Unsafe in America: A Review of the U.S.-Canada Safe Third Country Agreement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Under the U.S.-Canada Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA), Canada can turn away refugees seeking protection if they first arrived in the United States en route to the Canadian border. Instead, the United States must accept responsibility for determining refugee status. However, the principle of complicity in international law provides that Canada cannot return an asylum seeker to the United States if U.S. law is inconsistent with international law protecting refugees. Under the complicity principle, Canada would violate its obligations under the Refugee Convention and other human rights treaties if a refugee were denied protection in the United States and returned to the country where he or she faced persecution. This article applies the complicity principle to Canada's participation in the STCA. It reviews the features of the United States' refugee processing system that clearly violate international law, thereby fobidding Canada from returning refugee applicants to the United States. These features include a high burden of proof for those seeking refugee protection, broad exclusions from protection, and the widespread practice of detention for those in the process of having their claims heard. The article also discusses more arguable bases for concluding that the United States fails to provide minimum protections consistent with international law. It concludes with a review of the ways that the Safe Third Country Agreement can be challenged in domestic, regional and international fora.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".