Andrew G. Pizor


This Comment contends that the Supreme Court's holding in Sale was erroneous because the 1967 Protocol and customary international human rights law mandate that non-refoulement apply to all refugees regardless of location. Part I describes the historical background of the 1951 Convention, the 1967 Protocol, and the INA as they relate to non-refoulement. Part I also discusses the U.S. government's interdiction program against Haitian migrants and the human rights conditions in Haiti as they existed from the start of the interdiction program in 1982 to the present. Part II examines Sale and sets forth the procedural history of the case, the facts, the positions of the parties, and the reasoning of the Supreme Court. Part III analyzes the Supreme Court's decision, proposes additional issues that the Court should have considered, and argues that the Supreme Court should have held that President Bush's order violated both the 1967 Protocol and customary international human rights law. This Comment concludes that Sale does not reflect contemporary refugee law, and therefore, should be rejected by other nations facing similar refugee situations.