P023. Criminalizing Refugees: Balancing National Security and Human Rights in International Law

• In Event: Poster Session & Ice Cream Social

Abstract

Abstract
The intersection of refugee law and criminal justice presents a growing challenge in international law. Governments increasingly justify the criminalization of refugees through national security concerns, leading to prosecutions, detentions, and deportations. However, such measures often conflict with international legal protections, including the 1951 Refugee Convention, ICCPR, and CAT. This paper examines how criminal law is used against refugees and whether these policies align with human rights obligations.

Using a comparative legal analysis, this research explores refugee criminalization in the United States, European Union, Canada, and Australia, focusing on legal frameworks, security policies, and case law. Key case studies include Abu Qatada’s deportation battle in the UK, Australia’s offshore detention policy, and U.S. travel bans targeting refugees. The paper addresses critical questions:

How do states justify the criminal prosecution of refugees?
Do refugees accused of crimes receive fair trials and due process protections?
What are the legal consequences of labeling refugees as security threats?
Findings reveal that security-driven criminalization often leads to due process violations, unfair trials, and breaches of non-refoulement. Additionally, discriminatory national security policies disproportionately affect refugee populations. While security concerns are legitimate, they must be balanced with international legal obligations. The paper advocates for policy reforms, including enhanced judicial oversight, clearer legal definitions, and procedural safeguards to ensure that security measures comply with human rights standards.

Keywords: Refugee law, criminal law, national security, human rights, due process, non-refoulement, securitization.

Authors

• Soojin Lee, The University of Alabama

• Jihoon Kim, The University of Alabama