Does the Charter Follow the Flag? the Afghan Detainee Transfers Example

In 2007, Amnesty International Canada and the BC Civil Liberties Association brought an application for judicial review of the transfer of individuals detained by the Canadian Forces deployed in Afghanistan. This action arose from allegations that the Canadian Forces were not taking adequate precautions to ensure that individuals, whom the Canadian Forces captured in Afghanistan and transferred to the Afghan forces, were not being tortured. To support their application, the plaintiffs sought a declaration that sections 7, 10 and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter) applied to individuals detained by Canadian Forces in Afghanistan. Both the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal held that the Charter did not apply to the actions of Canadian Forces in Afghanistan.

Having previously argued that the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) should narrow its ruling in Hape, I was disappointed to learn that it turned down an opportunity to hear this case. In my last entry, I argued that when establishing whether the Charter applies overseas, the foreign state’s consent should only be the determinative factor where Canadian authorities or agents would be enforcing the Charter in that state. With all due respect to Mactavish J.’s efforts to navigate Hape’s legal labyrinth, the Federal Court’s decision in Amnesty International reveals the confusion resulting from Hape. This confusion stems from LeBel J.’s assertion that the extraterritorial application of the Charter necessarily entails an extraterritorial…

Continue reading this entry ➔

International Consequence to Prorogation

In discussing the principle of democracy in international law in my previous blog entry, I used the 20^th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall as a starting point. I wondered whether the blueprint for German reunification at the turn of the decade of the 80s could be used eventually for Korean reunification. As the 00s give way to the 10s,  I find myself more compelled now than before to write about another “threat to democracy.” While such a phrase may conjure up a slew of George W. Bush speeches discussing his “crusades” to the Middle East, the threat of which I speak is not overseas, not even in a different continent, but here in North America. It is in Canada. While saying that Prime Minister Harper’s move to prorogue parliament on December 30^th, 2009 is a threat to democracy and an affront to international law may seem like a slight exaggeration, the background of the prorogation makes it internationally relevant.

Authoritarian Leadership

This blog is certainly not the forum to engage in an ideological debate. Moreover, prorogation of Parliament is not unusual. Since Canadian Confederation, the Parliament has been put on hold 105 times. However, it is the timing and circumstances of this prorogation which has drawn nationwide criticism. While this is not a problem under Canadian domestic law, it is arguably contrary to “soft” international law. In my previous entry I…

Continue reading this entry ➔