CYIL Vol. 6, 2015

TODAY’S MIGRANTS, TOMORROW’S REFUGEES?… unreasonable detention due to the fact that persons are forced migrants and may, in the territory of a state where they seek refuge, find themselves in an irregular position, has been analysed in detail in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights; it represents an important piece in the mosaic of protection of the rights of persons in a vulnerable and difficult position connected with uncertainty as to their future status and possible forced return to their country of origin. Limits determined in its case law for states in their potential to restrict the personal liberty of such “undesired” migrants (whether due to their irregular stay status or requested extradition to their country of origin) are described in chapters by Miloš Kulda and Viktor Kundrák. The chapters in part four clearly suggest that the existing international law of human rights contains a basic legal framework that may be in certain respects used when solving the situation of refugees and migrants; it also includes a certain guarantee of their basic rights. The final, fifth part of the publication is dedicated to the conclusion. The authors summarize that today improper refugees are protected primarily through the system of international protection of human rights, particularly at the regional level. However, this area represents only a subsidiary level of protection of “improper” refugees; as such it should play just a complementary role. It does not offer by itself such a level of protection that may satisfactorily and comprehensively resolve the resident status and the legal status of forced migrants. Although, due to the absence of a more appropriate legal framework, such protection plays an irreplaceable role in guaranteeing the rights of these persons today, this situation should not be considered as satisfactory and sufficient. According to the authors, theoretically, there may be several ways of solving the situation of improper refugees legally. One of them would be the adoption of a new convention, or protocol(s) of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. However, reaching consensus of contracting states would be hardly achievable, and therefore this way seems too unrealistic. Another direction which may be more hopeful for international law because of some willingness on the part of states, since such a solution would not bind them to receive and provide protection to forced migrants on their territories, would be to emphasize and stipulate the responsibility of states for situations within their borders. Under such circumstances a potential duty of the state to accept the assistance of other states in the case of domestic conflict would be appropriate and forced migration may be prevented or at least reduced. However, the recent conception of state sovereignty makes such a possibility relevant only in the very distant future (any considerations of redefining the conception go beyond the scope of this book). High numbers of improper refugees occurring in the territory of various states is a reality. From a humanitarian perspective it would be desirable to claim that the only possible solution would be the adoption of a complex international legal

427