Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
Here is a not so nice thought: These people are not (necessarily) refugees.
I mean that, as defined by the 1967 protocol1 (which is mostly just the 1951 conventions2 definition, but without the time limitation). Therefore the right to non-refoulment (i.e. not returning a person to their prior country) does not apply to them. The EU has a lesser definition "subsidiary
protection"3 which these people do might[?] qualify for (as it includes war “serious and individual threat to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict”), but as far as I can read, the directive does not define any rights for these people. So the exact things a person under subsidiary protection is afforded is up to the individual country. I am probably missing some “laws”, but otherwise there is, legally as far as these “laws” go, nothing wrong, with‒e.g.‒Germany (assuming German law doesn’t define non-refoulment for S.P.) returning Ukrainians to Ukraine.
owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country ; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to
return to it
And that means that it’s going to be very easy for western governments to start deporting them back to Ukraine. Given that there are a lot of political tensions in Europe over the issue, it’s going to be a really easy choice once Ukraine starts trying to recall these people.
Accepting these people would be a really smart move on the part of Russia. It would show that Russia is fighting the regime in Ukraine as opposed to the people, and it would be incredibly demoralizing for people who got conscripted into Ukrainian army.
Here is a not so nice thought: These people are not (necessarily) refugees.
I mean that, as defined by the 1967 protocol1 (which is mostly just the 1951 conventions2 definition, but without the time limitation). Therefore the right to non-refoulment (i.e. not returning a person to their prior country) does not apply to them. The EU has a lesser definition "subsidiary protection"3 which these people
domight[?] qualify for (as it includeswar“serious and individual threat to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict”), but as far as I can read, the directive does not define any rights for these people. So the exact things a person under subsidiary protection is afforded is up to the individual country. I am probably missing some “laws”, but otherwise there is, legally as far as these “laws” go, nothing wrong, with‒e.g.‒Germany (assuming German law doesn’t define non-refoulment for S.P.) returning Ukrainians to Ukraine.1 https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280048bb8&clang=_en
2 https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=080000028003002e&clang=_en
3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32011L0095
Definition as modified by the 1967 protocol:
And that means that it’s going to be very easy for western governments to start deporting them back to Ukraine. Given that there are a lot of political tensions in Europe over the issue, it’s going to be a really easy choice once Ukraine starts trying to recall these people.
Accepting these people would be a really smart move on the part of Russia. It would show that Russia is fighting the regime in Ukraine as opposed to the people, and it would be incredibly demoralizing for people who got conscripted into Ukrainian army.