Home > yourrights > rights of immigrants/refugees > refugees/Legal Framework of the Convention > Legal Framework of the Convention
> Cessation and Exclusion Clauses
Cessation and Exclusion Clauses
Cessation Clauses
Refugee status is not necessarily permanent as the Refugee Convention includes several cessation clauses governing the circumstances in which a recognised refugee’s status as a refugee ceases. A person under this Article will cease to be a refugee if they have:
Guidance is provided on the Home Office website Cessation, Cancellation and Withdrawal of Refugee Status.
Exclusion clauses
The Convention has several forms of exclusion clause.
The most important one is Article 1F which states:
The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that the claimant:
(a) Has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes;
(b) Has committed a serious non political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee;
(c) Has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
These clauses are part of the Refugee Convention and so can be considered by the AIT even where the Secretary of State has not raised them, subject to giving an opportunity to an Appellant to deal with such issues – the foreseeability of the issue arising will be relevant to the need for an adjournment. See generally the Tribunal in Gurung [2002] UKIAT 04870 (14 October 2002):
‘…it would be wrong to say that an appellant only came within the Exclusion Clauses if the evidence established that he has personally participated in acts contrary to the provisions of Art 1F. If the organisation is one or has become one whose aims, methods and activities are predominantly terrorist in character, very little more will be necessary...
…even when complicity is established the assessment under Art 1F must take into account not only evidence about the status and level of the person in the organisation and factors such as duress and self defence against superior orders as well as the availability of a moral choice; it must also encompass evidence about the nature of the organisation and the nature of the society in which it operates. Such evidence will need to include the extent to which the organisation is fragmented.’’
In KK (Article 1F(c)) ( Turkey ) [2004] UKIAT 00101 the Tribunal indicated that Canadian authority might be followed on Article 1F(c) which recognised that
‘…in interpreting Article 1F(c) it was concerned with both (a) cases where "there was a consensus in international law that particular acts constitute sufficiently serious and sustained violations of fundamental human rights as to amount to persecution" and (b) cases where the acts "are explicitly recognised as contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations".’
The Tribunal went on to rule that, whereas Article 1(F)(b) is limited to acts committed outside the United Kingdom , 1(F)(c) cases could be based on activities carried out in this country:
‘Acts which merit the condemnation of the whole international community must lead to exclusion from the benefits of the Refugee Convention whenever they occur.’
Refugee status is not necessarily permanent as the Refugee Convention includes several cessation clauses governing the circumstances in which a recognised refugee’s status as a refugee ceases. A person under this Article will cease to be a refugee if they have:
- voluntarily availed themselves of the protection of the country of their nationality
- voluntarily re-acquired a lost nationality
- acquired the nationality of a country (including the UK ) and availed themselves of the protection of that country
- voluntarily established themselves in a country in respect of which they were a refugee
Guidance is provided on the Home Office website Cessation, Cancellation and Withdrawal of Refugee Status.
Exclusion clauses
The Convention has several forms of exclusion clause.
The most important one is Article 1F which states:
The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that the claimant:
(a) Has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes;
(b) Has committed a serious non political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee;
(c) Has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
These clauses are part of the Refugee Convention and so can be considered by the AIT even where the Secretary of State has not raised them, subject to giving an opportunity to an Appellant to deal with such issues – the foreseeability of the issue arising will be relevant to the need for an adjournment. See generally the Tribunal in Gurung [2002] UKIAT 04870 (14 October 2002):
‘…it would be wrong to say that an appellant only came within the Exclusion Clauses if the evidence established that he has personally participated in acts contrary to the provisions of Art 1F. If the organisation is one or has become one whose aims, methods and activities are predominantly terrorist in character, very little more will be necessary...
…even when complicity is established the assessment under Art 1F must take into account not only evidence about the status and level of the person in the organisation and factors such as duress and self defence against superior orders as well as the availability of a moral choice; it must also encompass evidence about the nature of the organisation and the nature of the society in which it operates. Such evidence will need to include the extent to which the organisation is fragmented.’’
In KK (Article 1F(c)) ( Turkey ) [2004] UKIAT 00101 the Tribunal indicated that Canadian authority might be followed on Article 1F(c) which recognised that
‘…in interpreting Article 1F(c) it was concerned with both (a) cases where "there was a consensus in international law that particular acts constitute sufficiently serious and sustained violations of fundamental human rights as to amount to persecution" and (b) cases where the acts "are explicitly recognised as contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations".’
The Tribunal went on to rule that, whereas Article 1(F)(b) is limited to acts committed outside the United Kingdom , 1(F)(c) cases could be based on activities carried out in this country:
‘Acts which merit the condemnation of the whole international community must lead to exclusion from the benefits of the Refugee Convention whenever they occur.’
