El artículo 38 del Estatuto de la Corte Internacional de Justicia (CIJ) —contenido en un anexo de la Carta de las Naciones Unidas— menciona los siguientes elementos como fuentes del derecho internacional:  

  • las convenciones internacionales;  

  • el derecho internacional consuetudinario;  

  • los principios generales de derecho;  

  • las decisiones judiciales (o jurisprudencia), y las doctrinas de los juristas (publicistas) de mayor competencia de las distintas naciones.  

Dado que el derecho internacional sobre migración es parte del derecho internacional, las fuentes de este son también las fuentes de aquel (Chetail, 2012: 56). Las convenciones internacionales y el derecho internacional consuetudinario se consideran fuentes primarias; los principios generales y la jurisprudencia se consideran medios auxiliares.

Para profundizar en el tema
Convenciones internacionales (tratados)

Las convenciones internacionales son acuerdos jurídicamente vinculantes concertados entre distintos Estados, o entre Estados y organizaciones internacionales. Su finalidad es establecer los derechos y obligaciones que regirán en virtud del derecho internacional. Otros términos de uso común a este respecto son “tratado”, “acuerdo”, “pacto”, “estatuto” y “protocolo”. Una vez acordadas las condiciones de un tratado, los Estados participantes lo firman. La firma de un tratado expresa la intención del Estado de cumplirlo. Pero esta expresión de intención no es de por sí vinculante. Después de la firma, cada Estado somete el tratado a la tramitación prevista en sus procedimientos y leyes nacionales. Con frecuencia se requiere la aprobación del parlamento. Cuando ha obtenido la aprobación con arreglo a sus procedimientos internos, el Estado notifica a las demás partes que consiente en quedar obligado por el tratado. Este paso es la ratificación. Una vez ratificado, el tratado es jurídicamente vinculante para el Estado.

Una rama específica del derecho internacional, el derecho de los tratados, regula la entrada en vigor y la administración de estos instrumentos. Las principales reglas están codificadas en la Convención de Viena sobre el Derecho de los Tratados (disponible en francés e inglés). La Convención permite a los Estados formular reservas a los tratados, en cuyo caso no quedarán obligados por la disposición o las disposiciones a las que se apliquen las reservas

Derecho internacional consuetudinario

Para que una costumbre pase a ser una norma de derecho internacional y, de ese modo, parte del derecho internacional consuetudinario, se requieren dos elementos. El primero es objetivo: la práctica de los Estados. Esto significa que tiene que haber una práctica (o una ausencia de acción) generalizada, coherente y repetida en la mayoría de los Estados. La conducta de los Estados queda demostrada, entre otras cosas, por sus declaraciones oficiales, decisiones judiciales, leyes internas, reglamentos administrativos, constituciones, tratados y prácticas diplomáticas. El segundo elemento es subjetivo: la opinio juris. Esto indica la convicción (“opinio”) de un Estado de que la ley (“juris”) lo obliga a actuar o a abstenerse de actuar.

Las normas internacionales consuetudinarias obligan a todos los Estados, incluidos los que no contribuyeron a su elaboración y con independencia de los tratados que hayan ratificado. Sin embargo, un Estado no quedará vinculado por una norma si la objeta de manera sistemática y persistente.

El derecho internacional tiene también algunas normas que son absolutas. Denominadas jus cogens, estas normas son tan fundamentales que obligan a todos los Estados, sin suspensión o exención posible. Por ejemplo, el principio de no devolución y la prohibición de la tortura, la esclavitud, la discriminación racial y el genocidio, se consideran parte del jus cogens.

Example
The principle of non-refoulement

Protection against refoulement is a customary international norm with jus cogens status under international migration law (IML). That is, under no circumstances may a person (regardless of their legal status) be expelled or returned to a territory when there are substantial grounds to believe that there is a real risk that they will face persecution or irreparable harm to their person upon return. This applies to everyone, including migrants and regardless of status.

Examples of such risks of irreparable harm include:

  • Torture and cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment and other risks to life;
  • Flagrant denial of the right to a fair trial;
  • Violations to liberty of the person;
  • Serious forms of sexual and gender-based violence;
  • The death penalty or being placed on death row;
  • Female genital mutilation;
  • Prolonged solitary confinement;
  • Severe violations of economic, social and cultural rights (amounting to violation of the right to life or freedom from torture, degrading living conditions, complete lack of medical treatment, or mental illness).

The principle of non-refoulement is non-derogable; that is, it cannot be suspended or limited under any circumstances. It is established under international human rights law, international refugee law, international humanitarian law, transnational criminal law, and law of the sea (further details on the Protection against refoulement in Chapter 1.3.1 Human rights of migrants: An overview).

Otras fuentes del derecho
General principles of law and jurisprudence

The third source of international law are those general principles of law common to major legal systems in the world and generally accepted as being binding at the international level (Robertson, 2002: 92). For a general principle of law to exist, it must be generally recognized by States. These principles derive from national legal systems and/or are formed within the international legal system. Examples include the principle of non-retroactivity of criminal law, due process guarantees, minimum standards of treatment, and so on. Many of them are already reflected in various treaties and/or customary international law.

The fourth source are judicial decisions (or jurisprudence). In a strict sense, international courts are not bound by judicial precedents. However, in practice, international and regional courts strive to follow previous judgements, in order to add some certainty to the process of judicial decision-making (Shaw, 1997: 86). As such, they have largely contributed to the development of IML. One clear example is the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, which has played a crucial role in interpreting the rights and obligations of States parties to the European Convention on Human Rights towards migrants (further details in Regional systems relevant to IML  in this chapter).

Example
Example of regional jurisprudence

In the case Bah v. United Kingdom, the complainant argued she and her son were victims of discrimination because of their immigration status. When assessing this case, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) interpreted Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, on the prohibition of discrimination, in relation to immigration status. Article 14 states that “The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status” [emphasis added]. The court held that immigration status can be considered “other status” for the purposes of article 14.

Fuente

European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Bah v. United Kingdom, 2011.

Soft law

Soft law is established in instruments such as “declarations”, “recommendations”, “plans of action”, “guidelines”, and “global compacts”. Although not a binding source of law, it helps to develop shared conduct among States and international organizations. Soft law generally provides a policy framework of cooperation in line with both States’ sovereignty and international law. Soft law serves as a tool that facilitates, at the policy and practice level, the operationalization of international law norms (hard law) that States have committed to (through treaty ratifications, as well as under customary international law and the principle of good faith that applies to all States). For example, in the field of IML, an important soft law instrument is the 2018 Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration.

Over time, soft law instruments or their content can become customary international law, or even serve as a stepping stone for the adoption of treaties. For example, the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights was a stepping stone to the 1966 Covenants.

The resolutions of the General Assembly of the United Nations are an example of soft law. These, though not legally binding, indicate what States consider as right or wrong in international relations. Under international human rights law,  the considerations by the human rights treaty bodies of State party reports, individual communications and general comments provide an authoritative interpretation of the specific treaty they monitor. As well, the reports and statements of the human rights special procedure mechanisms help to determine obligations and rights under international human rights law.

Example
The revised deliberation no. 5 on deprivation of liberty of migrants, by the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention

In 2017, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention revised its earlier Deliberation no. 5 on deprivation of liberty of migrants. The revised deliberation was based on the working group’s existing practice with regard to the detention of migrants, together with new developments in its own jurisprudence and in international law. That is, the deliberation represents the existing decisions of the working group, and compiles rules concerning detention.

The deliberation establishes that migrants and asylum seekers, regardless of their citizenship, nationality or migratory status, are entitled to the right to personal liberty, as it “is fundamental and extends to all persons at all times and circumstances”. There is no exemption from the prohibition of arbitrary detention: the deliberation notes that arbitrary detention can never be justified “including for any reason related to national emergency, maintaining public security or the large movements of immigrants or asylum seekers.” The deliberation also establishes that criminalizing irregular entry and stay in a country by migrants will “always exceed the legitimate interests of States in protecting their territories and regulating irregular migration flows.” In other words, irregular migration should not be criminalized. The deliberation explicitly prohibits the deprivation of liberty of children, regardless of whether they are asylum seekers, refugees, stateless persons or migrants. This is the case whether they are travelling unaccompanied or have been separated from their families. The deliberation also clarifies that detaining migrants during immigration procedures “must be justified as reasonable, necessary and proportionate in the light of the circumstances specific to the individual case”. Such detention is only allowable when it is for the shortest period of time, when it is not punitive in nature and when it is periodically reviewed as it extends over time. Finally, it establishes that detention should be an exceptional measure and that alternatives to detention are to be sought to ensure this.

Fuente

United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, 2018: 31–37.

Mensajes clave
  • Las principales fuentes del derecho internacional sobre migración son los tratados y el derecho internacional consuetudinario.
  • El derecho internacional consuetudinario es vinculante para los Estados sin necesidad de ratificación (lo que se aplica, por ejemplo, a las leyes que prohíben la tortura y la devolución). Otros instrumentos jurídicos internacionales solo son vinculantes a partir de la ratificación. Sin embargo, una firma sin ratificación obliga a los Estados a no actuar en contra del espíritu del instrumento firmado.
  • Otras fuentes pertinentes del derecho internacional sobre migración son los principios generales de derecho, aceptados normalmente en los principales ordenamientos jurídicos y reconocidos como vinculantes a nivel internacional, y el derecho dispositivo. Este último, aunque no vinculante, hace una contribución importante a la creación de una conducta común entre los Estados y las organizaciones internacionales. También puede inspirar la elaboración de instrumentos del derecho imperativo y, a nivel de la política y de la práctica, respalda la aplicación de este derecho.
AnteriorIntroduccionSiguienteRamas del derecho internacional sobre migración