MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W256412339

International Law - Prohibition on Refoulement - Remedies - Maher Arar V. John Ashcroft

2009· article· en· W256412339 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Daniel P Ryan

Notice bibliographique

RevueSuffolk transnational law review · 2009
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueInternational Law and Human Rights
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLawPlaintiffTortureState (computer science)DamagesGovernment (linguistics)SociologyPolitical scienceHuman rightsPhilosophy
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The prohibition on refoulement is a fundamental human right enshrined in both customary international and law. (1) In Arar v. Ashcroft, (2) Court of Appeals for Second Circuit considered plaintiff Maher Arar's claim for, inter alia, damages under Torture Victims Prevention Act (T.V.P.A.) arising from his extraordinary rendition to Syria. (3) Arar alleged that defendants, U.S. government officials, rendered him to Syria with knowledge or intention that he would be tortured and interrogated by Syrian authorities. (4) The Second Circuit held that Arar failed to state a claim under T.V.P.A. and dismissed case. (5) On September 26, 2002, authorities at John F. Kennedy airport in New York detained Arar, a dual citizen of Syria and Canada, while he was in transit from Tunisia to Canada. (6) Arar was told that he was inadmissible to United because U.S. government had determined he was a member of al Qaeda. (7) Pursuant to this determination, Director of Regional Office of I.N.S.J. Scott Blackman, authorized Arar's removal from United without further process. (8) Although Arar designated Canada as country to which he wished to be sent, U.S. officials instead allegedly flew him to Jordan where he was handed over to Syrian officials, driven to Syria and placed in detention. (9) In Syria, Arar was allegedly held in an underground cell six feet long and three feet wide for approximately twelve months. (10) During his detention, Arar claimed that he was subjected to and psychological including regular beatings and threats of severe physical harm. (11) Arar further alleged that defendants provided Syrian authorities with information about him, suggested subjects for interrogation, and received all information coerced from [Arar] during interrogations. (12) Following his release from Syrian detention, Arar filed a civil action in 2004 against numerous individuals, including: former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft; Federal Bureau of Investigations (F.B.I.) Director Robert Mueller; Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge; former Immigration and Naturalization Service (I.N.S.) Commissioner James W. Ziglar; Regional Director of Regional Office of I.N.S. J. Scott Blackman; and several other named and unnamed employees of F.B.I. and I.N.S. (13) Arar alleged, inter alia, that defendants acted in concert with Jordanian and Syrian officials, and under color of Syrian law, to conspire and/or aid and abet in violating his right to be free from torture in violation of T.V.P.A. (14) Arar requested compensatory and punitive damages under T.V.P.A. for violations of his international human rights. (15) The District Court dismissed Arar's complaint in August 2006. (16) On appeal, Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld District Court dismissal of Arar's claims. (17) The Alien Tort Statute (A.T.S.) grants federal district courts original jurisdiction over any civil action by an alien for a tort committed in violation of law of or a of United States. (18) Torts in violation of of nations include, inter alia, torture, extrajudicial killing, war crimes, disappearance, and arbitrary detention. (19) To gain jurisdiction under A.T.S., plaintiff must show that is either self-executing and provides for a private right of action or, if is non-selfexecuting, that it has been implemented through domestic legislation. (20) Where a tort violates both the of prong of A.T.S. and treaty of United States prong of statute, plaintiffs are not barred from raising claims under either prong of A.T.S. (21) Under customary law, principle of non-refoulement prohibits from rejecting, returning, removing, or expelling an individual to a country where there is a substantial risk of facing torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, or persecution. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,959
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,996

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,029
Tête enseignante GPT0,334
Écart entre enseignants0,305 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2009
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueSuffolk transnational law reviewMême sujetInternational Law and Human RightsTravaux en français237 207