Main Article Content

Dina Imam Supaat


The application of international custom in domestic courts is a contentious exercise. This paper examined the importance and applicability of the principle of non- refoulement in domestic courts. Discussion begins with the scrutiny of the formation of the principle as international custom. Next, it deals with the status of international customary law in the domestic legal framework of a dualist state with the analysis of the judicial response to attempt to invoke international custom in cases. The result shows that there are legal impediments that must be removed to enable meaningful application of the principle for the benefit of refugees.

Article Details

How to Cite
Imam Supaat, D. (2017). PAVING THE WAY FOR THE NON-REFOULEMENT PRINCIPLE IN DOMESTIC COURTS. Malaysian Journal of Syariah and Law, 5(2), 24-46. Retrieved from
Author Biography

Dina Imam Supaat

Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Syariah And Law, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia (USIM)


Ahmad, S. S. S. (2012) Introduction to the Sources of Law in Malaysia. Foreign Law Research Globalex.

Akehurst, M. (1974) Custom as a Source of International Law. In The British Year Book of International Law (1-53). 47 (1)
Allain, J. (2001) The Jus Cogens Nature of Non-Refoulement. IJRL. (13)538.
Andrew T. Guzman, ‘Saving Customary International Law’ (2005) Mich. J. Int’l. L. (27),115.
Benvenisti, E. (1993) Misgivings Regarding the Application of International Law:
An Analysis of Attitudes of National Courts. EJIL (4,) 159-183.
Bettis, R. (2011). The Iraqi Refugee Crisis: Whose Problem Is It? Existing Obligations Under International Law, Proposal to Create a New Protocol to the 1967 Refugee Convention, & U.S. Foreign Policy Recommendations to the Obama Administration. Transnat'l L. & Contemp. Probs. (19), 261-292.
Brownlie, I. (2008) Principles of Public International Law (7th Ed) Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chemerensky, E. (2001) Against Sovereign Immunity. Stanford Law Review (53)1202- 1224.
Cheng, B. (1965) United Nations Resolution on Outer Space: ‘Instant’ International Customary Law? The Indian Journal of International Law. 23-112.
Chimni , B. S. (Ed.). (2000). International Refugee Law. New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Coleman, N. (2003) Non-Refoulement Revised: Renewed Review of the Status of the Principle of Non-Refoulement as Customary International Law. Eur. J. Migration & Law (5),23-68.
D’ Amato, A. (1971). The Concept of Custom in International Law. London: Ithaca.
Dickson, H. L. (1974) The Internal Application of International Law in Malaysia: A Model of the Relationship between International Law and Municipal Law. Journal of Malaysian and Comparative Law. (1), 205-215.
Edward, A. (2003). Tampering With Refugee Protection: The Case of Australia. IJRL. (15)192- 218.
Fitzmaurice, G. (1957). The General Principles Of International Law Considered From The Standpoint Of The Rule Of Law. Hague Recuil (92), 5-227.
Gluck, S. (1993). Intercepting Refugees At Sea: An Analysis of the United States' Legal and Moral Obligations. Fordham L. Rev. (61), 865-893.
Goodwin-Gill, G. S., and McAdam, J. (2007) The Refugee in International Law (3rd Edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hailbronner, K. (1985). Non- Refoulement and “Humanitarian” Refugees: Customary International Law or Wishful Legal Thinking? Va. J. Int’l L. (26) 857-872.
Hamid, A. G. (2005) Judicial Application of International Law in Malaysia: A Critical Analysis. In Asia Pacific Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law (Vol 1), 196-214. Philippines: Institute of International Legal Studies.
Hathaway, J. C. (2005) The Rights of Refugee Under International Law. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kelsen, H. (1952) Principles of International Law. New York.
Kunz, J. L. (1953) The Nature of Customary International Law. In 47 (4) The American Journal of International Law (662- 9). 47 (4).
Lauterpacht, E., and Bethlehem, D. (2003). The Scope and Content of the Principle of Non-Refoulement: Opinion. In Erika Feller, Volker Turk & Frances Nicholson (Eds.), Refugee Protection in International Law (31-54). UK: Cambridge University Press.
Magner, T. (2004). A Less Than “Pacific” Solution for Asylum Seekers in Australia. IJRL. (16), 53- 119.
Manster, R. (2007). The Pacific Solution - Assessing Australia's Compliance with International Law Bond University Student Law Review (3:1) <>
Mushkat, R. (1995). Mandatory Repatriation Of Asylum Seekers: Is The Legal Norm Of Non-Refoulement 'Dead'? HKLJ 25 (1) 42-51.
Nazarova, I. (2002) Alienating "Human" From "Right": U.S. And UK Non-Compliance With Asylum Obligations Under International Human Rights Law. Fordham Int'l L.J. (25)1335- 1417.
Roberts, A. E. (2001). Traditional and Modern Approaches to Customary International Law: A Reconciliation. Am. J. Int’l. L. (95), 757- 758.
Shaw, M. N. (2008). International Law (6th Edition) UK: Cambridge University Press.
Stenberg, G. (1989) Non-Expulsion And Non- Refoulement. Uppsala: Iustus Forlag.
Supaat, D I. (2013) Escaping the Principle of Non- Refoulement. Kuala Lumpur International Business, Economics and Law Conference Proceedings (pp. 297-316) Kuala Lumpur: ZR Resources.
Supaat, D I. (2015) Refugee Children and the Customary International Law (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation) University of Birmingham: UK.
Trevisanut, S. (2008) The Principle Of Non-Refoulement At Sea And The Effectiveness Of Asylum Protection. In Max Planck UNYB (12), 205-246.
Tunkin, G.I. (1974). Theory of International Law. (W. E. Butler, Trans.) Harvard University Press.
UKBA, ‘Asylum’ (UK Border Agency) available at
Wallace, R. M. M., and Martin- Ortega, O. (2009) International Law (Sixth Edition) England: Sweet Maxwell.
Willheim, E. (2003). MV Tampa: The Australian Response. IJRL. (15),159- 185.