Shifting Borders and the Boundaries of Rights: Examining the Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and the United States

(2013) 25(1) International Journal of Refugee Law 65

Criminal Justice, Borders and Citizenship Research Paper No. 2420863

22 Pages Posted: 7 Apr 2014 Last revised: 9 Jun 2016

See all articles by Efrat Arbel

Efrat Arbel

University of British Columbia (UBC), Faculty of Law; Harvard University - Law School - Alumni; University of Oxford - Border Criminologies

Date Written: March 20, 2013

Abstract

This article analyzes the Canadian Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal decisions assessing the Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and the United States (STCA). It examines how each court’s treatment of the location and operation of the Canada-US border influences the results obtained. The article suggests that both in its treatment of the STCA and in its constitutional analysis, the Federal Court decision conceives of the border as a moving barrier capable of shifting outside Canada’s formal territorial boundaries. The effect of this decision is to bring refugee claimants outside state soil within the fold of Canadian constitutional protection. In contrast, the Federal Court of Appeal decision conceives of the border as both static and shifting. In its treatment of the STCA, the Court conceives of the border as a moving barrier that shifts outside Canada’s formal territorial boundaries to extend state power outwards. Yet, in its constitutional analysis, the Court conceives of the border as a static barrier that remains fixed at the state’s geographic perimeter to limit access to refugee rights. By simultaneously conceiving of the border in these opposing ways, the Court of Appeal decision places refugee claimants in an impossible legal bind: it requires them to present at the (static) border to claim legal protection, but at the same time shifts the border in ways that preclude them from doing so. The decision thus suspends refugee claimants between two opposing directives, deprives them of otherwise actionable rights, and denies them recourse to meaningful legal action under Canadian law. The article argues that, in this key way, the Federal Court of Appeal decision does much more than clarify the executive discretion of the Governor-in-Council, as it purports. Rather, it redefines the Canadian refugee regime as fundamentally exclusionary towards STCA claimants, and calls into question the central principles by which this regime is distinguished and defined.

Keywords: Refugee Law; Borders; Canada

Suggested Citation

Arbel, Efrat, Shifting Borders and the Boundaries of Rights: Examining the Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and the United States (March 20, 2013). (2013) 25(1) International Journal of Refugee Law 65, Criminal Justice, Borders and Citizenship Research Paper No. 2420863, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2420863

Efrat Arbel (Contact Author)

University of British Columbia (UBC), Faculty of Law ( email )

1822 East Mall
Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z1
Canada

Harvard University - Law School - Alumni

1563 Massachusetts Ave
Cambridge, MA 02138
United States

University of Oxford - Border Criminologies ( email )

Manor Road Building
Manor Rd
Oxford, OX1 3UQ
United Kingdom

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
64
Abstract Views
418
rank
375,665
PlumX Metrics