo-American Jurisprudencet, Harvard International LawJournal, VOLUME20, Num.1, WINTER I979.
89. Michael J. Parrish, REDEFINING THE REFUGEE: THE UNIVERSALDECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AS A BASIS FOR REFUGEEPROTECTION, Cardozo Law Review, Vol.22, November,2000.
90. Alexandra McGinley, THE AFTERMATH OF THE NATO BOMBING:APPROACHES FOR ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM OF SERBIANCONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS, Fordham International Law Journal, Vol.23,2000.
91. Alyce S. Ahn, PROSECUTION OR PERSECUTION: CONTRADICTIONSBETWEEN U.S. FOREIGN POLICY&THE ADJUDICATION OF ASYLUMCLAIMS INVOLVING THE HARBORING OF NORTH KOREAN REFUGEES,Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, Vol.24,2010.
92. Maryellen Fullerton, A COMPARATIVE LOOK AT REFUGEE STATUSBASED ON PERSECUTION DUE TO MEMBERSHIP IN A PARTICULARSOCIAL GROUP, Cornell International Law Journal, Vol.26,1993.
93. Captain Richard L. Fruchterman, ASYLUM: THEORY AND PRACTICE,JAG Journal, Vol.26,1972.
94. Michael G. Heyman, IMMIGRATION LAW IN THE SUPREME COURT:THE FLAGGING SPIRIT OF THE LAW, Journal of Legislation, Vol.28,2002.
95. Jeffrey Dillman, INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE AND ASYLUM LAW,Howard Law Journal, Vol.34,1991.
96. Michelle N. Lewis, THE POLITICAL-OFFENSE EXCEPTION:RECONCILING THE TENSION BETWEEN HUMAN RIGHTS ANDINTERNATIONAL PUBLIC ORDER, George Washington Law Review, Vol.63,1995.
97. Craig A. Fielden, PERSECUTION ON ACCOUNT OF POLITICALOPINION:“REFUGEE” STATUS AFTER INS v. ELIAS-ZACARIAS,112S. CT.812(1992), Washington Law Review, Vol.67,1992.
98. Louise W. Holborn, The Legal Status of Political Refugees,1920-1938, TheAmerican Journal of International Law, Vol.32, No.4,1938.
99. Daniel J. Steinbock, INTERPRETING THE REFUGEE DEFINITION,UCLA Law Review, Vol.45,1998.
100. M. G. KALADHARAN NAYAR, Right of Asylum in International Law：Its Status and Prospects, SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL, Vol.17,1972.
1. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Reception Standards ForAsylum Seekers In the European Union, July2000, Available online at:http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/3ae6b3440.pdf.
2. UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES, Handbookon Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the1951Convention and the1967Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, January1992,Available online at: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/refugeehandbook.pdf.
3. UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES, THESCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-REFOULEMENT,20June2001, Available online at: http://www.unhcr.org/419c75ce4.html
4. UNHCR, Handbook on voluntary repatriation: international protection,Available online at: http://www. unhcr.org/publ/PUBL/3bfe68d32.pdf.
5. UNHCR, Guidelines on International Protection: Cessation of Refugee Statusunder Article1C(5) and (6) of the1951Convention relating to the Status of Refugees,HCR/GIP/03/03,10February2003, Available online at: http://www.unhcr.org/publ/PUBL/3bfe68d32.pdf.
6. UNHCR, Local integration: an under-reported solution to protracted refugeesituations, June2008, Available online at: http://www.unhcr.org/486cc99f2.html.
7. Worster, William Thomas, The Contemporary International Law Status of theRight to Receive Asylum (March17,2012). Available at SSRN:http://ssrn.com/abstract=2025410orhttp://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2025410.
8. UNHCR: Asylum Levels and Trends in Industrialized Countries2011,Available online at: http://www.unhcr.org/4e9beaa19.html
9. E. Feller, International refugee protection50years on: The protectionchallenges of the past, Present and future,2001, Available online at:http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/581-606_feller.pdf.
10. UNHCR: Asylum Levels and Trends in Industrialized Countries2011,Available online at: http://www.unhcr.org/4e9beaa19.html
11. United Nations, Multilateral Treaties Deposited with theSecretary-General, Available online at: http://treaties.un.org.
12. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Reception Standards ForAsylum Seekers In the European Union, July2000, Available online at:http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/3ae6b3440.pdf.
13.联合国难民署：2000年《寻求庇护者在欧洲的接待待遇》，网址：http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/3ae6b3440.pdf.
14. Choi Wook-seok, UN Official Decries Starvation in North,19June2003,http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200306/200306190029.html (21July2005).
15. Human Rights Watch, The Invisible Exodus: North Koreans in the People'sRepublic of China,2002, Available online at:www.hrw.org/reports/2002/northkorea/norkor1102.pdf.
16. James D Seymour, China: Background Paper on the Situation of NorthKoreans in China (2005),19, Writenet Independent Analysis,2005, available atwww.ilw.com/lawyers/articles/2005,0629-northkorean.pdf.
17. Human Rights Watch, China: Protect Rights of North Korean asylum seekers(Press Release,19Nov.2002), Available online at:www.hrw.org/press/2002/11/nkreport.htm.
1M. G. KALADHARAN NAYAR, Right of Asylum in International Law: Its Status and Prospects, SAINT LOUISUNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL,1972, Vol.17, p19.
2联合国，1967年《领土庇护宣言》，第2条，第1段。
3联合国，1967年《领土庇护宣言》，第2条，第2段。
1Gilbert Jaeger, Refugee Asylum: Policy and Legislative Developments, International Migration Review, Vol.15,No.1/2,1981, pp.52-68.
2郝鲁怡：《欧盟难民与庇护一体化法律制度研究》，载《河北法学》，2010年7月第7期；孟昱妍，陈烁：《论国际法视角下的外交庇护》，载《人民论坛》，2010年第32期；林欣：《论引渡与庇护制度的新动向》，载《中国社会科学》，1985年第6期；路易斯·亨金著，张潇剑译：《庇护权案——哥伦比亚诉秘鲁》，载《国外法学》，1987年第4期。
3周鲠生著：《国际法》，商务印书馆，1976年5月第1版，第309页。
梁西主编：《国际法》，武汉大学出版社，2004年4月第2版，第218页；周忠海主编：《国际法》，中国政法大学出版社，2004年9月第1版，第290页；邵沙平主编：《国际法》，中国人民大学出版社，2007年
1月第1版，第229页。
3曾令良、饶戈平主编：《国际法》，法律出版社，2005年6月第1版，第222页；邵津主编：《国际法》，北京大学出版社和高等教育出版社，2008年12月第3版，第85页；程晓霞、余民才主编：《国际法》，中国人民大学出版社，2011年6月第4版，第66页。
4王铁崖主编：《国际法》，法律出版社，1981年7月第1版，第268页；王虎华主编：《国际公法学》（第三版），北京大学出版社2008年版，第119页。
5梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版
1See Ulrich Sinn, Greek Sanctuaries as Places of Refuge, in Greek Sanctuaries: New Approaches. Edited byNANNO MARINATOS and ROBIN HXGG. London and New York: Routledge1993, p.90.
2Matthew E. Price, POLITICS OR HUMANITARIANISM? RECOVERING THE POLITICAL ROOTS OFASYLUM, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, Vol.19,2005, p.277.
1Rob W.M. Schumacher, Three Related Sanctuaries of Poseidonat, in Greek Sanctuaries: New Approaches. Editedby NANNO MARINATOS and ROBIN HXGG. London and New York: Routledge1993. pp.68-69.
2MATTHEW E. PRICE, Politics or Humanitarianism: Recovering the Political Roots of Asylum, GeorgetownImmigration Law Journal,2004-2005, Vol.19, p.286.
3Matthew E. Price, POLITICS OR HUMANITARIANISM? RECOVERING THE POLITICAL ROOTS OFASYLUM, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, Vol.19,2005, p.277.
4MATTHEW E. PRICE, Politics or Humanitarianism: Recovering the Political Roots of Asylum, GeorgetownImmigration Law Journal,2004-2005, Vol.19, p.286.
1P. WEIS, United Nations Declaration on Territorial Asylum, The Canadian Yearbook of International Law,1969,p.119.
2Manuel R. Garcia-Mora, International Law and Asylum as a Human Right, Public Affair Press, Washington,
3D. C.1956, p.41.Hugo Grotius, De Jure Belli Ac Pacis Libri Tres, Francis W. Kelsey, Trans., Clarendon Press1925, At11.21.5.
4See: Manuel R. Garcia-Mora, International Law and Asylum as a Human Right, Public Affair Press, Washington,D. C.1956, p.27.
5SAMUEL PUFENDORF, DE JURE NATURAE ET GENTIUM LIBRI OCTO,(C.H. Oldfather&W.A.Oldfather, trans.), Clarendon Press1934, at111.3.10.
1MATTHEW E. PRICE, Politics or Humanitarianism: Recovering the Political Roots of Asylum, GeorgetownImmigration Law Journal,2004-2005, Vol.19, p.21.
2沃尔夫用“被放逐者”代表为逃避惩罚主动逃跑的人和被动的被统治者放逐的人两类人。MATTHEW E.PRICE, Politics or Humanitarianism: Recovering the Political Roots of Asylum, Georgetown Immigration LawJournal,2004-2005, Vol.19, p.23.
3CHRISTIAN WOLFF, Jus GENTILIM METHODO SCIENTIFICA PERTRACTATUM，(Joseph H. Drake,Trans.), Clarendon Press1934,&150.
4Emer De Vattel, The Law of Nations or The Principles Of Natural Law,(Charles G.Fenwick Trans.), SlatkineReprints-Henry Dunant Institute1983, at1.19.230.
5同上注，at2.9.125.
6同上注，at2.8.104.
1P. WEIS, United Nations Declaration on Territorial Asylum, The Canadian Yearbook of International Law,1969,p.120.
2M. G. Kaladharan Nayar, Right Of Asylum In International Law: Its Status And Prospects, Saint LouisUniversity Law Journal,1972, Vol.17, P.17.
3United Nations General Assembly, Resolution8(I) of February12,1946.
11951年《联合国关于难民地位公约》，第一章，第一条，（一）乙。
2E. Feller, International refugee protection50years on: The protection challenges of the past,Present and future,2001, Available online at: http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/581-606_feller.pdf,(Lastvisited on May15,2012,8:10P.M.).
1Alice Edwards, Human Rights, Refugees And The Right To Enjoy Asylum, International Journal Of RefugeeLaw,2005, Vol.17, p.297.
2Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, UN World Conference on Human Rights,1993, UN doc. A/CONF.157/23,12July1993, para.23.
3International Organization for Migration, International Migration Law Glossary On Migration, InternationalOrganization for Migration Publisher,2004, p.7.
2M. G. Kaladharan Nayar, Right Of Asylum In International Law： Its Status And Prospects, Saint LouisUniversity Law Journal,1972, Vol.17, p.22.
1J. Brierly, The Law Of Nations (4th Ed),1949, P.177.
2Morgenstern F, Diplomatic Asylum, The Law Quarterly Review,1951, Vol.67, p.362; A. Grahl-Madsen, TheStatus of Refugees in International Law (Vol. II), Leiden: Sijthoff (1972), pp.46-47.
3S. Riveles, Diplomatic Asylum as a Human Right: The Case of the Durban Six, Human Rights Quarterly,1989,Vol.11, p.158.
4L.H. Legault, Canadian Practice in International Law during1979as Reflected Mainly in Public Correspondenceand Statements of the Department of External Affairs, Canadian Yearbook of International Law,1980, Vol.18,pp.304-305.
5C.V. Cole, Is There Safe Refuge in Canadian Missions Abroad? International Journal of Refugee Law,1997, Vol.
69, p.662.P. Porcino, Toward Codification of Diplomatic Asylum, New York University Journal of International Law andPolitics,1976, Vol.8, pp.445-446; S.P. Sinha, Asylum and International Law, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff,1971,p.238; B. Gilbert, The Practice of Asylum in Legations and Consulates of the United States, American Journal ofInternational Law,1909, Vol.3, p.585; A.M. Rossitto, Diplomatic Asylum in the United States and Latin America:A Comparative Analysis, Brooklyn Journal of International Law,1987, Vol.13, p.114.
1G. Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee in International Law, Oxford: Clarendon Press,1996, p.143; E. Lauterpacht andD. Bethlehem,‘The Scope and Content of the Principle of Non-Refoulement’, in E. Feller, V. Türk, F. Nicholson
2(eds.), Refugee Protection in International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2003),87, p.114.Gregor Noll, SEEKING ASYLUM AT EMBASSIES: A RIGHT TO ENTRY UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW?International Journal of Refugee Law,2005, Vol.17, p.553.
3Gregor Noll, SEEKING ASYLUM AT EMBASSIES: A RIGHT TO ENTRY UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW?International Journal of Refugee Law,2005, Vol.17, p.572.
4Captain Richard L. Fruchterman, ASYLUM: THEORY AND PRACTICE, JAG Journal, Vol.26,1972, p.169.
1MOORE, A DIGEST OF INTERNATIONAL LAW755(1906).
2Captain Richard L. Fruchterman, ASYLUM: THEORY AND PRACTICE, JAG Journal, Vol.26,1972, p.171.
3SINHA, ASYLUM AND INTERNATIONAL LAW10(Martenus Nyhoff, The Hague1971).
4Captain Richard L. Fruchterman, ASYLUM: THEORY AND PRACTICE, JAG Journal, Vol.26,1972, p.177.
1Jari Pirjola, European Asylum Policy: Inclusions and Exclusions under the Surface of Universal Human Rights
2Language, European Journal of Migration and Law, Vol.11,2009, p.354.“The term ‘asylum’ means the protection offered by a State on its territory or elsewhere to individual who cameto seek it”. See Grahl-Madsen, The status of refugee in international law, Volume II, Leyden:A.W. Sijthoff1972, p.
482; G. Noll, Negotiating Asylum, The Hague: Nijhoff Publishers2000, p.15; Bouteillet-Paquet, L’ Europe et ledroit d’ asile, Paris: l’ Harmattan,2001, p.33; Hemme Battjes, European Asylum Law and International Law,Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden/Boston,2006, pp.5-6.
1周鲠生著：《国际法》，商务印书馆，1976年5月第1版，第309页。
2周鲠生著：《国际法》，商务印书馆，1976年5月第1版，第310页。
3同上注，第311页。
4梁西主编：《国际法》，武汉大学出版社，2004年4月第2版，第218页；周忠海主编：《国际法》，中国政法大学出版社，2004年9月第1版，第290页；邵沙平主编：《国际法》，中国人民大学出版社，2007年1月第1版，第229页。
6曾令良、饶戈平主编：《国际法》，法律出版社，2005年6月第1版，第222页；邵津主编：《国际法》，北京大学出版社和高等教育出版社，2008年12月第3版，第85页；程晓霞、余民才主编：《国际法》，中国人民大学出版社，2011年6月第4版，第66页。
7王铁崖主编：《国际法》，法律出版社，1981年7月第1版，第268页；王虎华主编：《国际公法学》（第三版），北京大学出版社2008年版，第119页。
2P. Weis, United Nations Declaration On Territorial Asylum, The Canadian Yearbook Of International Law,1969,P27; Roman Boed, The State Of The Right Of Asylum In International Law, Duke Journal Of Comparative&International Law, Vol.5,1994-1995, p.1;
1日本国际法学会编，《国际法辞典》，外交学院国际法教研室译，世界知识出版社，1985年5月第1版，第402页。
2UNHCR: Asylum Levels and Trends in Industrialized Countries2011, Available online at: http://www.unhcr.org/4e9beaa19.html,(Last visited on May19,2012,8:00A.M.), p.3.
3International Organization for Migration, International Migration Law Glossary On Migration, InternationalOrganization for Migration Publisher,2004, p.10.
1Daniel Kanstroom, Wer Sind Wir Wieder? Laws of Asylum, Immigration, and Citizenship in the Struggle for theSoul of the New Germany, YALE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, Vol.18,1993, p.163.
2G. Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee in International Law, Oxford: Clarendon Press,1996, p.143.
3International Organization for Migration, International Migration Law Glossary On Migration, InternationalOrganization for Migration Publisher,2004, p.23.
4Mjchelle Foster, International Refugee Law and Socio-Economic Rights: Refuge from Deprivation, CambridgeUniversity Press,2007, p.6.
5王虎华主编：《国际公法学》（第三版），北京大学出版社2008年版，第120页。
6Matthew Lippman, CIVIL RESISTANCE: THE DICTATES OF CONSCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL LAWVERSUS THE AMERICAN JUDICIARY, Florida Journal of International Law, Vol.6,1990, p.5.
1Nadia Yakoob, POLITICAL OFFENDER OR SERIOUS CRIMINAL? CHALLENGING THEINTERPRETATION OF "SERIOUS, NONPOLITICAL CRIMES" IN INS V. AGUIRRE-AGUIRRE, GeorgetownImmigration Law Journal, Vol.14,2000, p.545.
2HUGO GROTIUS, DE JURE BELLI AC PACIS LIBRI TRES (Francis W. Kelsey, trans., Clarendon Press1925),at II.21.5.
3Nadia Yakoob, POLITICAL OFFENDER OR SERIOUS CRIMINAL? CHALLENGING THEINTERPRETATION OF "SERIOUS, NONPOLITICAL CRIMES" IN INS V. AGUIRRE-AGUIRRE, GeorgetownImmigration Law Journal, Vol.14,2000, p.545.
4VALERIE EPPS, The Validity of the Political Offender Exception in Extradition Treaties in Anglo-AmericanJurisprudencet, Harvard International Law Journal, VOLUME20, Num.1, WINTER I979, p.61.
5HUGO GROTIUS, DE JURE BELLI AC PACIS LIBRI TRES (Francis W. Kelsey, trans., Clarendon Press1925),at II.21.5.
1Matthew E. Price, POLITICS OR HUMANITARIANISM? RECOVERING THE POLITICAL ROOTS OFASYLUM, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, Vol.19,2005, p.277.
2Christine E. Cervasio, EXTRADITION AND THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT: THE FUTUREOF THE POLITICAL OFFENSE DOCTRINE, Pace International Law Review, Vol.11,1999, p.419.
3In re Meunier,2Q.B.415(1894), Article120of the Constitution of1793states that “la France donne asile auxetrangers bannis de leur patrie pour la cause de la liberte.”
4Nadia Yakoob, POLITICAL OFFENDER OR SERIOUS CRIMINAL? CHALLENGING THEINTERPRETATION OF "SERIOUS, NONPOLITICAL CRIMES" IN INS V. AGUIRRE-AGUIRRE, GeorgetownImmigration Law Journal, Vol.14,2000, p.545.
5VALERIE EPPS, The Validity of the Political Offender Exception in Extradition Treaties in Anglo-AmericanJurisprudencet, Harvard International Law Journal, VOLUME20, Num.1, WINTER I979, p.61.
6Barbara Ann Banoff, Christopher H. Pyle,"TO SURRENDER POLITICAL OFFENDERS": THE POLITICALOFFENSE EXCEPTION TO EXTRADITION IN UNITED STATES LAW, New York University Journal ofInternational Law&Politics, Vol.16,1984, p.169.
7James L. Taulbee, POLITICAL CRIMES, HUMAN RIGHTS AND CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONALPRACTICE, Emory International Law Review, Vol.4,1990, p.43.
8VALERIE EPPS, The Validity of the Political Offender Exception in Extradition Treaties in Anglo-AmericanJurisprudencet, Harvard International Law Journal, VOLUME20, Num.1, WINTER I979, p.61.
1Barbara Ann Banoff, Christopher H. Pyle,"TO SURRENDER POLITICAL OFFENDERS": THE POLITICALOFFENSE EXCEPTION TO EXTRADITION IN UNITED STATES LAW, New York University Journal ofInternational Law&Politics, Vol.16,1984, p.176.
2M. G. Kaladharan Nayar, Right Of Asylum In International Law Its Status And Prospects, Saint Louis UniversityLaw Journal,1972, Vol.17, p.17.
3Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Governor Pinckney, April1,1792, in3MEMOIR, CORRESPONDENCE, ANDMISCELLANIES FROM THE PAPERS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON160(Thomas Jefferson Randolph ed.,1830)
4Matthew E. Price, POLITICS OR HUMANITARIANISM? RECOVERING THE POLITICAL ROOTS OFASYLUM, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, Vol.19,2005, p.277.
5ATLE GRAHL-MADSEN, TERRITORIAL ASYLUM, Chapter11, Almqvist&Wiksell Press,1980.
1VALERIE EPPS, The Validity of the Political Offender Exception in Extradition Treaties in Anglo-AmericanJurisprudencet, Harvard International Law Journal, VOLUME20, Num.1, WINTER I979, p.61.
2Barbara Ann Banoff, Christopher H. Pyle,"TO SURRENDER POLITICAL OFFENDERS": THE POLITICALOFFENSE EXCEPTION TO EXTRADITION IN UNITED STATES LAW, New York University Journal ofInternational Law&Politics, Vol.16,1984, p.169.
3Jennifer M. Corey, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE v. DOHERTY: THE POLITICS OFEXTRADITION, DEPORTATION, AND ASYLUM, Maryland Journal of International Law and Trade, Vol.16,41992, p.83.E.g., Namkung v. Boyd,266F.2d385(D.C. Cir.1955); United States v. Shaughnessy,2o6F.2d392(2d Cir.1953); Sunjka v. Esperdy,182F. Supp.599(S.D.N.Y.x96o), aff'd sub nom. Sovich v. Esperdy,319F.2d21(2d Cir.1963), cert. denied,364U.S.815(1964). It has recently been suggested that other avenues of review may beavailable, see the concurring opinion of Goldberg, C.J. in Pierre v. United States,525F.ud933,936(5th Cir.1976).
1Michelle N. Lewis, THE POLITICAL-OFFENSE EXCEPTION: RECONCILING THE TENSION BETWEENHUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC ORDER, George Washington Law Review, Vol.63,1995,p.585.
2Doherty v. INS,980F.2d at1111.
3Nadia Yakoob, POLITICAL OFFENDER OR SERIOUS CRIMINAL? CHALLENGING THEINTERPRETATION OF "SERIOUS, NONPOLITICAL CRIMES" IN INS V. AGUIRRE-AGUIRRE, GeorgetownImmigration Law Journal, Vol.14,2000, p.545.
1Saskia Sassen, Guests and Aliens, Nueva York, The New Press,1999.
2Matthew E. Price, POLITICS OR HUMANITARIANISM? RECOVERING THE POLITICAL ROOTS OFASYLUM, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, Vol.19,2005, p.277.
3Matthew E. Price, POLITICS OR HUMANITARIANISM? RECOVERING THE POLITICAL ROOTS OFASYLUM, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, Vol.19,2005, p.277.
1Matthew E. Price, POLITICS OR HUMANITARIANISM? RECOVERING THE POLITICAL ROOTS OFASYLUM, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, Vol.19,2005, p.277.
2Daniel J. Steinbock, INTERPRETING THE REFUGEE DEFINITION, UCLA Law Review, Vol.45,1998, p.733.
3Matthew E. Price, POLITICS OR HUMANITARIANISM? RECOVERING THE POLITICAL ROOTS OFASYLUM, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, Vol.19,2005, p.277.
12PATRICK DELOUVIN, Evolution of Asylum in France, Journal of Refugee Studies, Vol.13, No.1,2000, p.67.PATRICK DELOUVIN, Evolution of Asylum in France, Journal of Refugee Studies, Vol.13, No.1,2000, p.69.
3Immigration Act of1917, Pub. L. No.64-301,39Stat.874(people considered undesirable included idiots,imbeciles, epeleptics, alcoholics, paupers, people not able to earn a living, polygamists, anarchists, criminals ofmoral turpitude prostitutes, etc.)
4Displaced Persons Act of1948, ch.647,62Stat.1009.
5The Immigration and Nationality Act, Pub. L. No.82-414,66Stat.163(June27,1952)(codified as amended at8U.S.C.§1101-1525(1982)).
67Act of Sept.11,1957, Pub. L. No.85-316,71Stat.639(amending8U.S.C.§15).Refugee Act of1980, Pub. L. No.96-212,94Stat.102at§208(codified at8U.S.C.§1158)(grantingdiscretion), and§201(a)(codified at8U.S.C.§1101sec.101(a) para.42)(defining refugee).
8Ode, Paul H. Jr, SECTION243(h) OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT OF1952ASAMENDED BY THE REFUGEE ACT OF1980: A PROGNOSIS AND A PROPOSAL, COPNELLINTERNATIONAL LAW JOUNAL, Vol.13,1980, p.291.
12The MacNeil/Lehrer Report, Library No.1074, Show No.5094, transcript at8(November8,1979).Michelle N. Lewis, THE POLITICAL-OFFENSE EXCEPTION: RECONCILING THE TENSION BETWEENHUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC ORDER, George Washington Law Review, Vol.63,1995,p.585.
3Us Citizenship and Immigration Services–Asylum Division, Asylum Officer Basic Training Course, EligibilityPart I: Definitions; Past Persecution, March6,2009, p.5.
1Captain Richard L. Fruchterman, ASYLUM: THEORY AND PRACTICE, JAG Journal, Vol.26,1972, p.180.
23Lorne Waldman, Canadian Immigration&Refugee Law Practice, LexisNexis Canada Inc.2010, p.392.Rosemary Byrne, Gregor Noll, Jens Vedsted-Hansen, New Asylum Countries? Migration Control and RefugeeProtection in an Enlarged Europan Union, Kluwer Law International, The Hague/London/New York,2002, p.33.
4F.R.G. Const., art.79. The Constitutional amendment fell outside art.79(3), which prohibits amendments to art.1
(human dignity) and art.20(structural provisions of the Constitution).
1Rosemary Byrne, Gregor Noll, Jens Vedsted-Hansen, New Asylum Countries? Migration Control and RefugeeProtection in an Enlarged Europan Union, Kluwer Law International, The Hague/London/New York,2002, pp.85-86.
5See Maurice Kamto, Third report on the expulsion of aliens, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/581.
1EC Council Directive2004/83/EC on Minimum Standards for the Qualification and Status of ThirdCountry Nationals or Stateless Persons as Refugees or as Persons who Otherwise need InternationalProtection and the Content of the Protection Granted (“Qualification Directive”)(Apr.29,2004),2004OJL304/12
(Aug.30,2004).
3王虎华主编：《国际公法学》（第三版），北京大学出版社2008年版，第454页。
1王虎华：《论国家主权与国际人权的辩证关系》，载《华东政法学院学报》2002年第5期。
2M. O. Hudson, World Court Reports, Vol.1, p.143(1934).
3Manuel R. Garcia-Mora, International Law and Asylum as a Human Right, Public Affair Press, Washington,D. C.1956, p.45.
4United States, ex rel. Donnelly v. Mulligan, U.S. Marshal,72Fed.2d.220,(1934), pp.220-223.
5E. Haddad, The refugee: the individual between sovereigns, Global Society, Vol.17,2003, p.297.
6M. Weiner, Ethics, national sovereignty and the control of immigration, International Migration Review, Vol.30,1996, p.188.
1Thomas Gammeltoft-Hansen, Access to Asylum: International Refugee Law and the Globalisation of MigrationControl, Cambridge University Press,2011, p.13.
2T. E. Aalberts and W. Werner, Sovereignty beyond borders: Sovereignty, self-defense, and the disciplining of thestate, in Adler-Nissen and Gammeltoft-Hansen, Sovereignty Games, pp.129-150.
3Remark made by the Israeli delegate, Nehemiah Robinson, Ad Hoc Committee on Statelessness and RelatedProblems, First Session,20thmeeting, E/AC.32/SR.20, para.49.
4Manuel R. Garcia-Mora, International Law and Asylum as a Human Right, Public Affair Press, Washington,D. C.1956, p.3.
5《联合国宪章》第1条，第3款。
1ALICE EDWARDS, Human Rights, Refugees and the Right to Enjoy Asylum, International Journal of RefugeeLaw,2005, Vol.17, p.297.
2Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, UN World Conference on Human Rights,1993,UN doc. A/CONF.157/23,12July1993, para.23.
1M. G. Kaladharan Nayar, Right Of Asylum In International Law: Its Status And Prospects, Saint LouisUniversity Law Journal,1972, Vol.17, p.17.
2《联合国宪章》第1条第3款；第55条c款；第56条。31948年《世界人权宣言》第1条；第2条。
4《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》第2条第1款。51951年《难民公约》序言。
1Mark Gibney, Certain Violence, Uncertain Protection, in Global Changes in Asylum Regimes, Daniele Jolyedited, Palgrave Macmillan Ltd,2002, p.18.
2Hemme Battjes, European Asylum Law and International Law, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden/Boston,2006, p.9.
3Hemme Battjes, European Asylum Law and International Law, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden/Boston,2006, p.12.
1Hemme Battjes, European Asylum Law and International Law, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden/Boston,22006, p.13.Mark Symes, Peter Jorro, Adrian Berry, Asylum Law and Practice, Bloomsbery Professional,2010, p.631.
3Jari Pirjola, European Asylum Policy: Inclusions and Exclusions under the Surface of Universal Human RightsLanguage, European Journal of Migration and Law, Vol.11,2009, p.354.
4Us Citizenship And Immigration Services–Asylum Division, Asylum Officer Basic Training Course,International Human Rights Law, March1,2005, p.4.
1王虎华主编：《国际公法学》（第三版），北京大学出版社2008年版，第14页。
2United Nations, Multilateral Treaties Deposited with the Secretary-General, Available online at:
4梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版，第52页。
1James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees Under International Law, Cambridge University Press,2005, p.109.
2梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版，第54页。
11969年《非洲难民公约》第2条第1款；第5条。
21969年《非洲难民公约》第1条第2款。
31969年《非洲难民公约》第2条第3款。
41969年《非洲难民公约》第2条第6款。
51969年《非洲难民公约》第3条。
6See UNHCR, OAS General Assembly: an Inter-American Initiative on Regugee, Refugees,1986, Vol.27, p.5.
11984年《卡塔赫纳宣言》第3条第5款；第6款；第7款。21984年《卡塔赫纳宣言》第3条第6款；第11款；第13款。
3梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版，第60页。
4James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees Under International Law, Cambridge University Press,2005, p.119.
5UNHCR Executive Committee Conclusion No.81,“General Conclusion on International Protection”,1997, atpara. E, available at www.unhcr. ch (Last visited on June14,2012,8:10P.M.).
6王虎华主编：《国际公法学》（第三版），北京大学出版社2008年版，第464页。
1王铁崖主编：《国际法》，法律出版社1995年版，第207页，转引自王虎华主编：《国际公法学》（第三版），北京大学出版社2008年版，第465页。
2Hurst Hannum, The Status of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in National and International Law,Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law,1995/1996, Vol.25, p.290.
3徐显明：《国际人权法》，法律出版社2004年版，第64页，转引自王虎华主编：《国际公法学》（第三版），北京大学出版社2008年版，第465页。
4See Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States (Third)§701, Reporters’ Notes4-6,1987.
5Manuel R. Garcia-Mora, International Law and Asylum as a Human Right, Public Affair Press, Washington,D. C.1956, p.151.
6See Martin, Refugees and Migration, United Nations Legal Order, Vol.1, Schachter and Joyner, eds, CambridgeUniversity Press,1995.
7UN Human Rights Committee,“General Comment No.31: The nature of the general legal obligations of statesparties to the Covenant”,2004, UN Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.7, May12,2004, p.192, para.10.
7Mark Symes, Peter Jorro, Adrian Berry, Asylum Law and Practice, Bloomsbery Professional,2010, p.631.
8Us Citizenship And Immigration Services–Asylum Division, Asylum Officer Basic Training Course,International Human Rights Law, March1,2005, p.8.
1The UNHCR submission in Gashi(1997)INLR96. Roder Haines wrote in the Refugee Status Appeals Authorityin Refugee Appeal No1/92Re SA,30, April1992.
2王虎华主编：《国际公法学》（第三版），北京大学出版社2008年版，第466页。
3Mark Symes, Peter Jorro, Adrian Berry, Asylum Law and Practice, Bloomsbery Professional Press,2010, p.129.
4The UNHCR submission in Gashi(1997)INLR96. Roder Haines wrote in the Refugee Status Appeals Authorityin Refugee Appeal No1/92Re SA,30, April1992.
2US CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES–ASYLUM DIVISION, ASYLUM OFFICER BASICTRAINING COURSE, International Human Rights Law, MARCH1,2005, p.13.
3Lorne Waldman, Canadian Immigration&Refugee Law Practice, LexisNexis Canada Inc.2011, p.418.
4Clive Walker&Russell L. Weaver, The United Kingdom Bill of Rights1998: The Modernization of Rights in
1Inna Nazarova, Alienating “Human” From “Right”: U.S. and UK Non-Compliance With Asylum ObligationsUnder International Human Rights Law, Fordham International Law Journal, Vol.25,2002, p.1349.
6王虎华主编：《国际公法学》（第三版），北京大学出版社2008年版，第468页。
1王虎华主编：《国际公法学》（第三版），北京大学出版社2008年版，第468页。
4王虎华主编：《国际公法学》（第三版），北京大学出版社2008年版，第469页。
1王虎华主编：《国际公法学》（第三版），北京大学出版社2008年版，第16页。
2James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees Under International Law, Cambridge University Press,2005, p.24.
3Lauterpacht, E., ed., international law: The Collected Papers of Hersch Lauterpacht, Cambridge University Press,1970, p.62.
4B. Simma and P. Alston, The Sources of Human Rights Law: Custom, Jus Cogens, and General Principles, TheYear Book of International Law, Vol.12,1988-1989, p.82.
5James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees Under International Law, Cambridge University Press,2005, p.26.61951年《难民公约》第33条。
1ExCom General Conclusion on International Protection No.79,1996, para(j); ExCom General Conclusion onInternational Protection No.81,1997, para(i); ExCom Conclusion No.82on Safeguarding Asylum,1997,para(d)(i).
3UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES, THE SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THEPRINCIPLE OF NON-REFOULEMENT,20June2001, p.77, para.218, Available online at: http://www.unhcr.org/419c75ce4.html,(Last visited on June25,2012,8:10P.M.)
4UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES, THE SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THEPRINCIPLE OF NON-REFOULEMENT,20June2001, p.92, para.253.1, Available online at: http://www.unhcr.org/419c75ce4.html,(Last visited on June25,2012,8:10P.M.)
5UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES, THE SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THEPRINCIPLE OF NON-REFOULEMENT,20June2001, p.92, para.253.2, Available online at: http://www.unhcr.org/419c75ce4.html,(Last visited on June25,2012,8:10P.M.)
6UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES, THE SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THEPRINCIPLE OF NON-REFOULEMENT,20June2001, p.92, para.253.3, Available online at: http://www.unhcr.org/419c75ce4.html,(Last visited on June25,2012,8:10P.M.)
1UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES, THE SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THEPRINCIPLE OF NON-REFOULEMENT,20June2001, p.73, para.209.Available online at: http://www.unhcr.org/419c75c e4.html,(Last visited on June24,2012,8:10P.M.)
2Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America),Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, ICJ Reports1984, p.392, at para.74.
3UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES, THE SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THEPRINCIPLE OF NON-REFOULEMENT,20June2001, p.74, para.213.Available online at: http://www.unhcr.org/419c75c e4.html,(Last visited on June24,2012,8:10P.M.)
4ExCom Conclusion No.6on Non-Refoulement (1977) para(a).
1UNHCR, Note on International Protection submitted, UN Doc A/AC.96/898,3July1998, para10-14.
2D W Greig, The Protection of Refugees and Customary International Law, Australian Year Book of InternationalLaw,1983, Vol.8, pp.125-127.
3G S Goodwin-Gill and J McAdam, The Refugee in Internaitonal Law(3rdedn), Oxford University Press, Oxford42007, p.219; p.227; p.229-232; p.347.Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua(Merits) ICJ Reports (1986)14, para186.
5UNHCR Advisory Opinion on the Extraterritorial Application of Non-Refoulement Obligations under the1951Convention Relation to the Status of Refugees and its1967Protocol,26January2007, available at:http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/45f17a1a4.html, para.15.
6Declaration reaffirming the commitment of signatory States to the1951Convention,13December2001, para4.
1Gretchen Borchelt, The Safe Third Country Practice in the European Union: A Misguided Approach to AsylumLaw and a Violation of International Human Rights Standards, Columbia Human Rights Law Review,2002, Vol.
33, p.473.
2Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America),Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, ICJ Reports1984, p.392, at para.73, Merits, Judgment, ICJ Reports31986, p.14, at paragraphs174-179.Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua(Merits) ICJ Reports (1986)14, para176-178..
4Sir E Lauterpacht and D Bethlehem, The Scope and Content of the Principle of Non-refoulement,20June2001,Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b33574d1.pdf. para.195.
5王虎华主编：《国际公法学》（第三版），北京大学出版社2008年版，第19页。
6王虎华主编：《国际公法学》（第三版），北京大学出版社2008年版，第20页。
1James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees Under International Law, Cambridge University Press,2005, p.26.
2UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES, THE SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THEPRINCIPLE OF NON-REFOULEMENT,20June2001, p.74, para.213.Available online at: http://www.unhcr.org/419c75c e4.html,(Last visited on June24,2012,8:10P.M.)
3Lorne Waldman, Canadian Immigration&Refugee Law Practice, LexisNexis Canada Inc.2011, p.418.
1See Maurice Kamto, Third report on the expulsion of aliens, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/581.
2EC Council Directive2004/83/EC on Minimum Standards for the Qualification and Status of ThirdCountry Nationals or Stateless Persons as Refugees or as Persons who Otherwise need InternationalProtection and the Content of the Protection Granted (“Qualification Directive”)(Apr.29,2004),2004OJL304/12
(Aug.30,2004).
3【意】安东尼奥·卡塞斯著，蔡从燕等译，《国际法》，法律出版社，2009年10月第1版，第256页。
4黎巴嫩籍法官Ammoun曾在针对北海大陆架案发布的反对意见中指出，“文明国家”一词具有严重的歧视性，已经落后于时代。
5【意】安东尼奥·卡塞斯著，蔡从燕等译，《国际法》，法律出版社，2009年10月第1版，第256页。
1【意】安东尼奥·卡塞斯著，蔡从燕等译，《国际法》，法律出版社，2009年10月第1版，第257页。
2【意】安东尼奥·卡塞斯著，蔡从燕等译，《国际法》，法律出版社，2009年10月第1版，第258页。
3【意】安东尼奥·卡塞斯著，蔡从燕等译，《国际法》，法律出版社，2009年10月第1版，第259页。
1梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版，第71页。
2UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES, Handbook on Procedures and Criteria forDetermining Refugee Status under the1951Convention and the1967Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees,
2James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees Under International Law, Cambridge University Press,2005, p.97.
3New Zealand Refugee Status Appeals Authority in Refugee Appeal No.17/92Re SSS(9July1992).
4High Court of Australia, Minister for Immigration Ethnic Affairs v. Guo,144ALR567,1997.
1James. C. Hathaway, The Law of Refugee Status, Butterworths,1991, p.88.
2EC Council, EC Council Directive2004/83/EC on Minimum Standards for the Qualification and Status of ThirdCountry Nationals or Stateless Persons as Refugees or as Persons who Otherwise need International Protection andthe Content of the Protection Granted, Ariticle4.4.
3Keene L. J in the Court of Appeal of Britain in Nenni v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, EWCA Civ1077,26July2004.
6James. C. Hathaway, The Law of Refugee Status, Butterworths,1991, pp.201-203..
1UNHCR Executive Committee Conclusion No.69,1992.
2De Monigny J in the Federal Court of Canada in Christopher v. Canada Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,2005FC730,20May,2005.
3James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees Under International Law, Cambridge University Press,2005, p.109.
45Judge Pregerson in Canales-Vargas v. Gonzales, US9thCircuit Court of Appeals, Case No.03-71737.New Zealand Refugee Status Appeals Authority in Appeal No.135/92, Re RS,27August1991.
2联合国难民署编，《国际难民法指南》（中文本），2004年修订，第145页。
3International Organization for Migration, International Migration Law Glossary On Migration, InternationalOrganization for Migration Publisher,2004, p.47.
4G. Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee in International Law, Oxford: Clarendon Press,1996, pp.66-67,转引自梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版，第72页。
1D.Vanheule, A comparison of the judicial interpretations of the notion refugee, in Europe and Refugee: A
challenge? The Hague: Kluwer Law International,1997, pp.98-102.James. C. Hathaway, The Law of Refugee Status, Butterworths,1991, pp.105-108; G. Goodwin-Gill, TheRefugee in International Law, Oxford: Clarendon Press,1996, pp.66-67; Hemme Battjes, European Asylum Lawand International Law, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden/Boston,2006, p.231; Spijkerboer&Vermeulen,Vluchtelingenrecht, Nijmegen: Ars Aequi Libri,2005, pp.33-34.
5Hemme Battjes, European Asylum Law and International Law, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden/Boston,2006, pp.231-232.
1Hemme Battjes, European Asylum Law and International Law, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden/Boston,2006, p.232.
2Mark Symes, Peter Jorro, Adrian Berry, Asylum Law and Practice, Bloomsbery Professional Press,2010, p.129;D.Vanheule, A comparison of the judicial interpretations of the notion refugee, in Europe and Refugee: A challenge?The Hague: Kluwer Law International,1997, pp.98-102.
3Mark Symes, Peter Jorro, Adrian Berry, Asylum Law and Practice, Bloomsbery Professional Press,2010, p.151.
4James. C. Hathaway, The Law of Refugee Status, Butterworths,1991, p.122.
5Mark Symes, Peter Jorro, Adrian Berry, Asylum Law and Practice, Bloomsbery Professional Press,2010, p.152.
2Joint Judgment of High Court of Australia in Chen Shi Hai v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affair,
170ALR553,2000.
3The Court of Appeal of Britain in Holub&Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department, EWCA Civ343,
20December2000.
4The Court of Appeal of Britain in Popik v Secretary of State for the Home Department, EWCA Civ19360,9
5July1999.Mark Symes, Peter Jorro, Adrian Berry, Asylum Law and Practice, Bloomsbery Professional Press,2010, p.133.
2EC Council, EC Council Directive2004/83/EC on Minimum Standards for the Qualification and Status of ThirdCountry Nationals or Stateless Persons as Refugees or as Persons who Otherwise need International Protection andthe Content of the Protection Granted, Ariticle4.1.c.
34Stuart-Smith LJ in Demirkaya v. Secretary of State for the Home Department,1999, Imm AR498.The European Court on Human Rights sitting as a Grand Chamber in Selmouni v France, Application No.25803/94,28July1999.
5Madjwick J in Duzkiker v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs,1999FCA391,31March2000.
6Pregerson CJ in the US Court of Appeals in Maini v Immigration and Naturalization Service, No.98-70894,9thCir,2000.
1Hemme Battjes, European Asylum Law and International Law, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden/Boston,2006, p.142.
2Hemme Battjes, European Asylum Law and International Law, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden/Boston,2006, p.143.EC Council, EC Council Directive2004/83/EC on Minimum Standards for the Qualification and Status of ThirdCountry Nationals or Stateless Persons as Refugees or as Persons who Otherwise need International Protection andthe Content of the Protection Granted, Ariticle9.2.
5Mark Symes, Peter Jorro, Adrian Berry, Asylum Law and Practice, Bloomsbery Professional Press,2010, p.148.
6Mark Symes, Peter Jorro, Adrian Berry, Asylum Law and Practice, Bloomsbery Professional Press,2010, p.149.
1McHugh J in the High Court of Australia in Chan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs,1989,169CLR
379.
1许崇德主编：《中华法学大辞典》（宪法卷），中国检察出版社1995年版，第880页。
6梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版，第76页。71948年《防止及惩治灭绝种族罪公约》第2条：“本公约内所称灭绝种族系指蓄意全部或局部消灭某一民
4梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版，第88页。
4王虎华主编：《国际公法学》（第三版），北京大学出版社2008年版，第105页。
6梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版，第89页。
2梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版，第89页。
4联合国难民署编：《甄别难民地位的程序与标准手册》（中文本），1995年版，第12页。转引自梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版，第92页。
7Maryjoleine Zieck, UNHCR and Voluntary Repatriation of Refugee: A Legal Analysis, Martinue NijhoffPublishers,1997, p.53.
4古兰·梅伦德尔：《第56号研究报告：索马里难民》，斯堪的纳维亚非洲研究所，1980年，第31页。转引自梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版，第101页。
3【英】劳特派特修订，王铁崖等译，《奥本海国际法》（上卷第二分册）商务印书馆，1972年12月第1版，第169页
2梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版，第105页。
1《国际军事法庭审判德国首要战犯判决书》，汤宗舜、江左译，世界知识出版社，1995年版，第20页。
2Henry Lj in the New Zealand Court of Appeal in S v Refugee Status Appeals Authority,1998, NZLR91.
4联合国难民署编：《难民》（中文本），2001年，总第123期，第15页。转引自梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版，第129页。
1梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版，第130页。
4梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版，第135页。
1联合国难民署执行委员会，《关于难民国际保护问题的结论》（中文本），1985年版，第14-15页。
3梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版，第146页。
1G. Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee in International Law, Oxford: Clarendon Press,1996, p.332
1JAMES C. HATHAWAY, Leveraging Asylum, TEXAS INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL, VOL.45,2010, p.
503.21951年《难民公约》第33条第1款。
1P. WEIS, United Nations Declaration on Territorial Asylum, The Canadian Yearbook of International Law,1969,p118; PATRICK DELOUVIN, The Evolution of Asylum in France, Journal of Refugee Studies, Vol.13, No.1,2000, p.63.
2梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版，第219页。
1See Soering v. United Kingdom (1989),98ILR270, at para.88; Cruz Varas v. Sweden (1991)108ILR283, atpara.69and Vilvarajah v. United Kingdom (1991)108ILR321, at paras.73-74and79-81; Chahal v. UnitedKingdom (1997),108ILR385, at para.75; Ahmed v. Austria (1997),24EHRR278, at paras.39-40; T.I. v. UnitedKingdom, Application No.43844/98, Decision as to Admissibility,7March2000, at p.15.
2王虎华主编：《国际公法学》（第三版），北京大学出版社2008年版，第468页。
3Thomas Gammeltoft-Hansen, Access to Asylum: International Refugee Law and the Globalisation of MigrationControl, Cambridge University Press,2011, p.50.
1UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES, THE SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THEPRINCIPLE OF NON-REFOULEMENT,20June2001, Available online at: http://www.unhcr.org/419c75ce
4.html,(Last visited on June14,2012,8:10P.M.). para.59, p.22.
2国际法委员会《国家责任条款草案》第6条规定：“由另一国交由一国支配的机关，若为行使支配该机关
4Protection of Refugees in Mass Influx Situations: Overall Protection Framework, EC/GC/01/4,19February2001, at paragraph6.
2Application No.43844/98, T.I. v. United Kingdom, decision of the European Court of Human Rights of7March2000(unreported), at pp.15-16.
3Lorne Waldman, Canadian Immigration&Refugee Law Practice, LexisNexis Canada Inc.2011, p.598.
1Grahl-Madsen A, Commentary on the Refugee Convention1951, reprinted by UNHCR, Geneva,1997, pp.235-256.
2Paul Weis, The Refugee Convention, Cambridge University Press,1995, p.342.
1James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees Under International Law, Cambridge University Press,2005, p.764.
1James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees Under International Law, Cambridge University Press,2005, p.786.
2UNHCR, Information Note on Implementation of the1951Convention and the1967protocol relating to theStatus of Refugees, UN Doc. EC/SCP/66, July22,1991, at para.84.
3Grahl-Madsen A, Commentary on the Refugee Convention1951, reprinted by UNHCR, Geneva,1997, p.78.
1James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees Under International Law, Cambridge University Press,2005, p.800.
2U.S. Committee for refugees, world refugee survey,2003, p.102.
3James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees Under International Law, Cambridge University Press,2005, p.806.
1A. Obondoh, Economic Inequalities and Social Exclusion-The Core Objects of the structural Reform Agenda,Eco News Africa, Nov.2001.
2James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees Under International Law, Cambridge University Press,2005, p.809.
3Paul Weis, The Refugee Convention, Cambridge University Press,1995, p.163.
5James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees Under International Law, Cambridge University Press,2005, p.825.
11966年《经济、社会和文化权利国际公约》第11条第1款规定：“第十一条：一、本公约缔约围确认人人有权享受其本人及家属所需之适当生活程度，包括适当之衣食住及不断改善之生活环境。缔约国将采取适当步骤确保此种权利之实现，同时确认在此方面基于自由同意之国际合作极为重要。”
2UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No.4: The Right to adequatehousing,1991, UN Doc. HRI/GEN/1/1Rev.7, May12,2004, at19, para.7.
3UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No.4: The Right to adequatehousing,1991, UN Doc. HRI/GEN/1/1Rev.7, May12,2004, at19, para.8.
4James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees Under International Law, Cambridge University Press,2005, p.834.
1Statement of Sir Leslie Brass of the United Kingdom at the session of the Ad Hoc Committee, UN Doc.E/AC.32/SR.10, Jan.24,1950, p.9.21951年《难民公约》第7条第1款：“除本公约载有更有利的规定外，缔约国应给予难民以一般外国人所获得的待遇。。”
3梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版，第52页。
1UNHCR, Note on follow-up to the earlier Conclusion of the Executive Committee on Travel Documents forRefugees, UN Doc. EC/SCP/48, July3,1987, at para.2.
2James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees Under International Law, Cambridge University Press,2005, p.846.
1Statement of Mr. Hoeg of Denmark, UN Doc. A/CONF.2/SR.17, July12,1951, p.9.
2M. Mubanga-Chipoya, Analysis of the current trends and developments regarding the right to leave any countryincluding one’s own, and to return to one’s own country, and to some other rights or considerations arisingtherefrom, UN Doc. E/CN.4Sub.2/1987/10, at21ff.
3M. Nowak, UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,1993,(Nowak, ICCPR Commentary), p.204.
1J. Sorenson, Opposition, Exile and Identity: The Eritrean Case, Journal of Refugee Studies, Vol.3,1990, p.313.
2M. Castillo and J. Hathaway, Temporary protection, in Reconceiving International Refugee Law (Edited by J.Hathaway), Kluwer Law International,1997, p.11.
3P. Van Arsdale, The Role of Mutual Assistance Associations in Refugee Acculturation and Service Delivery, inSelected Papers on Refugee Issues II (Edited by M. Hopkins and N. Donnelly), American AnthropologicalAssociation,1993, p.156.
4James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees Under International Law, Cambridge University Press,2005, p.876.
5UNHCR, Information Note on Implementation of the1951Convention and the1967protocol relating to theStatus of Refugees, UN Doc. EC/SCP/66, July22,1991, at para.76.
6梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版，第188页。
7王铁崖主编；《国际法》，法律出版社1995年版，第180页。
1梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版，第188页。
1James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees Under International Law, Cambridge University Press,2005, p.910.
1General Assembly, Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, GA, Res.38/121,A/38/PV.100,16Dec.1983, para.8.
2International Organization for Migration, International Migration Law Glossary On Migration, InternationalOrganization for Migration Publisher,2004, p.36.
3梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版，第373页。
4James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees Under International Law, Cambridge University Press,2005, p.917.
1UNHCR, Handbook on voluntary repatriation: international protection, Available online at: http://www.unhcr.org/publ/PUBL/3bfe68d32.pdf,(Last visited on August24,2012,8:10P.M.), p.11.
2James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees Under International Law, Cambridge University Press,2005, p.953.
3James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees Under International Law, Cambridge University Press,2005, p.958.
4B. Stein, Policy Challenges Regarding Repatriation in the1990s: Is1992the Year for Voluntary Repatriation?Research Paper of Oxford Refugee Studies Centre, United Kingdom,1993.
1Another800refugee to return home to Burundi, UN Integrated Regional Information Networks, May30,2002;Thousands of Angolan refugees living in Zambia return home, SAPA-AP, June13,2002.
2P. Weis, The Concept of the Refugee in International Law, Journal du Droit International, Vol.87,1960, p.978.
3James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees Under International Law, Cambridge University Press,2005, pp.
961-963.
1International Organization for Migration, International Migration Law Glossary On Migration, InternationalOrganization for Migration Publisher,2004, p.55.
2梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版，第373页。
4Grahl-Madsen A, Commentary on the Refugee Convention1951, reprinted by UNHCR, Geneva,1997, p.224.
1James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees Under International Law, Cambridge University Press,2005, p.986.
2James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees Under International Law, Cambridge University Press,2005, p.990.
1梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版，第269页。
2梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版，第270页。
1James D Seymour, China: Background Paper on the Situation of North Koreans in China, Writenet IndependentAnalysis,2005, Available online at:www.ilw.com/lawyers/articles/2005,0629-northkorean.pdf,(Last visited on11September,2012), p.11.
3Tom Malinowski, Advancing Human Rights in North Korea: Testimony by Tom Malinowski Before the USSenate Committee on Foreign Relations (2003), available online at: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/03/02/usint7793_txt.htm(Last visited on September82012,5:00P.M.,).
4Amnesty International, Starved of Rights: Human Rights and the Food Crisis in the Democratic People'sRepublic of Korea,2004, p.13.
1Amnesty International, Starved of Rights: Human Rights and the Food Crisis in the Democratic People'sRepublic of Korea,2004, pp.6-11.
5David Hawk, The Hidden Gulag Exposing North Korea's Prison Camps: Prisoners' Testimonies and SatellitePhotographs, US Committee for Human Rights in North Korea,2003, p.15; Amnesty International, Starved of
6Rights: Human Rights and the Food Crisis in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea,2004, p.22, p.31.Lee Keum soon, Cross-Border Movement of North Korean Citizens, East Asian Review, Vol.16(1), pp.45-46;Amnesty International, Starved of Rights: Human Rights and the Food Crisis in the Democratic People's Republicof Korea,2004, p.28.
7UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: Democratic People'sRepublic of Korea, UN Doc CCPR/CO/72/PRK (2001), para.19.
1Lord Hylton, Hansard Volume (House of Lords Debates), House of Lords vol.660(70)(21Apr.2004), Column
304; Hyde, North Korean Human Rights Act of2004, House of Representatives Report108-478, Session2(2004),p.15; Lord Alton of Liverpool, Hansard Volume (House of Lords Debates), House of Lords vol.660(70)(21Apr.2004), Column295.
2James D Seymour, China: Background Paper on the Situation of North Koreans in China (2005),19, WritenetIndependent Analysis,2005, available at www.ilw.com/lawyers/articles/2005,0629-northkorean.pdf (11September,2012).
1Elim Chan, North Korean Refugees and International Refugee Law, International Journal of Refugee Law, Vol.Lord Alton of Liverpool Hansard Volume (House of Lords Debates), House of Lords vol.660(70)(21Apr.2004),Column295.
3Vitit Muntarbhorn, Question of the Violation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom in Any Part of theWorld: Situation of Human Rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, UN Doc E/CN.4/2005/34,2005,p.5.
1Vitit Muntarbhorn, Question of the Violation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom in Any Part of theWorld: Situation of Human Rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, UN Doc E/CN.4/2005/34,2005,p.11, p.14.
1United Nations, Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees,28July1951(189UNTS150); UNHCRRefWorld, Issue13,2004, Vol.2; United Nations, Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees,31January1967
(606UNTS267), UNHCR RefWorld, Issue13,2004, Vol.2;另见王虎华主编：《国际公法学》（第三版），北京大学出版社2008年版，第140页。
2联合国，1951年《难民公约》，第1条第1款第2项。
3JAMES C. HATHAWAY, Leveraging Asylum, TEXAS INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL, VOL.45,2010, p.503.
2王虎华主编：《国际公法学》（第三版），北京大学出版社2008年版，第477页。
31966年《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》第9条第1款；第7条；第16条。
1梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版，第259页。
11985《外国人出入境管理法》第31条。22012《中华人民共和国出境入境管理法》第89条。
1联合国，1951年《难民公约》，第1条第1款第2项。
2梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版，第146页。
3联合国难民署执行委员会，《确定难民的地位》，1977年第8号决议，转引自梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版，第146页。
1、梁淑英著，《国际难民法》，知识产权出版社，2009年6月第1版。
2、【意】安东尼奥·卡塞斯著，蔡从燕等译，《国际法》，法律出版社，2009年10月第1版。
3、【英】劳特派特修订，王铁崖等译，《奥本海国际法》（上卷第二分册）商务印书馆，1972年12月第1版。
4、周鲠生著：《国际法》，商务印书馆，1976年5月第1版。
5、【英】詹宁斯瓦茨修订，王铁崖、李适时等译，《奥本海国际法》（第一卷，第二分册），中国大百科全书出版社，1998年4月第1版。
6、汤宗舜、江左译，《国际军事法庭审判德国首要战犯判决书》，世界知识出版社，1995年版。
1、王铁崖主编：《国际法》，法律出版社，1981年7月第1版。
2、王虎华主编：《国际公法学》（第三版），北京大学出版社2008年版。
3、梁西主编：《国际法》，武汉大学出版社，2004年4月第2版。
4、周忠海主编：《国际法》，中国政法大学出版社，2004年9月第1版。
5、邵沙平主编：《国际法》，中国人民大学出版社，2007年1月第1版。
6、曾令良、饶戈平主编：《国际法》，法律出版社，2005年6月第1版。
7、邵津主编：《国际法》，北京大学出版社和高等教育出版社，2008年12月第3版。
8、程晓霞、余民才主编：《国际法》，中国人民大学出版社，2011年6月第4版。
9、日本国际法学会编，外交学院国际法教研室译，《国际法辞典》，世界知识出版社，1985年5月第1版。
10、徐显明：《国际人权法》，法律出版社，2004年版。
11、联合国难民署编：《甄别难民地位的程序与标准手册》（中文本），1995年版。
12、许光建主编：《联合国宪章诠释》，山西教育出版社1999年版。
13、联合国难民署：《难民》（中文本），2001年，总第123期。
14、联合国难民署执行委员会，《关于难民国际保护问题的结论》（中文本），1985年版。
15、联合国难民署编：《与难民地位申请人的面谈》（中文本），1996年版，第15页。
1、王虎华：《论国家主权与国际人权的辩证关系》，载《华东政法学院学报》2002年第5期。
2、郝鲁怡：《欧盟难民与庇护一体化法律制度研究》，载《河北法学》，2010年7月第7期。
3、薄燕：《对环境被迫移民问题的若干思考》，载《国际论坛》，2006年3月第2期。
4、甘开鹏：《二战后国际难民政策的历史演变》，载《海南师范大学学报》（社会科学版），2010年第5期。
5、徐军华、李若翰：《论国际法语境下的“环境难民”》，载《国际论坛》，2011年1月第1期。
6、甘开鹏：《论难民国际保护的基本原则》，载《重庆工商大学学报》（社会科学版），2010年第2期。
7、秦炜：《论我国对难民的法律保护》，中国政法大学硕士学位论文。
8、张爱宁：《难民保护面临的国际法问题及对策》，载《政法论坛》，2007年第6期。
9、任平丽：《难民不推回原则研究》，外交学院2008级硕士研究生学位论文。
10、钟俊辉：《难民权利保护问题研究》，西南政法大学硕士研究生学位论文。
1、丁补之，《沉默群体：30万难民在中国》，《南方周末》，2009年10月15日，网址：http://www.infzm.com/content/35919/1.
1.网易，《难民，怎样帮助国家的邻居》，2011年6月20日发布，网址：http://news.163.com/11/0620/03/76VA507700014JHT.html.
2.韩联网，《日媒：中国政府已中断脱北者强制遣返》，2012年4月18日发布，网址：http://chinese.yonhapnews.co.kr/international/2012/04/18/0304000000ACK20120418001200881.HTML
3.联合国人权高级专员办事处网站中国专页，网址：http://www.ohchr.org/CH/Countries/AsiaRegion/Pages/CNIndex.aspx
1. United States, ex rel. Donnelly v. Mulligan, U.S. Marshal,72Fed.2d.220,(1934), pp.220-223.
2. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v.United States of America), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, ICJ Reports1984.
3. New Zealand Refugee Status Appeals Authority in Refugee Appeal No.17/92Re SSS(9July1992).
4. High Court of Australia, Minister for Immigration Ethnic Affairs v. Guo,144ALR567,1997.
5. Keene L. J in the Court of Appeal of Britain in Nenni v. Secretary of State forthe Home Department, EWCA Civ1077,26July2004.
6. De Monigny J in the Federal Court of Canada in Christopher v. CanadaMinister of Citizenship and Immigration,2005FC730,20May,2005.
7. Canales-Vargas v. Gonzales, US9thCircuit Court of Appeals, Case No.03-71737.
8. New Zealand Refugee Status Appeals Authority in Appeal No.135/92, Re RS,27August1991.
9. Joint Judgment of High Court of Australia in Chen Shi Hai v Minister forImmigration and Multicultural Affair,170ALR553,2000.
10. The Court of Appeal of Britain in Holub&Anor v Secretary of State for theHome Department, EWCA Civ343,20December2000.
11. The Court of Appeal of Britain in Popik v Secretary of State for the HomeDepartment, EWCA Civ19360,9July1999.
12. Stuart-Smith LJ in Demirkaya v. Secretary of State for the Home Department,1999, Imm AR498.
13. The European Court on Human Rights sitting as a Grand Chamber inSelmouni v France, Application No.25803/94,28July1999.
14. Madjwick J in Duzkiker v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs,1999FCA391,31March2000.
15. Pregerson CJ in the US Court of Appeals in Maini v Immigration andNaturalization Service, No.98-70894,9thCir,2000.
16. McHugh J in the High Court of Australia in Chan v Minister for Immigrationand Ethnic Affairs,1989,169CLR379.
17. MacGuigan JA in Musial v Minister of Employment and Immigration,1FC290,1981.
18. McHugh J in the High Court of Australia in Applicant A v Minister forImmigration and Ethnic Affairs,190CLR225,1997.
19. Henry Lj in the New Zealand Court of Appeal in S v Refugee Status AppealsAuthority,1998, NZLR91.
20. Soering v. United Kingdom (1989),98ILR270.
21. Cruz Varas v. Sweden (1991)108ILR283.
22. Vilvarajah v. United Kingdom (1991)108ILR321.
23. Chahal v. United Kingdom (1997),108ILR385.
24. Ahmed v. Austria (1997),24EHRR278.
25. T.I. v. United Kingdom, Application No.43844/98, Decision as toAdmissibility,7March2000.
1. Thomas Gammeltoft-Hansen, Access to Asylum: International Refugee Lawand the Globalisation of Migration Control, Cambridge University Press,2011.
2. Daniele Joly, Global Changes in Asylum Regimes, Palgrave Macmillan Ltd,2002.
3. Manuel R. Garcia-Mora, International Law and Asylum as a Human Right,Public Affair Press, Washington, D. C.1956.
4. Hemme Battjes, European Asylum Law and International Law, MartinusNijhoff Publishers, Leiden/Boston,2006.
5. James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees Under International Law,Cambridge University Press,2005.
6. Mjchelle Foster, International Refugee Law and Socio-Economic Rights:Refuge from Deprivation, Cambridge University Press,2007.
7. Agnes Hurwitz, The Collective Responsibility of States to Protect Refugees,Oxford Universtity Press,2009.
8. Carol Bohmer, Amy Shuman, Rejecting Refugees: Political Asylum in the21st Century, Routledge Publisher,2008.
9. Rosemary Byrne, Gregor Noll, Jens Vedsted-Hansen, New Asylum Countries?Migration Control and Refugee Protection in an Enlarged Europan Union, KluwerLaw International, The Hague/London/New York,2002.
10. Lorne Waldman, Canadian Immigration&Refugee Law Practice, LexisNexisCanada Inc.2011.
11. Mark Symes, Peter Jorro, Adrian Berry, Asylum Law and Practice,Bloomsbery Professional Press,2010.
12. Mark Gibney, Certain Violence, Uncertain Protection, in Global Changes inAsylum Regimes, Daniele Joly edited, Palgrave Macmillan Ltd,2002.
13. International Organization for Migration, International Migration LawGlossary On Migration, International Organization for Migration Publisher,2004.
14. A. Obondoh, Economic Inequalities and Social Exclusion-The Core Objectsof the structural Reform Agenda, Eco News Africa, Nov.2001.
15. M. Mubanga-Chipoya, Analysis of the current trends and developmentsregarding the right to leave any country including one’s own, and to return to one’sown country, and to some other rights or considerations arising therefrom, UN Doc.E/CN.4Sub.2/1987/10.
16. G. Goodwin-Gill, The Refugee in International Law, Oxford: Clarendon Press,1996.
17. M. Nowak, UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,1993,(Nowak,ICCPR Commentary).
18. James. C. Hathaway, The Law of Refugee Status, Butterworths,1991.
19. Paul Weis, The Refugee Convention, Cambridge University Press,1995.
20. Grahl-Madsen A, Commentary on the Refugee Convention1951, reprintedby UNHCR, Geneva,1997.
21. Ulrich Sinn, Greek Sanctuaries as Places of Refuge, in Greek Sanctuaries:New Approaches. Edited by NANNO MARINATOS and ROBIN HXGG. London andNew York: Routledge1993.
22. Emer De Vattel, The Law of Nations or The Principles Of Natural Law,(Charles G.Fenwick Trans.), Slatkine Reprints-Henry Dunant Institute1983.
23. David Hawk, The Hidden Gulag Exposing North Korea's Prison Camps:Prisoners' Testimonies and Satellite Photographs, US Committee for Human Rights inNorth Korea,2003.
24. Amnesty International, Starved of Rights: Human Rights and the Food Crisisin the Democratic People's Republic of Korea,2004
25. Grahl-Madsen, The status of refugee in international law, Volume II,Leyden:A.W. Sijthoff1972.
26. G. Noll, Negotiating Asylum, The Hague: Nijhoff Publishers2000.
27. Bouteillet-Paquet, L’ Europe et le droit d’ asile, Paris: l’ Harmattan,2001.
28. J. Brierly, The Law Of Nations (4th Ed),1949.
29. A. Grahl-Madsen, The Status of Refugees in International Law (Vol. II),Leiden: Sijthoff,1972.
30. S.P. Sinha, Asylum and International Law, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff,1971.
31. Maurice Kamto, Third report on the expulsion of aliens, U.N. Doc.A/CN.4/581.
32. Vitit Muntarbhorn, Question of the Violation of Human Rights andFundamental Freedom in Any Part of the World: Situation of Human Rights in theDemocratic People's Republic of Korea, UN Doc E/CN.4/2005/34,2005.
33. D.Vanheule, A comparison of the judicial interpretations of the notionrefugee, in Europe and Refugee: A challenge? The Hague: Kluwer Law International,1997.
34. Maryjoleine Zieck, UNHCR and Voluntary Repatriation of Refugee: A LegalAnalysis, Martinue Nijhoff Publishers,1997.
1. G S Goodwin-Gill and J McAdam, The Refugee in Internaitonal Law(3rdedn), Oxford University Press, Oxford2007.
2. UNHCR, Information Note on Implementation of the1951Convention andthe1967protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, UN Doc. EC/SCP/66, July22,1991.
3. UNHCR, OAS General Assembly: an Inter-American Initiative on Regugee,Refugees,1986, Vol.27.
4. State Department of U.S.A, Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of theUnited States (Third)§701, Reporters’ Notes4-6,1987.
5. UN Human Rights Committee,“General Comment No.31: The nature of thegeneral legal obligations of states parties to the Covenant”,2004, UN Doc.HRI/GEN/1/Rev.7, May12,2004.
6. Lauterpacht, E., ed., international law: The Collected Papers of HerschLauterpacht, Cambridge University Press,1970.
7. Amnesty International, Starved of Rights: Human Rights and the Food Crisisin the Democratic People's Republic of Korea,2004.
1. Gretchen Borchelt, THE SAFE THIRD COUNTRY PRACTICE IN THEEUROPEAN UNION: A MISGUIDED APPROACH TO ASYLUM LAW AND AVIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS STANDARDS, ColumbiaHuman Rights Law Review,2002, Vol.33.
2. Jari Pirjola, European Asylum Policy: Inclusions and Exclusions under theSurface of Universal Human Rights Language, European Journal of Migration andLaw, Vol.11,2009.
3. PATRICK DELOUVIN, The Evolution of Asylum in France, Journal ofRefugee Studies, Vol.13, No.1,2000.
4. AOIFE DUFFY, Expulsion to Face Torture? Non-refoulement inInternationalLaw, International Journal of Refugee Law,2008, Vol.20.
5. ALICE EDWARDS, Human Rights, Refugees, and the Right to EnjoyAsylum, International Journal of Refugee Law,2005, Vol.17.
6. E. Lauterpacht and D. Bethlehem,‘The Scope and Content of the Principle ofNon-Refoulement’, in E. Feller, V. Türk, F. Nicholson (eds.), Refugee Protection inInternational Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2003.
7. MATTHEW E. PRICE, Politics or Humanitarianism: Recovering thePolitical Roots of Asylum, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal,2004-2005, Vol.19.
8. M. G. KALADHARAN NAYAR, Right of Asylum in International Law： ItsStatus and Prospects, SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL,1972, Vol.17.
9. Gregor Noll, SEEKING ASYLUM AT EMBASSIES: A RIGHT TO ENTRYUNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW? International Journal of Refugee Law,2005, Vol.17.
10. Morgenstern F, Diplomatic Asylum, The Law Quarterly Review,1951, Vol.67
11. Violeta Moreno-Lax, SEEKING ASYLUM IN THE MEDITERRANEAN:AGAINST A FRAGMENTARY READING OF EU MEMBER STATES'OBLIGATIONS ACCRUING AT SEA, International Journal of Refugee Law, July,2011, Vol.23.
12. Tom Malinowski, Advancing Human Rights in North Korea: Testimony byTom Malinowski Before the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations (2003),available online at: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/03/02/usint7793_txt.htm
13. Inna Nazarova, ALIENATING “HUMAN” FROM “RIGHT”: U.S. AND UKNON-COMPLIANCE WITH ASYLUM OBLIGATIONS UNDERINTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, Fordham International Law Journal,Vol.25.2002.
14. E. Haddad, The refugee: the individual between sovereigns, Global Society,Vol.17,2003.
15. P. WEIS, United Nations Declaration on Territorial Asylum, The CanadianYearbook of International Law,1969.
16. Daniel Kanstroom, Wer Sind Wir Wieder? Laws of Asylum, Immigration,and Citizenship in the Struggle for the Soul of the New Germany, YALE JOURNALOF INTERNATIONAL LAW, Vol.18,1993.
17. JAMES C. HATHAWAY, Leveraging Asylum, TEXAS INTERNATIONALLAW JOURNAL, VOL.45,2010.
18. Elim Chan, North Korean Refugees and International Refugee Law,International Journal of Refugee Law, Vol.19,2007, IJRL200719(215)
19. ALBERTA FABBRICOTTI, The Concept of Inhuman or DegradingTreatment in International Law and its Application in Aslum Cases, InternationalJournal of Refugee Law,1998, Vol.10.
20. US CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES–ASYLUMDIVISION, ASYLUM OFFICER BASIC TRAINING COURSE, InternationalHuman Rights Law, MARCH1,2005.
21. Martin, Refugees and Migration, United Nations Legal Order, Vol.1,Schachter and Joyner, eds, Cambridge University Press,1995.
22. J. Sorenson, Opposition, Exile and Identity: The Eritrean Case, Journal ofRefugee Studies, Vol.3,1990.
23. US CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES–ASYLUMDIVISION, ASYLUM OFFICER BASIC TRAINING COURSE, ELIGIBILITYPART I: DEFINITIONS; PAST PERSECUTION, MARCH6,2009.
24. ROMAN BOED, THE STATE OF THE RIGHT OF ASYLUM ININTERNATIONAL LAW, DUKE JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE&INTERNATIONAL LAW, Vol.5,1994-1995.
25. P. Van Arsdale, The Role of Mutual Assistance Associations in RefugeeAcculturation and Service Delivery, in Selected Papers on Refugee Issues II (Editedby M. Hopkins and N. Donnelly), American Anthropological Association,1993.
26. S. Riveles, Diplomatic Asylum as a Human Right: The Case of the DurbanSix, Human Rights Quarterly,1989, Vol.11.
27. L.H. Legault, Canadian Practice in International Law during1979asReflected Mainly in Public Correspondence and Statements of the Department ofExternal Affairs, Canadian Yearbook of International Law,1980, Vol.18.
28. C.V. Cole, Is There Safe Refuge in Canadian Missions Abroad? InternationalJournal of Refugee Law,1997, Vol.9.
29. P. Porcino, Toward Codification of Diplomatic Asylum, New York UniversityJournal of International Law and Politics,1976, Vol.8.
30. B. Simma and P. Alston, The Sources of Human Rights Law: Custom, JusCogens, and General Principles, The Year Book of International Law, Vol.12,1988-1989, p.82.
31. A.M. Rossitto, Diplomatic Asylum in the United States and Latin America: AComparative Analysis, Brooklyn Journal of International Law,1987, Vol.13.
32. M. Weiner, Ethics, national sovereignty and the control of immigration,International Migration Review, Vol.30,1996.
33. Clive Walker&Russell L. Weaver, The United Kingdom Bill of Rights1998:The Modernization of Rights in the Old World, U. Mich. J. L. Reform, Vol.33,2000.
34. D.W. Greig, The Protection of Refugees and Customary International Law,Australian Year Book of International Law,1983, Vol.8.
35. James D Seymour, China: Background Paper on the Situation of NorthKoreans in China, Writenet Independent Analysis,2005,:www.ilw.com/lawyers/articles/2005,0629-northkorean.pdf.
36. Lee Keum soon, Cross-Border Movement of North Korean Citizens, EastAsian Review, Vol.16(1).
37. James L. Taulbee, POLITICAL CRIMES, HUMAN RIGHTS ANDCONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL PRACTICE, Emory International LawReview, Vol.4,1990.
38. Erika Feller, THE EVOLUTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL REFUGEEPROTECTION REGIME, Washington University Journal of Law and Policy, Vol.5,2001.
39. Matthew Lippman, CIVIL RESISTANCE: THE DICTATES OFCONSCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL LAW VERSUS THE AMERICANJUDICIARY, Florida Journal of International Law, Vol.6,1990.
40. Martin J. Friedman, Criminal Responsibility and the Political Offender, THEAMERICAN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW, Vol.24,1974-1975.
41. Linda J. Kleb, A WELL-FOUNDED FEAR OF PERSECUTION—ADDINGSUBSTANCE TO THE ELUSIVE STANDARDS OF THE1980REFUGEE ACTINS v. CARDOZA-FONSECA,107S.CT.1207(1987), Hamline Journal of PublicLaw and Policy, Vol.9,1988.
42. Shauna Labman, LOOKING BACK, MOVING FORWARD: THEHISTORY AND FUTURE OF REFUGEE PROTECTION, Chicago-Kent Journal ofInternational and Comparative Law, Vol.10,2010.
43. Christine E. Cervasio, EXTRADITION AND THE INTERNATIONALCRIMINAL COURT: THE FUTURE OF THE POLITICAL OFFENSE DOCTRINE,Pace International Law Review, Vol.11,1999.
44. Ode, Paul H. Jr, SECTION243(h) OF THE IMMIGRATION ANDNATIONALITY ACT OF1952AS AMENDED BY THE REFUGEE ACT OF1980:A PROGNOSIS AND A PROPOSAL, COPNELL INTERNATIONAL LAWJOUNAL, Vol.13,1980.
45. Nadia Yakoob, POLITICAL OFFENDER OR SERIOUS CRIMINAL?CHALLENGING THE INTERPRETATION OF "SERIOUS, NONPOLITICALCRIMES" IN INS V. AGUIRRE-AGUIRRE, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal,Vol.14,2000.
46. Walter K?lin, NON-STATE AGENTS OF PERSECUTION AND THEINABILITY OF THE STATE TO PROTECT, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal,Vol.15,2001.
47. Barry Gilbert, THE RIGHT OF ASYLUM IN THE LEGATIONS OF THEUNITED STATES IN CENTRAL AND SOUTH AMERICA, Harvard Law Review,Vol.15,1901.
48. Jennifer M. Corey, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE v.DOHERTY: THE POLITICS OF EXTRADITION, DEPORTATION, AND ASYLUM,Maryland Journal of International Law and Trade, Vol.16,1992.
49. Keith D. Nunes, DETENTIONS OF POLITICAL, RACIAL ANDRELIGIOUS PERSECUTEES AND DISSENTERS: ASYLUM AND HUMANDIGNITY, New York Law School Journal of Human Rights, Vol.16,2000.
50. Barbara Ann Banoff, Christopher H. Pyle,"TO SURRENDER POLITICALOFFENDERS": THE POLITICAL OFFENSE EXCEPTION TO EXTRADITION INUNITED STATES LAW, New York University Journal of International Law&Politics, Vol.16,1984.
51. Yen Tran, THE CLOSING OF THE SAGA OF THE VIETNAMESEASYLUM SEEKERS: THE IMPLICATIONS ON IN-TERNATIONAL REFUGEESAND HUMAN RIGHTS LAWS, Houston Journal of International Law, Vol.17,1995.
52. Pamela Loughman, CARRON v. MCMAHON: THE WIDENING SCOPEOF THE POLITICAL OFFENSE EXCEPTION TO EXTRADITION, BrooklynJournal of International Law, Vol.18,1992.
53. PATRICK DELOUVIN, Evolution of Asylum in France, Journal of RefugeeStudies, Vol.13, No.1,2000.
54. Gilbert Jaeger, Refugee Asylum: Policy and Legislative Developments,International Migration Review, Vol.15, No.1/2,1981.
55. Matthew E. Price, POLITICS OR HUMANITARIANISM? RECOVERINGTHE POLITICAL ROOTS OF ASYLUM, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, Vol.19,2005.
56. VALERIE EPPS, The Validity of the Political Offender Exception inExtradition Treaties in Anglo-American Jurisprudencet, Harvard International LawJournal, VOLUME20, Num.1, WINTER I979.
57. Michael J. Parrish, REDEFINING THE REFUGEE: THE UNIVERSALDECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AS A BASIS FOR REFUGEEPROTECTION, Cardozo Law Review, Vol.22, November,2000.
58. Alexandra McGinley, THE AFTERMATH OF THE NATO BOMBING:APPROACHES FOR ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM OF SERBIANCONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS, Fordham International Law Journal, Vol.23,2000.
59. Alyce S. Ahn, PROSECUTION OR PERSECUTION: CONTRADICTIONSBETWEEN U.S. FOREIGN POLICY&THE ADJUDICATION OF ASYLUMCLAIMS INVOLVING THE HARBORING OF NORTH KOREAN REFUGEES,Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, Vol.24,2010.
60. Maryellen Fullerton, A COMPARATIVE LOOK AT REFUGEE STATUSBASED ON PERSECUTION DUE TO MEMBERSHIP IN A PARTICULARSOCIAL GROUP, Cornell International Law Journal, Vol.26,1993.
61. Captain Richard L. Fruchterman, ASYLUM: THEORY AND PRACTICE,JAG Journal, Vol.26,1972.
62. Michael G. Heyman, IMMIGRATION LAW IN THE SUPREME COURT:THE FLAGGING SPIRIT OF THE LAW, Journal of Legislation, Vol.28,2002.
63. Jeffrey Dillman, INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE AND ASYLUM LAW,Howard Law Journal, Vol.34,1991.
64. Michelle N. Lewis, THE POLITICAL-OFFENSE EXCEPTION:RECONCILING THE TENSION BETWEEN HUMAN RIGHTS ANDINTERNATIONAL PUBLIC ORDER, George Washington Law Review, Vol.63,1995.
65. Craig A. Fielden, PERSECUTION ON ACCOUNT OF POLITICALOPINION:“REFUGEE” STATUS AFTER INS v. ELIAS-ZACARIAS,112S. CT.812(1992), Washington Law Review, Vol.67,1992.
66. Louise W. Holborn, The Legal Status of Political Refugees,1920-1938, TheAmerican Journal of International Law, Vol.32, No.4,1938.
67. Daniel J. Steinbock, INTERPRETING THE REFUGEE DEFINITION,UCLA Law Review, Vol.45,1998.
68. M. G. KALADHARAN NAYAR, Right of Asylum in International Law： ItsStatus and Prospects, SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL, Vol.17,1972.
69. James L. Taulbee, POLITICAL CRIMES, HUMAN RIGHTS ANDCONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL PRACTICE, Emory International LawReview, Vol.4,1990.
70. Erika Feller, THE EVOLUTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL REFUGEEPROTECTION REGIME, Washington University Journal of Law and Policy, Vol.5,2001.
71. Matthew Lippman, CIVIL RESISTANCE: THE DICTATES OFCONSCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL LAW VERSUS THE AMERICANJUDICIARY, Florida Journal of International Law, Vol.6,1990.
72. Martin J. Friedman, Criminal Responsibility and the Political Offender, THEAMERICAN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW, Vol.24,1974-1975.
73. Linda J. Kleb, A WELL-FOUNDED FEAR OF PERSECUTION—ADDINGSUBSTANCE TO THE ELUSIVE STANDARDS OF THE1980REFUGEE ACTINS v. CARDOZA-FONSECA,107S.CT.1207(1987), Hamline Journal of PublicLaw and Policy, Vol.9,1988.
74. Shauna Labman, LOOKING BACK, MOVING FORWARD: THEHISTORY AND FUTURE OF REFUGEE PROTECTION, Chicago-Kent Journal ofInternational and Comparative Law, Vol.10,2010.
75. Christine E. Cervasio, EXTRADITION AND THE INTERNATIONALCRIMINAL COURT: THE FUTURE OF THE POLITICAL OFFENSE DOCTRINE,Pace International Law Review, Vol.11,1999.
76. Ode, Paul H. Jr, SECTION243(h) OF THE IMMIGRATION ANDNATIONALITY ACT OF1952AS AMENDED BY THE REFUGEE ACT OF1980:A PROGNOSIS AND A PROPOSAL, COPNELL INTERNATIONAL LAWJOUNAL, Vol.13,1980.
77. Nadia Yakoob, POLITICAL OFFENDER OR SERIOUS CRIMINAL?CHALLENGING THE INTERPRETATION OF "SERIOUS, NONPOLITICALCRIMES" IN INS V. AGUIRRE-AGUIRRE, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal,Vol.14,2000.
78. Walter K?lin, NON-STATE AGENTS OF PERSECUTION AND THEINABILITY OF THE STATE TO PROTECT, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal,Vol.15,2001.
79. Barry Gilbert, THE RIGHT OF ASYLUM IN THE LEGATIONS OF THEUNITED STATES IN CENTRAL AND SOUTH AMERICA, Harvard Law Review,Vol.15,1901.
80. Jennifer M. Corey, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE v.DOHERTY: THE POLITICS OF EXTRADITION, DEPORTATION, AND ASYLUM,Maryland Journal of International Law and Trade, Vol.16,1992.
81. Keith D. Nunes, DETENTIONS OF POLITICAL, RACIAL ANDRELIGIOUS PERSECUTEES AND DISSENTERS: ASYLUM AND HUMANDIGNITY, New York Law School Journal of Human Rights, Vol.16,2000.
82. Barbara Ann Banoff, Christopher H. Pyle,"TO SURRENDER POLITICALOFFENDERS": THE POLITICAL OFFENSE EXCEPTION TO EXTRADITION INUNITED STATES LAW, New York University Journal of International Law&Politics, Vol.16,1984.
83. Yen Tran, THE CLOSING OF THE SAGA OF THE VIETNAMESEASYLUM SEEKERS: THE IMPLICATIONS ON IN-TERNATIONAL REFUGEESAND HUMAN RIGHTS LAWS, Houston Journal of International Law, Vol.17,1995.
84. Pamela Loughman, CARRON v. MCMAHON: THE WIDENING SCOPEOF THE POLITICAL OFFENSE EXCEPTION TO EXTRADITION, BrooklynJournal of International Law, Vol.18,1992.
85. PATRICK DELOUVIN, Evolution of Asylum in France, Journal of RefugeeStudies, Vol.13, No.1,2000.
86. Gilbert Jaeger, Refugee Asylum: Policy and Legislative Developments,International Migration Review, Vol.15, No.1/2,1981.
87. Matthew E. Price, POLITICS OR HUMANITARIANISM? RECOVERINGTHE POLITICAL ROOTS OF ASYLUM, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, Vol.19,2005.
88. VALERIE EPPS, The Validity of the Political Offender Exception inExtradition Treaties in Anglo-American Jurisprudencet, Harvard International LawJournal, VOLUME20, Num.1, WINTER I979.
89. Michael J. Parrish, REDEFINING THE REFUGEE: THE UNIVERSALDECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AS A BASIS FOR REFUGEEPROTECTION, Cardozo Law Review, Vol.22, November,2000.
90. Alexandra McGinley, THE AFTERMATH OF THE NATO BOMBING:APPROACHES FOR ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM OF SERBIANCONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS, Fordham International Law Journal, Vol.23,2000.
91. Alyce S. Ahn, PROSECUTION OR PERSECUTION: CONTRADICTIONSBETWEEN U.S. FOREIGN POLICY&THE ADJUDICATION OF ASYLUMCLAIMS INVOLVING THE HARBORING OF NORTH KOREAN REFUGEES,Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, Vol.24,2010.
92. Maryellen Fullerton, A COMPARATIVE LOOK AT REFUGEE STATUSBASED ON PERSECUTION DUE TO MEMBERSHIP IN A PARTICULARSOCIAL GROUP, Cornell International Law Journal, Vol.26,1993.
93. Captain Richard L. Fruchterman, ASYLUM: THEORY AND PRACTICE,JAG Journal, Vol.26,1972.
94. Michael G. Heyman, IMMIGRATION LAW IN THE SUPREME COURT:THE FLAGGING SPIRIT OF THE LAW, Journal of Legislation, Vol.28,2002.
95. Jeffrey Dillman, INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE AND ASYLUM LAW,Howard Law Journal, Vol.34,1991.
96. Michelle N. Lewis, THE POLITICAL-OFFENSE EXCEPTION:RECONCILING THE TENSION BETWEEN HUMAN RIGHTS ANDINTERNATIONAL PUBLIC ORDER, George Washington Law Review, Vol.63,1995.
97. Craig A. Fielden, PERSECUTION ON ACCOUNT OF POLITICALOPINION:“REFUGEE” STATUS AFTER INS v. ELIAS-ZACARIAS,112S. CT.812(1992), Washington Law Review, Vol.67,1992.
98. Louise W. Holborn, The Legal Status of Political Refugees,1920-1938, TheAmerican Journal of International Law, Vol.32, No.4,1938.
99. Daniel J. Steinbock, INTERPRETING THE REFUGEE DEFINITION,UCLA Law Review, Vol.45,1998.
100. M. G. KALADHARAN NAYAR, Right of Asylum in International Law：Its Status and Prospects, SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL, Vol.17,1972.
1. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Reception Standards ForAsylum Seekers In the European Union, July2000, Available online at:http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/3ae6b3440.pdf.
2. UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES, Handbookon Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the1951Convention and the1967Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, January1992,Available online at: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/refugeehandbook.pdf.
3. UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES, THESCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-REFOULEMENT,20June2001, Available online at: http://www.unhcr.org/419c75ce4.html
4. UNHCR, Handbook on voluntary repatriation: international protection,Available online at: http://www. unhcr.org/publ/PUBL/3bfe68d32.pdf.
5. UNHCR, Guidelines on International Protection: Cessation of Refugee Statusunder Article1C(5) and (6) of the1951Convention relating to the Status of Refugees,HCR/GIP/03/03,10February2003, Available online at: http://www.unhcr.org/publ/PUBL/3bfe68d32.pdf.
6. UNHCR, Local integration: an under-reported solution to protracted refugeesituations, June2008, Available online at: http://www.unhcr.org/486cc99f2.html.
7. Worster, William Thomas, The Contemporary International Law Status of theRight to Receive Asylum (March17,2012). Available at SSRN:http://ssrn.com/abstract=2025410orhttp://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2025410.
8. UNHCR: Asylum Levels and Trends in Industrialized Countries2011,Available online at: http://www.unhcr.org/4e9beaa19.html
9. E. Feller, International refugee protection50years on: The protectionchallenges of the past, Present and future,2001, Available online at:http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/581-606_feller.pdf.
10. UNHCR: Asylum Levels and Trends in Industrialized Countries2011,Available online at: http://www.unhcr.org/4e9beaa19.html
11. United Nations, Multilateral Treaties Deposited with theSecretary-General, Available online at: http://treaties.un.org.
12. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Reception Standards ForAsylum Seekers In the European Union, July2000, Available online at:http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/3ae6b3440.pdf.
13.联合国难民署：2000年《寻求庇护者在欧洲的接待待遇》，网址：http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/3ae6b3440.pdf.
14. Choi Wook-seok, UN Official Decries Starvation in North,19June2003,http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200306/200306190029.html (21July2005).
15. Human Rights Watch, The Invisible Exodus: North Koreans in the People'sRepublic of China,2002, Available online at:www.hrw.org/reports/2002/northkorea/norkor1102.pdf.
16. James D Seymour, China: Background Paper on the Situation of NorthKoreans in China (2005),19, Writenet Independent Analysis,2005, available atwww.ilw.com/lawyers/articles/2005,0629-northkorean.pdf.
17. Human Rights Watch, China: Protect Rights of North Korean asylum seekers(Press Release,19Nov.2002), Available online at:www.hrw.org/press/2002/11/nkreport.htm.