The Haitian Refugee Crisis 1993

Michigan Journal of International Law
Volume 15 Issue 1
1993
The Haitian Refugee Crisis: A Quest for Human Rights

Thomas David Jones
Georgetown University Law Center
Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil
Part of the Human Rights Law Commons, Immigration Law Commons, International Humanitarian
Law Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons
Recommended Citation
Thomas D. Jones, The Haitian Refugee Crisis: A Quest for Human Rights, 15 MICH. J. INT'L L. 77 (1993).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil/vol15/iss1/2
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Journal of International Law at University of
Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Journal of
International Law by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more
information, please contact mlaw.repository@umich.edu.
THE HAITIAN REFUGEE CRISIS: A QUEST
FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
Thomas David Jones*
INTRODUCTION: THE HAITIAN REFUGEE CRISIS

AND FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS .......................... 77
I. THE PATH TO SALE: POLITICAL TURMOIL,
HUMAN RIGHTS, BAKER AND MCNARY .................. 83
A. Political Turmoil and Human Rights Abuses in Haiti . 83
B. Conflicting Voices: Baker and McNary ............... 92
C. Sale: The Dred Scott Case of Immigration Law
Revisited and Reaffirmed ............................ 102
D. A CriticalAnalysis of the Sale Decision .............. 109
CONCLUSION: HAITIAN REFUGEES - A QUEST FOR
H UM AN R IGHTS .............................................. 119
INTRODUCTION: THE HAITIAN REFUGEE CRISIS AND

FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS
On June 14, 1993, the Vienna Conference on Human Rights, spon-

sored by the United Nations, commenced its opening session mired in
controversy over the validity of a universal human rights doctrine. Many
Third World or developing nations contended that Western norms of
justice and fairness were not applicable to their societies.' Thus, the
* Visiting Scholar, Georgetown University Law Center; Associate Professor, Southern

University Law Center; B.A., Case Western Reserve University (1975); J.D., Howard Univer-
sity School of Law (1978); LL.M., Harvard Law School (1979).
I express my gratitude to the Georgetown University Law Center for its Visiting
Scholars Program which allowed me to complete the research for this work. I am particularly
grateful for the kindness of Professor Dorothy Mayer of Georgetown, and Adene Postar, the
librarian. I must also thank my ever faithful secretary, Patricia Williams of Howard University
in Washington, D.C. for typing this manuscript. Ms. Williams exhibited the patience of Job in
typing and retyping edited versions of this work. A word of appreciation to Dr. James H.
Johnson, Dean of the Howard University Civil Engineering Department, is required. As Ms.
Williams' supervisor, he tolerated my continued and intrusive presence in his office for the
entire summer of 1993. Finally, I commend my research assistant, Michele L. King, a second
year law student at Louisiana State University, for her assistance in the preparation of this
article.
1. See lain Guest, Vision of Rights Lacking in Vienna, CHRISTIAN SCI. MONITOR, July
15, 1993, at 19; Paul Lewis, Differing Views on Human Rights Threaten Forum, N.Y. TIMES,
June 6, 1993, at Al, A6; Lucia Mouat, United Nations Addresses Worldwide Human Rights,
CHRISTIAN SCI. MONITOR, June 9, 1993, at 12 (reporting that "some nations now insist that
cultural differences must be taken into account when monitoring human rights .... They say
the West is trying to impose its values on them."); Christopher Reardon, Talk of "Univer-
Michigan Journal of InternationalLaw [Vol. -15:77
developing nations articulated a culture-bound or relativistic concept of

fundamental human rights.2 The developing nations' particularistic
sality" Dominates UN Rights Conference, CHRISTIAN SCI. MONITOR, June 18, 1993, at 7.
Conflicting views as to the essence of human rights norms were expressed by many
countries. Kenneth Roth, Acting Executive Director of Human Rights Watch in New' York
warned: "Cultural differences ... are not an excuse to violate fundamental human rights ....
This is in fact a very fundamental attack on ... the universality of human rights." Guest,
supra, at 19. See also Alan Riding, Human Rights: The West Gets Some Tough Questions,
N.Y. TIMES, June 20, 1993, at 5 (China's Deputy Foreign Minister, Liu Huaqiu, stating: "The
argument that human rights is the precondition for development is unfounded." Singapore's
Foreign Minister, Wong Kan Seng, noting: "[T]oo much stress on individual rights over the
rights of the community will retard progress .... [Tihe community's interests are sacrificed
because of the human rights of drug consumers and traffickers." Pierre Sand, the head of
Amnesty International, commenting: "[Y]ou can't choose between torture and starvation.").
See generally Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Torture, TIME, June 28, 1993, at 17 (Chinese
Premier Li Peng, stating: "The imposition of a certain conception of democracy and human
rights should be opposed." A Burmese Foreign Ministry official, stating: "The Asian coun-
tries, with their own norms and standards of human rights, should not be dictated to ...... A
Malaysian Law Minister noting: "What is worrying is the attempt... [to] impose definitions,
standards and practices based on one-sided views.").
2. See generally ALISON DUNDEs RENTELN, INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS: UNIVER-
SALISM VERSUS RELATIVISM 71 (1990). Renteln is en rapport with ethical relativist Schmidt
who holds that "there can be no value judgments that are true, that is, objectively justifiable
independent of specific cultures." Id. (quoting Paul F. Schmidt, Some Criticisms of Cultural
Relativism, 70 J.PHIL. 780, 783 (1955)); MELVILLE HERSHKOVITS, CULTURAL ANTHROPOL-
oGy 364 (1955) (describing cultural relativism as "a philosophy that recognizes the values set
up by every society to guide its own life and that understands their worth to those who live
by them, though they may differ from one's own."). See also Adda B. Bozeman, An Introduc-
tion to Various Cultural Traditions in International Law, in THE FUTURE OF INTERNATIONAL
LAW IN A MULTICULTURAL WORLD 85 (Rene-Jean Dupuy ed., 1984); MARVIN E. FRANKEL
& ELLEN SAIDEMON, OUT OF THE SHADOWS OF NIGHT: THE STRUGGLE FOR INTERNATIONAL
HUMAN RIGHTS (1989); Manwoo Lee, North Korea and the Western Notion of Human Rights
in HUMAN RIGHTS IN EAST ASIA: A CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE 129 (James C. Hsiung ed.,
1985). Fernando R. Teson describes cultural relativism as follows:
In the context of the debate about the viability of international human rights,
cultural relativism may be defined as the position according to which local cultural
traditions (including religious, political, and legal practices) properly determine the
existence and scope of civil and political rights enjoyed by individuals in a given
society. A central tenet of relativism is that no transboundary legal or moral
standards exist against which human rights practices may be judged acceptable or
unacceptable .... [Rielativists claim that substantive human rights standards vary
among different cultures and necessarily reflect national idiosyncracies. What may
be regarded as a human rights violation in one society may properly be considered
lawful in another, and Western ideas of human rights should not be imposed upon
Third World societies. Tolerance and respect for self-determination preclude
crosscultural normative judgments. Alternatively, the relativist thesis holds that
even if, as a matter of customary or conventional international law, a body of sub-
stantive human rights norms exists, its meaning varies substantially from culture to
culture.
Fernando R. Teson, International Human Rights and Cultural Relativism, 25 VA. J. INT'L. L.
869, 870-71 (1985) (citations omitted).
For example, the African conception of human rights has been described as primarily
communal as opposed to individual in character by Professor A. Uchegbu of the University of
Lagos, in Lagos, Nigeria and Osita C. Eze of the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs in
Lagos, Nigeria. In commenting on the nature of human rights as reflected in the African
Fall 1993] Haitian Refugees
position was championed by such nations as China, Iran, Cuba, and

Vietnam, 3 signatories to the Bangkok Declaration of 1993. 4 The Bang-
kok Declaration provides, inter alia, that though human rights are uni-
versal, they "must be considered in the context of ... national and
Charter of Human and Peoples Rights [ACHPR], promulgated by the Organization of African
Unity in 1981 (entered into force in 1986), Uchegbu writes:
What the Charter was at pains to emphasize however is that the African traditional
system is founded on group association not individuals as the European bourgeois
concept of human rights stressed. The Charter recognized that individuals, being
humans, have rights but peoples also have rights independent of the individuals
making up the peoples .... Thus, when the Charter asserts in Article 20 that all
people shall have the right of existence, it refers for example, to ethnic groups who
here have a right to self-determination.
A. Uchegbu, Economic Rights - The African Charter on Human Rights in LAW AND DEVEL-
OPMENT 161, 169-70 (J.A. Omotola & A.A. Adeogun eds., 1987).
Eze also explains that the ACHPR reflects a different conception of human rights than
the Western idea of human rights by recognizing or emphasizing group or peoples' rights. He
has suggested:
Side by side with individual rights and freedoms, the African Charter makes
provisions for peoples' rights. Group rights are not by themselves new. The rights
of ethnic, racial or minority groups as well as the right of peoples and nations to
independence are examples of such rights.
It is not clear what the term peoples' comprises. It does embrace independent
states as well as colonies. If one adopted our interpretation of 'peoples,' the term
would also include national and. ethnic groups as well as other minority groups.
OSITA C. EZE, HUMAN RIGHTS IN AFRICA: SOME SELECTED PROBLEMS 215 (1984). Moreover,
Eze further observes:
The drafters were guided by the principle that the African Charter of Human
and Peoples' Rights should reflect the African conception of human rights. The
Africa Charter was expected to take as a pattern the African philosophy of law, and
to meet the needs of Africa. One may argue as to the exact import of "African
conception of human rights' or "African philosophy of law,' but the recognition
that the Charter should serve African needs, it is submitted, created a useful frame
for the drafters of the African Charter.
The OAU Council of Ministers, in the preamble to the Charter, took 'into
consideration the virtues of the historical traditions and values of African civiliza-
tion which should inspire and characterize their reflection of the conception of
human rights,' and were convinced of the duty to promote and protect human and
peoples' rights and freedoms, taking into account the essential importance tradition-
ally attached in Africa to these rights and freedoms. It was, however, recognized by
the drafters of the Charter that while sticking to African specifics in dealing with
rights, it was thought prudent not to deviate from international norms solemnly
adopted in various universal instruments by different member states of the OAU.
Id. at 212. The emphasis placed on group or peoples' rights distinguishes the African concep-
tion of human rights from the Western conception. It is a conception of human rights which
reflects the African's belief that the welfare of the group is situated at a higher point on the
hierarchy of social values than the rights of individuals.
3. Charles Krauthammer, Human Rights Shell Game, WASH. POST, June 18, 1993, at
A25.
4. See generally Bangkok Declaration, Regional Meeting for Asia, Agenda Item 8,U.N.
Doc. A/CONF. 157/ASRM/7 (1993) [hereinafter Bangkok Declaration]; Krauthammer, supra
note 3, at A25.
Michigan Journal of InternationalLaw [Vol. 15:77
regional particularities and various historical, cultural, and religious

backgrounds." 5 Even the Secretary-General of the United Nations,
Boutros Boutros-Ghali, emphatically echoed the developing nations'
sentiment of cultural relativism when he opined: "Universality is not
something that is decreed .... It would be a contradiction in terms if
this imperative of universality ... were to become a source of misun-
derstanding among us."' 6 Yet, Mr. Boutros-Ghali astutely observed that
fundamental human rights reflect "the enduring elements of the world's
great philosophies, religions and cultures. . . . We must remember that
forces of repression often cloak their wrongdoing in claims of excep-
tion."7
The voices of relativism and dissent were met with a firm defense
of universalism. Foremost among the advocates of universalism was the
United States. Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, addressed the
delegates at the conference and stated: "We cannot let cultural relativism
become the last refuge of repression." 8 John Shattuck, Assistant Secre-
tary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, vowed that
"[i]t is the strong purpose of the Clinton Administration to side with the
worldwide movement for universal human rights against any effort to
undermine it." 9 Western nations held the belief that the question of the
universality of human rights had been settled with the promulgation of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948.'0 Ultimately, the
universalists won the battle against their relativist opponents. The Vien-
na Conference on Human Rights reaffirmed the universal nature of
human rights and fundamental freedoms by drafting and adopting the
Vienna Declaration and Program of Action, a nonbinding, final, confer-
ence document."
5. Bangkok Declaration, supra note 4, para. 8; Krauthammer, supra note 3, at A25.

6. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, quoted in Kenneth Roth, The U.N. Weak on Rights, WASH.
POST, June 25, 1993, at A25.
7. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, quoted in Ending Torture Isn't Colonialism, N.Y. TIMES, June
13, 1993, at A18.
8. Krauthammer, supra note 3, at A25.
9. Lewis, supra note 1, at 14.
10. See Riding, supra note 1, at 5; see also Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
G.A. Res. 217A (111), U.N. GAOR, 3d Sess., pt. 1, at 71, U.N. Doe. A/810 (1948); Josef L.
Kunz, The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, 43 AM. J. INT'L. L. 316 (1949);
Rend Cassin, La Declaration Universelle et la mise en oeuvre de Droits de l'Homme, 79
RECUEIL DES COURS D'ACADEMIE DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL [R.C.A.D.I.] 241 (1951).
11. See generally Vienna Declaration and Program of Action, U.N. Doe. DPI/1294-39399
(1993); Christopher Reardon, UN Conference Sustains Universal Nature of Rights, CnRsIAN So.
MONITOR, June 28, 1993, at 2; see David B. Ottaway, Human Rights Post Suggested for U.N.,
WASH. POST, June 26, 1993, at A 18; see also Christopher Reardon, Women's Rights, 'Universality'
Gain at U.N. Rights Conference, CHRISTIAN SCI. MONITOR, June 25, 1993, at 3.
Fall 1993] F Haitian Refugees
Although the United States has been at the forefront with its public
support of universal human rights, it has recently demonstrated, both
through its political conduct and judicial decisions, a distinct ambiva-
lence toward the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms
accorded political refugees under domestic and international law. Most
notably, the U.S. government has disregarded the universal human rights
norm of nonrefoulement in its treatment of Haitian refugees who have
been systematically interdicted on the high seas as they attempt to flee
the present repressive military regime ruling their country. 2 Such
In the past, the United States was the leader in providing political asylum to those who
claimed persecution in their own countries by reason of nationality, race, religion, or political
opinion. See Alice Jackson Smith, Note, Temporary Safe Haven for De Facto Refugees from War,
Violence, and Disaster, 28 VA. J. INT'L L. 509 (1988) (noting that "[bletween 1975 and 1980, the
United States accepted as many refugees for permanent resettlement as did the rest of the world's
countries combined").
12. The international human rights norm of nonrefoulement is memorialized in the
United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, done Jan. 31, 1967, 19 U.S.T.
6223, 606 U.N.T.S. 267 [hereinafter 1967 Refugee Protocol]. Article 1(1) of the 1967
Refugee' Protocol incorporates by reference articles 2 through 34 of the United Nations
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, July 28, 1951, 19 U.S.T. 6259, 189 U.N.T.S.
137 [hereinafter 1951 Refugee Convention]. Article 33(1) of the 1951 Refugee Convention
provides:
1. No Contracting State shall expel or return ('refouler') a refugee in any manner
whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threat-
ened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social
group, or political opinion.
Section 243(h)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act [INA], amended by the
Refugee Actof 1980, 8 U.S.C. § 1253(h)(1) (Supp. 1993) tracks the language of article 33(1)
of the 1967 Refugee Protocol and the 1951 Refugee Convention and provides inter alia:
The Attorney General shall not deport or return any alien ... to a country if the
Attorney General determines that such alien's life or freedom would be threatened
in such country on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular
social group or political opinion.
Congressional intent in amending the INA, by passage of the Refugee Act of 1980, was to
make the statute consistent with the 1967 Refugee Protocol. In INS v. Cardoza-Fonesca, 480
U.S. 421 (1987), the U.S. Supreme Court stated:
If one thing is clear from the legislative history of the new definition of 'refugee,'
and indeed the entire 1980 Act, it is that one of Congress' primary purposes was to
bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations
Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees ... to which the United States acceded
in 1968.
Id. at 436-37 (emphasis added). See H.R. CONF. REP. No. 781, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 19
(1980). See also Deborah E. Anker & Michael H. Posner, The Forty Year Crisis: A Legisla-
tive History of the Refugee Act of 1980, 19 SAN DIEGO L. REV. 9 (1981); Maryellen
Fullerton, Restricting the Flow of Asylum-Seekers in Belgium, Denmark, the FederalRepublic
of Germany, and the Netherlands: New Challenges to the Geneva Convention Relating to the
Status of Refugees and the European Convention on Human Rights, 29 VA. J. INT'L L. 35
(1988).
Michigan Journal of InternationalLaw (Vol. 15:77
political behavior by the United States suggests that this country adheres
to a malleable doctrine of universal human rights, subject to the political
whims and expediency of the political party in power during a particular
historical epoch. The aforegoing conclusion is strongly supported by the
U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the case of Sale v. Haitian Centers
Council. 3 The Sale decision is an unfortunate reaffirmation of Haitian
Refugee Center v. Baker 4 which this author has characterized as the
Dred Scott decision of immigration law.' 5
Article I(A)(2), of the 1951 Refugee Convention defines a refugee as any person who:
owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion,
nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside
the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to
avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and
being outside the country of his former habitual residence, as a result of such
events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.
189 U.N.T.S. at 152, reprinted as appendix to 1967 Refugee Protocol, 19 U.S.T. at 6261.
Compare the definition of refugee found in the INA at 8 USC § I 101(a)(4-2) (1988):
any person who is outside any country of such person's nationality or, in the case.
of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last
habitually resided; and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or
unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country because of
persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion,
nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
During his presidential campaign, President Clinton pledged to provide hearings for
every Haitian interdictee. He described the Second Circuit's decision in Haitian Ctrs. Council,
Inc. v. McNary, 969 F.2d 1350 (2d Cir.), cert. granted, 113 S. Ct. 52 (1992), as the right
decision. See Excerpts From President-Elect's News Conference in Arkansas, N.Y. TIMES,
Nov. 13, 1992, at A18; Al Kamen, Haitian Exodus Could Pose Early Clinton Test, WASH.
POST, Nov. 12, 1992, at AI, A8. However, the President changed his position and decided to
maintain the Bush policy of interdiction and repatriation. Bill Nichols, Clinton Flip-flops on
Haitian Refugee Issue, USA TODAY, March 4, 1993, at 4A.
13. Sale v. Haitian Ctrs. Council, Inc., 113 S. Ct. 2549 (1993).
14. Haitian Refugee Ctr., Inc. v. Baker, 953 F.2d 1498 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S.
Ct. 1245 (1992) [hereinafter Baker 11]; but see McNary, 969 F.2d 1350.
15. See generally Thomas David Jones, Haitian Refugee Center Inc. v. James Baker III:
The Dred Scott Case of Immigration Law, II DICK. J. INT'L L. 1-48 (1992). The author
explains his characterization of Baker as the Dred Scott case of immigration law as follows:
The case of Haitian Refugee Center, Inc. v. James Baker, I!!, might best be charac-
terized as the Dred Scott case of immigration law. In Dred Scott v. Sandford the
United States Supreme Court (hereinafter "Supreme Court"), through Chief Justice
Taney, decided that the temporary residence of a slave, Dred Scott, in free territory
did not free him under the common law doctrine articulated in Somerset v. Stewart.
Lord Mansfield in Somerset held that a slave was sui juris, a free man, once he
entered a jurisdiction that did not acknowledge slavery, even though the slave
escaped and was recaptured by the master. The Supreme Court decided that the
federal courts which heard Dred Scott's claim did not have jurisdiction to deter-
mine his claim. Slaves were not citizens within the meaning of the Constitution and
therefore did not enjoy the rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed those who
were citizens of the United States. Slaves were property owned by their masters.
The most famous passage from the decision states:
Fall 19931 Haitian Refugees
I. THE PATH TO SALE: POLITICAL TURMOIL,

HUMAN RIGHTS, BAKER AND MCNARY
A. Political Turmoil and Human Rights Abuses in Haiti

In 1804, after a successful slave insurrection, Haiti won its indepen-
dence from France and became "the world's first black republic."' 6 The
Haitian democratic experience was short-lived and civil strife became
the order of the day. Prior to the U.S. invasion and occupation from
1915-1934; Haiti had approximately 102 revolts or civil wars.' 7 As
MacLean has written:
In the 72 year period before the invasion, ... [o]f 22 presidents,
just one served a complete term. Only four died of natural causes.
Thirteen were ousted by coup. One was blown to smithereens by
an explosion in the palace. One was deposed, then executed. One
was torn to bits in the streets.1s
Subsequent to the withdrawal of U.S. troops in 1934, political chaos and
violence reemerged as the order of the day until 1957. 9 In 1957, the
They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an
inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race either
in social or political relations; and so far inferior that they had no rights
which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might
justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit... This opinion
was at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white
race. It was regarded as an axiom in morals as well as in politics, which
no one thought of disputing, or supposed to be open to dispute; and men
in every grade and position in society daily and habitually acted upon it
in their private pursuits, as well as in matters of public concern, without
doubting for a moment the. correctness of the opinion.
The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit essentially held that Haitian refu-
gees, though seized by the United States on the high seas, have no substantive legal
rights under the Constitution which a domestic court is bound to respect.' Like
fugitive slaves, these refugees have been returned to their symbolically political
masters with a clear and probable consequence of punishment, persecution, or
death.
Id. at 24 (citations omitted).
16. Barbara L. Bernier, Democratization and Economic Development in Haiti: A Review
of the Caribbean Basin Initiative, 17 INT'L LAW. 455, 457 (1993); Frances MacLean, They
Didn't Speak Our Language; We Didn't Speak Theirs, SMITHSONIAN, Jan. 1993, at 44, 47;
William G. O'Neill, The Roots of Human Rights Violations in Haiti, 7 GEO. IMMIGR. L.J. 87
(1993).
17. Bernier, supra note 16, at 457; MacLean, supra note 16, at 46.
18. MacLean, supra note 16, at 46.
19. O'Neill, supra note 16, at 90.
notorious Duvalier regime was instituted by Francois Duvalier, and its

infamous para-military organization called the Tontons Macoutes
(Macoutes) was born. The Macoutes preyed upon citizens who were
deemed to be subversive by the Duvalier regime. They exacted punish-
ment through arrests, beatings, and murders.20 Bribing the Macoutes
with money was a common method of avoiding punishment.2 The
Macoutes not only engaged in the surveillance of the public, but were
also used by both Franqois Duvalier and his son and successor Jean-
Claude Duvalier to infiltrate the military for surveillance purposes.22
The Duvalier era ended in 1986. Thereafter, several attempts at
creating a viable government were failures. Such leaders as Leslie
Manigat, General Henri Namphy, General Prosper Avril, and Ertha
Pascal-Trouillot briefly lead the Haitian government.23 On December 16,
1990, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, a Catholic priest, won the first demo-
cratically held presidential election in Haiti's history with a two-thirds
majority of the votes. 24 With the election of Aristide, respect for and
protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms improved dramati-
cally.25 Unfortunately, Aristide's reign was abruptly terminated by
military putschists led by Lt. Gen. Raoul C6dras. Ironically, the military
junta that ousted Aristide accused him of using "inflammatory rhetoric"
which represented "evidence of his betrayal of human rights. 26
The fall of Aristide's government spawned a mass exodus of
Haitians who claimed they were fleeing from a politically repressive
military regime which fostered disrespect for human rights. These
refugees became known as "Haitian boat people." The refugees
attempted the dangerous sea passage in the hopes of reaching the shores
20. Id.
21. Id.
22. Id. See generally MICHAEL-ROLPH TROUILLOT, HAITI, STATE AGAINST NATION: THE
ORIGINS AND LEGACY OF DUVALIERISM (1982).
23. O'Neill, supra note 16, at 97-105.
24. Id. at 104.
25. HOUSE COMM. ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, SENATE COMM. ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, 102D
CONG., 2D SESS., COUNTRY REPORTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES FOR 1992 (1992); LAW-
YERS COMMITTEE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, HAITI: A HUMAN RIGHTS NIGHTMARE 3-4 (1992)
[hereinafter HAITI: A HUMAN RIGHTS NIGHTMARE]; THE NATIONAL COALITION FOR HAITIAN
REFUGEES AND CARIBBEAN RIGHTS, HAITI: THE ARISTIDE GOVERNMENT'S HUMAN RIGHTS
RECORD, A REPORT BY AMERICA'S WATCH 3 (1991).
26. O'Neill, supra note 16, at 108; HAITI: A HUMAN RIGHTS NIGHTMARE, supra note 25,
at 6-7. See generally BRIAN MOORE, No OTHER LIFE (1993) (a novel which presents a
fictionalized account of President Aristide's rise and fall from power in Haiti). See also JEAN-
BERTRAND ARISTIDE & CHRISTOPHER WARGNY, ARISTIDE (1992) (an autobiography of
President Aristide).
of the United States, other countries in the Caribbean, or South

America.27 However, over 40,000 refugees were interdicted by the U.S.
Coast Guard on the high seas. The Coast Guard subsequently repatriated
the vast majority of these refugees to Haiti.28 Most of the Haitian
refugees alleged that they were political refugees consistent with the
definition of a political refugee under international law and the domestic
law of the United States. They contended that their hegira had been
forced upon them by the political oppression they faced in their
homeland.2 9 The refugees insisted that repatriation to Haiti would mean
persecution or death. 30 Although the Haitian refugees have been more
27. Organization of American States, Report on the Situatioi of Human Rights in Haiti,
OEA/Ser. L/V/II. 83, Doc. 18, at 41-45 (Mar. 9, 1993) [hereinafter Report on the Situation of
Human Rights in Haiti]; see generally Alex Stepick, Haitian Boat People: A Study in the
Conflicting Forces Shaping U.S. Immigration Policy, in U.S. IMMIGRATION POLICY (Richard
R. Hofstetter ed., 1984).
28. Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Haiti, supra note 27, at 41; Jean-Pierre
Ben6it & Lewis A. Kornhauser, Unsafe Havens, 59 U. CHI. L. REV. 1421, 1451 (1992); Ben
Barber, Clinton Turns Up Heat On Haiti's Military Regime, CHRISTIAN SCI. MONITOR, Apr.
7, 1993, at 3 (reporting that most Haitian refugees intercepted on the high seas were returned
to Haiti); Clara Germani, Clinton Mulls Haiti Policy in Face of Refugee Threat, CHRISTIAN
SCI. MONITOR, Jan. 8, 1993, at 6.
29. See definitions of refugee, supra note 12. See also Guy GOODWIN-GILL, THE
REFUGEE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW (1983); ATLE GRAHL-MADSEN, THE STATUS OF REFUGEES
IN INTERNATIONAL LAW (vols. 1 and 2) (1966, 1972); JAMES C. HATHAWAY, THE LAW OF
REFUGEE STATUS 64-66 (1991); Edward Barnes, A Passagefrom Petit-Trou, TIME, July 5,
1993, at 42; Howard R. French, Haitians Express Sense of Betrayal, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 17,
1993, at 3; Larry Rohter, Long Exodus Nears End for H.I.V.-Infected Refugees from Haiti,
N.Y. TIMES, June 13, 1993, at L24. (refugee stating that "his background and experience are
typical of those in Guantanamo camp .... [a]n active member of a political party that
supported ... Aristide").
30. Barnes, supra note 29, at 42-43 (reporting that Jonas Esterlin, a refugee, claims "he
was pistol-whipped in the head and jabbed with an electric cattle prod," and Obrin Ossou, a
political activist, has not been seen or heard from since he was pulled from a group of
refugees upon disembarkment in Port-au-Prince); Greg Chamberlain, Duvalier's Man on the
Quayside, MANCHESTER GUARDIAN WKLY., Feb. 2, 1992, at I (reporting that Colonel Manod
Phillippe, head of security at the port in Port-au-Prince, has been present when repatriates
returned to Haiti); Court Lets Haitian Repatriation Go On, WASH. POST, Feb. 12, 1992, at A9
(reporting that refugees who were repatriated related accounts of beatings, shootings, and
persecution of family members); Howard W. French, U.N. Finds Haitians Who Fled Anew,
N.Y. TIMES, Feb. 16, 1992, at Al; Howard W. French, Some HaitiansSay Continuing Abuses
Forced a 2d Flight, N.Y. TIMES, Feb. 10, 1992, at Al.
But see Haiti: A Status Report on Repatriation, FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRA-
TION REFORM (Washington, D.C.) at 1la (June 26, 1992) (concluding after a fact-finding
mission to Haiti that "there is no retribution directed from the leaders of the military govern-
ment in Port-au-Prince, but ... returnees are often harassed and intimidated by local police
and militia in the provinces"). See also Kenneth Freed, No Evidence Haitians Sent Home by
U.S. Have Been Mistreated, Investigators Say, L.A. TIMES, Mar. 16, 1992, at A10.
There are organizations which contend that the current "in country processing" at the
U.S. Embassy is ineffective. See generally Brief of Human Rights Watch, Amicus Curiae, in
Support of Respondents, McNary v. Haitian Ctrs. Council, Inc., 969 F.2d 1350 (2d Cir.) (No.
92-344), cert. granted, 113 S. Ct. 52 (1992). See also Howard W. French, Haitian Dissident
often characterized as economic emigrants, the abysmal human rights

record of Haiti alone is evidence that large numbers of these refugees
probably satisfied the requirements for political refugee status and
therefore qualified for political asylum in the United States.3 1
The status of human rights in Haiti subsequent to the 1991 coup
d'tat lends credibility to the claims of Haitian refugees. The Lawyers
Committee for Human Rights (Lawyers Committee) has described Haiti
as a "human rights nightmare."32 In its recent report, the Lawyers Com-
mittee observes:
The promise of a civil society that seemed imminent following the
free, fair, and peaceful election of Jean-Bertrand Aristide as Presi-
dent in December 1990, has given way to the return of authoritari-
an control and military domination after a bloody coup forced him
from the country on September 30, 1991. . . . The human rights
situation in Haiti is worse than at any time since the Duvalier era.
The military has executed, tortured and illegally arrested countless
Haitians. Government harassment and intimidation of journalists,
human rights monitors and lawyers, priests, nuns and grass-roots
leaders is intense. Popular expressions of support for ousted Presi-
dent Aristide are routinely met with violent reprisals by the mili-
tary. Repression of any perceived threat to military control has led
the Haitian armed forces to place such stringent restrictions on the
right of association that foreign development workers have been
detained for meeting with the members of agricultural coopera-
tions. Even priests and nuns, who have historically enjoyed some
special protection from illegal detention and arrest, have been
targeted by military authorities. At the same time, government
interference in the judicial process has, if anything, become more
blatant.... To assure their hold over the country, Haiti's military
leaders and their civilian allies have imposed greater restrictions on
Loses Plea for U.S. Visa, N.Y. TIMES, Mar. 7, 1993, at 11A (reporting that Ferleau Nordd, a
Haitian dissident, was denied visa to United States); Deborah Sontag, HaitiArrests Man on
Way to Asylum in the U.S., N.Y. TIMES, Mar. 14, 1993, at 6A (reporting that "Haitian military
has arrested and imprisoned a 22-year old Haitian deserter who last week was granted
political refugee status by the United States officials in Haiti.").
3 1. See Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Haiti, supra note 27; AMERICA'S
WATCH ET AL., RETURN TO THE DARKEST DAYS: HUMAN RIGHTS IN HAITI SINCE THE COUP
(1991); AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, HAITI: THE HUMAN RIGHTS TRAGEDY (1992); HAITI: A
HUMAN RIGHTS NIGHTMARE, supra note 25; LAWYERS COMMITTEE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS,
PAPER LAWS, STEEL BAYONETS: BREAKDOWN OF THE RULE OF LAW IN HAITI (1990);
O'Neill, supra note 16; Douglas Farah, HaitianArmed Forces Repressing Aid Groups, WASH.
POST, Oct. 10, 1992, at A17, A23.
32. See HAITI: A HUMAN RIGHTS NIGHTMARE, supra note 25.
freedom of expression,, assembly and association than Haiti has

known since the end of the Duvalier dictatorship. Haiti is a human
rights nightmare where most fundamental freedoms are violated
and where violations enjoy virtual impunity.33
The Organization of American States (OAS) has similarly concluded
that the human rights situation in Haiti has significantly deteriorated.
Civilians have been subject to unlawful detention, execution without due
process of law, and torture by members of the military, police, and
civilian collaborators. 34 In addition, the Department of State in its Coun-
try Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1992 revealed that political
and extrajudicial killings continue. The actual number of such cases
cannot be adequately determined. Many of those murdered were individ-
uals associated with deposed President Aristide
33. Id. at 1, 8.
34. Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Haiti, supra note 27, at 1. In the wake of
Aristide's scheduled return, civil discord continues to plague Haiti. On September 11, 1993, a
prominent supporter of Aristide, Antoine lzmery, was assassinated at a Catholic mass.
Prominent Backer of Aristide is Slain After Mass, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 12, 1993, at A8. See
Chris Angelo, Demonstrators Disrupt Haiti Installation Rite, ADVOC. (Baton Rouge, LA),
Sept. 18, 1993, at 6A (describing that one hundred demonstrators attempted to disrupt the
installation ceremonies of Foreign Minister Claudette Werleigh and called for the departure of
U.N. envoy Dante Caputo). See also Howard W. French, Many Disappear in Haitian Terror
Campaign, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 5, 1993, at 8; Howard W. French, Public Killing Defines
Barriers to Aristide's Return, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 26, 1993, at 4; Save the Haiti Agreement,
N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 19, 1993, at 16 (stating that "the administration needs to get tough again
with the military and police leaders who are out to wreck that agreement by letting thugs
murder and intimidate Aristide supporters during the final weeks of the scheduled transition");
lain Guest, Aristide Reaches for Reins, CHRISTIAN SCI. MONITOR, Sept. 17, 1993, at 19; Is
Haiti Viable?, CHRISTIAN SCI. MONITOR, Sept. 16, 1993, at 18; Kathie Klarreich, Haitian
Group Attempts to Bar Aristide's Return, CHRISTIAN SCI. MONITOR, Sept. 21, 1993, at 6;
Kathie Klarreich, UN Police and Engineers Will Lend a Hand in Haiti, CHRISTIAN SCI.
MONITOR, Sept. 30, 1993, at 3.
Due to the civil unrest in Haiti, Haitians again have begun fleeing the island by boat.
See David Beard, Rights Group Blasts U.S. Haitian Policy, ADVOC. (Baton Rouge, LA), Sept.
24, 1993, at lIB (reporting that the Human Rights Watch report, "No Port in a Storm,"
accused the United States of complicity in Haiti's persecution of refugees by returning them
to Haiti); Coast Guard Stops 297 Haitians on Boat, ADVOC. (Baton Rouge, LA), Sept. 24,
1993, at 2A; lain Guest, Let Haitians Seek Asylum: Refugees are Intercepted at Sea and
Returned to the Haitian Military, CHRISTIAN SCI. MONITOR, Nov. 4, 1993, at 19 (reporting
that 24 Haitian boats have been intercepted by the U.S. Coast Guard since January 1993). See
also Jill Smolowe, Haiti: With Friends Like These, TIME, Nov. 8, 1993, at 44.
35. DEP'T OF STATE, HOUSE COMM, ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, SENATE COMM. ON FOREIGN
RELATIONS, 103D CONG., 1ST SESS. 1421 (Joint Comm. Print 1993). See William Booth, Fear
Grips Aristide's Shelter, WASH. POST, May 1, 1993, at A 14 (reporting that soldiers threatened
and harassed boys in orphanage founded by Aristide); Kathie Klarreich, Haiti's Democracy in
Limbo, CHRISTIAN SCI. MONITOR, June 30, 1993, at 20 (reporting people were beaten and
arrested throughout the countryside on the day negotiations between Cedras and Aristide
began for restoration of democracy in Haiti; members of the military attacked Catholic parish-
ioners at a mass where parishioners chanted for Aristide's return).
In response to the overthrow of President Aristide, the United

Nations and the OAS initially issued resolutions deploring the action of
the military golpistas and demanded that the military surrender and
restore democratic rule to Haiti by returning Aristide to power.36 The
OAS and the United States then imposed a trade embargo against
Haiti.37 On June 4, 1993, the Clinton administration imposed new
sanctions against the military-backed government of Haiti. Sanctions
included the denial of entry to the United States of approximately 100
government officials, military officers, their families, and other
supporters of the .de facto military government. The Clinton
administration also froze the assets of eighty-three individuals and
thirty-five institutions associated with Haiti.38 Since June 16, 1993, the
United Nations has imposed a worldwide oil and arms embargo on
Haiti, which includes a global freeze of the financial assets of the
government. 39 Shortly after the imposition of the U.N. embargo, Lt.
Gen. C6dras agreed to begin discussions with President Aristide
concerning his return to power in Haiti. Consequently, C6dras and
Aristide, with the assistance of U.N. mediator, Dante Caputo, negotiated
the Governor's Island Accord of July 3, 1993, which provides for the
restoration of democracy and the return of Aristide as president of the
36. See The Situation of Democracy and Human Rights in Haiti, G.A. Res. 46nl, U.N.
GAOR, 46th Sess., Supp. No. 49, at 13, U.N. Doc. A/46/49 (1992); see also U.N. Press
Release, Dep't of Public Information, GA/8233 (Oct. 11, 1991); O.A.S. Res. MRE/RES. 1/91
OEA/SER. F/V.1 (Oct. 3, 1991) (Ad Hoc Meeting of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Washing-
ton, D.C.); O.A.S. Res. MRE/RES. 2/91, OEA/SER. FN.1 (Oct. 8, 1991) (Ad Hoc Meeting
of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Washington, D.C.).
37. Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to Haiti, Exec. Order No. 12,779, 3
C.F.R. 349 (1992), reprinted in 50 U.S.C. § 1701 (Supp. III 1991); Prohibiting Certain
Transactions with Respect to Haiti, Exec. Order No. 12,775, 3 C.F.R. 367 (1992), reprinted in
50 U.S.C. 1701 (Supp. III 1991); Notice of Suspension of Munitions Export Licenses to Haiti,
56 Fed. Reg. 50,968 (1991). See also Howard W. French, U.S. Will Impose a Trade Ban on
Haiti, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 30, 1991i at A3; John M. Goshko, U.S. Seizes Tanker as Violator of
O.A.S. Embargo Against Haiti,. WASH. PosT, Apr. 3, 1992, at A4; O.A.S. Ministers Tighten
Squeeze on Haiti, ADvoc. (Baton Rouge, LA), May 18, 1992, at 5A; U.S. Puts Embargo on
Haiti, ADVOC. (Baton Rouge, LA), Oct. 30, 1991, at A2.
38. Douglas Farah, U.S. Tightens Sanctions on Regime in Haiti, WASH. POST, June 5,
1993, at A18; Howard W. French, Clinton Faulted on Haiti Sanctions, N.Y. TIMES, June 6,
1993, at L7; Steven A. Holmes, New Sanctions by U.S. Aimed at Haiti Rulers, N.Y. TIMES,
June 5, 1993, at A2.
39. Douglas Farah, Generals Said to Gamble Haiti Has Enough Oil, WASH. POST, June
18, 1993, at A27; Howard W. French, No Quick Solution in Haiti Foreseen, N.Y. TIMES, June
20, 1993, at L 1I; Clara Germani, Impunity of Haiti's Military and Leaky Embargo Weigh on
Aristide, CHRISTIAN SCI. MONITOR, Feb. 4, 1993, at 7; Kathie Klarreich, Haitians Jockey for
Power as a Blockade Is Proposed, CHRISTIAN SCI. MONITOR, June 11, 1993, at 7; Julia
Preston, U.N. Votes to Clamp Oil Embargo on Haiti, WASH. POST, June 17, 1993, at Al,
A37.
Haitian republic. 40 On July 26, 1993, exiled President Aristide chose

publisher Robert Malval, a political moderate, as his prime minister. Mr.
Malval was duly installed as prime minister on August 23, 1993 in a
Washington, D.C. ceremony. 4' U.N. sanctions against Haiti were lifted
after the Prime-Minister-designate was ratified by the Haitian
parliament.4 2 The confirmation of Mr. Malval by the Haitian parliament
was required before he could legally assume the office of prime
40. See Governor's Island Accord, OEA/Ser. G CP/INF. 3480/93 (July 3, 1993). See also
Another Chance for Haiti, WASH. POST, July 5, 1993, at A18; Richard Berstein, Haitians
Achieve 'Political Truce', N.Y. TIMES, July 18,. 1993, at A24; Clinton Applauds Haiti
Agreement, WASH. POST, July 5, 1993, at A5; Howard W. French, Haitian Military and
Aristide Sign Pact to End Crisis,'N.Y. TIMES, July 4, 1993, at Al, A12; Howard W. French,
Mediators in Accord Over Haiti, N.Y. TIMES, Apr. 11, 1993, at A8; Kathie Klarreich, Haitian
Military Chief Ready to Step Down, CHRISTIAN SCI. MONITOR, July 19, 1993, at 3; Kathie
Klarreich, Haiti Embarks on Return to Democratic Rule, CHRISTIAN SCI. MONITOR, July 6,
1993, at 2; Julia Preston, Aristide, Officer Sign Haiti Pact, WASH. POST, July 4, 1993, at Al,
A28. The 10 points of the Governor's Island Accord are:
(1) Discussion among all parties to achieve a political truce and normally function-
ing Parliament able to legislate transition to constitutional rule.
(2) Nomination of prime minister by president Aristide.
(3) Confirmation of prime minister by Parliament.
(4) Suspension of embargoes put in place by United Nations and Organization of
American States.
(5) Resumption of foreign aid, with programs to modernize armed services and
create a new police force.
(6) A presidential amnesty for those involved in the 1991 coup.
(7) Creation of the new police force and appointment by Aristide of its commander.
(8) Retirement of Commander-in-Chief Cddras and appointment by Aristide of his
replacement, who shall appoint a general staff.
(9) Retirement of Port-au-Prince Police Chief Joseph.
(10) Francois Aristide's return to Haiti on Oct. 30, 1993.
Cf. Douglas Farah, Haitians Despair of Aristide's Return in Time to Save Economy, WASH.
POST, June 23, 1993, at A27 (reporting that Haiti's rural poor are losing hope that Aristide
will return before economy is shattered); Haiti: American Dilemma, CHRISTIAN SCI. MONI-
TOR, July 6, 1993, at 18 (reporting of Haitian skepticism of U.N. negotiations); Tony P. Hall,
Tame the 'Elephants' in Haiti, CHRISTIAN SCI. MONITOR, July 13, 1993, at 20 (discussing the
need for humanitarian aid, in addition to political stability); Elaine Sciolino, Haiti's Man of
Destiny Awaiting His Hour, N.Y. TIMES, Aug. 3, 1993, at Al, A6 (describing Aristide's lack
of experience and psychological problems).
41. George Gedda, Haiti Gets New Prime Minister, Vows Democracy, ADVOC. (Baton
Rouge, LA), Aug. 31, 1993, at 6A; Rights Groups Welcome Haiti's New Premier, N.Y.
TIMES, Aug. 29, 1993, at A7.
42. Victoria Graham, U.N. Lifts Sanctions on Haiti, ADVOC. (Baton Rouge, LA), Aug.
28, 1993, at lA; Lucia Mouat, Obstacles Confront Malval After Lifting of Sanctions, CHRIS-
TIAN SCI. MONITOR, Aug. 30, 1993, at 4; see Ben Barber, U.S. Asked to Aid Nigerian,
Haitian Democracy Bids, CHRISTIAN SCI. MONITOR, Sept. 2, 1993, at 2. See also Michael
Norton, HaitianArmy Wields Reign of Terror, Group Says, ADVOC. (Baton Rouge, LA), Aug.
29, 1993, at 18A (reporting that Inter-American Human Rights Commission has observed an
intensification of human rights violations in Haiti, even as Aristide prepares to return. "The
army creates a climate of terror for the rural population .... Paramilitary agents attack the
population, rape the women and destroy their homes.").
minister.4 3 Consequently, the future of democracy and human rights

appeared brightened by virtue of these recent developments.
Unfortunately, the implementation of the Governor's Island Accord
faced a serious setback on October 11, 1993, when a U.N. mission com-
posed, of U.S. and Canadian military personnel, was prevented from
landing in Port-au-Prince by armed demonstrators, including attach6s of
the Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haiti (FRAPH). These
demonstrators were supported by the C6dras military regime. 44 On
October 16, 1993, the United Nations imposed economic sanctions
against Haiti and approved a naval blockade of the country. 45 Despite
43. Aristide Names Publisher as Prime Minister of Haiti, WASH. POST, July 27, 1993, at
A18. But see Howard W. French, Haitians Delaying Action on Premier, N.Y. TIMES, Aug. 1,
1993, at 11; Haiti's Shaky Reformation, CHRISTIAN SCI. MONITOR, July 27, 1993, at 18;
Kathie Klarreich, Haitian Senate Appears Engaged in Ploys to Delay Aristide's Return,
CHRISTIAN SCI. MONITOR, Aug. 5, 1993, at 7; Margaret Ellen Roggensack & Ira Kurzban,
Restoring Haiti's Leader, CHRISTIAN SCI. MONITOR, Aug. 11, 1993, at 19.
44. Howard W. French, U.S. Withdraws Troop Ship Frnm Haiti, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 13,
1993, at A4; Howard W. French, Haitians Block Landing of U.S. Forces, N.Y. TIMES, Oct.
12, 1993, at Al, A4; Robert S. Greenberger, Clinton Orders Ship Qff Haiti to Withdraw,
WALL ST. J., Oct. 13, 1993, at A3; Haiti's Uncertain Future, CHRISTIAN SCI. MONITOR, Oct.
14, 1993, at 18; Steven A. Holmes, Effort to Restore Haiti's Leader Is Halted, N.Y. TIMES,
Oct. 13, 1993, at Al, A4; Kathie Klarreich, Haiti's Grim Mercenaries Tighten Their Steely
Grip, CHRISTIAN SCI. MONITOR, Oct. 29, 1993, at 8; Linda Robinson, Turning the Screws -
A U.N. Embargo and U.S. Pressure Fail to Impress Haiti's Rulers, U.S. NEws & WORLD
REP., Nov. 1, 1993, at 50, 52; Michael Tarr & Linda Robinson, Haiti's Bloody Message to
Clinton, U.S. NEws & WORLD REP., Oct. 25, 1993, at 36.
45. S.C. Res. 875, U.N. SCOR, 3293d mtg., U.N. Doc. S/RES/875 (1993). The text of
the resolution provides, inter alia, that the Security Council is:
Deeply disturbed by the continued obstruction to the dispatch of the United Nations
Mission in Haiti (UNMIH), pursuant to resolution 867 (1993), and the failure of
the Armed Forces of Haiti to carry out their responsibilities to allow the mission to
begin its work,
Condemning the assassination of officials of the legitimate Government of Presi-

dent Jean-Bertand Aristide,
Taking note of the letter of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide to the Secretary-

General of 15 October 1993 (S/26587), in which he requested the Council to call
on Member States to take the necessary measures to strengthen the provisions of
Security Council resolution 873 (1993),
Mindful of the report of the Secretary-General of 13 October 1993 (S/26573)

informing the Council that the military authorities in Haiti, including the police,
have not complied in full with the Governors Island Agreement,
Reaffirming its determination that, in these unique and exceptional circumstances,

the failure of the military authorities in Haiti to fulfill their obligations under the
Agreement constitutes a threat to peace and security in the region.
Acting under Chapters VII and VIII of the Charter of the United Nations,
the recent problematic enforcement of the Governor's Island Accord, the

light of hope still flickers for the restoration of democracy. U.N.
1. Calls upon Member States, acting nationally or through regional agencies or

arrangements, cooperating with the legitimate Government of Haiti, to use such
measures commensurate with the specific circumstances as may be necessary under
the authority of the Security Council to ensure strict implementation of the provi-
sions of resolutions 841 (1993) and 873 (1993) relating to the supply of petroleum
or petroleum products or arms and related material of all types, and in particular to
halt inward maritime shipping as necessary in order to inspect and verify their
cargoes and destinations;
2. Confirms that it is prepared to consider further necessary measures to ensure full

compliance with provisions of relevant Security Council resolutions;
3. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.

Id. at 1-2. See R.W. Apple Jr., President Orders Six U.S. Warships for Haiti Patrol, N.Y.
TIMES, Oct. 16, 1993, at 1, 4; Kathie Klarriech, U.N. Embargo Takes Its Toll on Haitians,
CHRISTIAN SCI. MONITOR, Oct. 27, 1993, at 3; Kathie Klarreich, In Haiti, the Gunboats Take
on the Generals, CHRISTIAN SCI. MONITOR, Oct. 20, 1993, at 1, 4; Kathie Klarreich, Haitian
Military Digs in Heels, As U.S. Ships Carry Out Blockade, CHRISTIAN SCI. MONITOR, Oct.
16, 1993, at 1, 14; Kathie Klarreich, U.N. Threatens to Reimpose Sanctions Against Haiti,
CHRISTIAN SCI. MONITOR, Oct. 13, 1993, at 1, 4; Steve Komarow, U.S. Set to Squeeze Hai-
tians, USA TODAY, Oct. 15-17, 1993, at IA; Paul Lewis, U.N. Backs Use of Ships to Enforce
Haiti Embargo, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 17, 1993, at 11.
On October 18, 1993, President Clinton issued Exec. Order No. 12,872, 58 Fed. Reg.
54,029, freezing the assets of certain Haitians in the United States. The Executive Order
provides, in relevant part:
Section 1. Except to the extent provided in regulations, orders, directives, or
licenses, which may hereafter be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding
the existence of any rights or obligations conferred or imposed by any international
agreement or any contract entered into or any license or permit granted before the
effective date of this order, all property and interest in property of persons:
(a) Who have contributed to the obstruction of the implementation of

the United Nations Security Council Resolutions 841 and 873, the
Governors Island Agreement of July 3, 1993, or the activities of the
United Nations Mission in HAITI;
(b) Who have perpetuated or contributed to the violence in HAITI; or
(c) Who have materially or financially supported any of the foregoing,

that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United
States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or con-
trol of United States persons, including their overseas branches, are
blocked.
Sec. 2. Any transaction subject to U.S. jurisdiction that evades or avoids, or has the
purpose of evading or avoiding, or attempts to violate, any of the prohibitions set
forth in this order, or in Executive Orders Nos. 12775, 12779, or 12853, is prohib-
ited, notwithstanding the existence of any rights or obligations conferred or im-
posed by any international agreement or any contract entered into or any license or
permit granted before the effective date of this order, except to the extent provided
in regulations, orders, directives or licenses issued pursuant to the relevant Execu-
tive Order and in effect on the effective date of this order.
officials have welcomed a compromise peace proposal suggested by a

6
group of lawmakers who are opponents of President Aristide.
Indisputably, there have been advances toward the restoration of
democracy and the amelioration of the human rights climate in Haiti.
Concerted political action has been the tool used to effect political
change. However, Haitians who are political refugees or who have been
interdicted on the high seas and repatriated to their persecutors have
been, for the most part, lent a deaf ear by the judiciary of the United
States and denied the protection of international and domestic law. In
the Sale case, the Supreme Court, reminiscent of its decision 137 years
earlier in Dred Scott,4 7 ruled. that Haitian refugees, interdicted on the
high seas by the Coast Guard, have no legal rights which a federal court
is bound to enforce. 4' A brief discussion of the decisions in Haitian
Refugee Center v. Baker and Haitian Centers Council v. McNary, two
conflicting pronouncements from federal courts of appeals in the Elev-
enth and Second Circuits, sets the stage for the Supreme Court's ruling
in Sale.
B. Conflicting Voices: Baker and McNary

The ousting of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide in September 1991
created a deluge of refugees attempting to flee their Haitian homeland
by boat. Ultimately, the tide of refugees was curtailed by the U.S. Coast
46. Kathie Klarreich, Talks in Haiti Renew Hope for a Diplomatic Solution, CHRISTIAN
SCI. MONITOR, Oct. 25, 1993, at 1, 14. See also Howard W. French, Haiti's Curse - Power
Means Brutality; Practice Makes Perfect, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 17, 1993, at IE; Howard W.
French, As Aristide Fails to Return His Foes Celebrate in Haiti, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 31, 1993,
at 8; Steve Komarow, Haiti Slaying Is Latest Effort To Derail U.N. Mission There, USA
TODAY, Oct. 15, 1993, at 5A (reporting that Guy Malary, Justice Minister of Haiti and
member of the transition government, was assassinated by gunmen near Sacre Coeur Church);
Paul Lewis, Haitian Military Condemned by U.N., N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 31, 1993, at 8; U.S.
Rejects Report on Aristide Instability, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 31, 1993, at 8. See generally Bess
Abrahams & Elizabeth Chance-Weigel, BureaucraticBumbling Spoiled Haiti Effort, CHRIS-
TIAN SCI. MONITOR, Oct. 15, 1993, at 2; Ben Barber, U.S. Policy on Haiti Unlikely to
Produce Any Quick Results, CHRISTIAN SCI. MONITOR, Oct. 15, 1993, at 2; Howard W.
French, U.S. Tells Haiti How To Remove Trade Embargo, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 21, 1993, at A4;
Howard W. French, Tension Is Rising As Haiti Military Tightens Its Grip, N.Y. TIMES, Oct.
17, 1993, at Al, AI0; Thomas L. Friedman, Dole Plans Bill to Bar The Use of G.L's in
Haiti, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 18, 1993, at Al, A4; Haitian Defiance Leaves Clinton Limited
Choices, CHRISTIAN SCl. MONITOR, Oct. 19, 1993, at 1, 4; Peter Grier, Crises in Haiti and
Somalia Test U.S. Internationalism,CHRISTIAN SCI. MONITOR, Oct 14, 1993, at 1, 4; Terry L.
McCoy, U.S. Committed to a Free Haiti, CHRISTIAN SCI. MONITOR, Oct. 18, 1993, at 18;
Bruce W. Nelan, Is Haiti Worth It?, TIME, Nov. 1, 1993, at 26; Garry Pierre-Pierre, Troops
Are Active in Haitian Capital, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 24, 1993, at 13.
47. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1856).
48. See Jones, supra note 15, at 24.
Guard who systematically interdicted the Haitians on the high seas. This
interdiction program was the result of a bilateral agreement entered into
between Haiti and the United States in 1981. 9 At the time the agree-
ment was concluded, Haiti was ruled by, Jean-Claude Duvalier who had
continued the "kleptocratic" state created by his father Franqois
Duvalier.5 ° However, the bilateral agreement, Executive Order 12,324, 552'
and Immigration and Naturalization Services Interdiction Guidelines
(INS Guidelines) promulgated to effectuate the interdiction program, all
contained provisions specifying that those individuals who were accord-
ed political refugee status would not be returned to Haiti.53 Pursuant to
the INS Guidelines, Haitians interdicted on the high seas were to be
interviewed at sea to determine, if they were political refugees with a
credible fear of persecution. If a refugee was found to have a credible
fear of persecution, he would be "screened in" and permitted to enter
the United States to apply for political asylum. 54 Those refugees whom
the Coast Guard determined did not have a credible fear of persecution
49. See Migrants Interdiction Agreement, Sept. 23, 1981, U.S.-Haiti, 33 U.S.T., 3559,
3560 [hereinafter Interdiction Agreement].
50. O'Neill, supra note 16, at 92. See also Jones, supra note 15, at 33.
51. Interdiction of Illegal Aliens, Exec. Order No. 12,324, 46 Fed. Reg. 48,109 (1981),
reprinted in 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (1982).
52. INS ROLE IN AND GUIDELINES FOR INTERDICTION AT SEA, Oct. 6, 1981, revised
Sept. 24, 1982 [hereinafter INS GUIDELINES]; see relevant provisions of INS GUIDELINES
quoted in Jones, supra note 15, at n.17.
53. The Interdiction Agreement between the United States and Haiti specifically states
that the United States will comply with "the international obligations mandated in the
Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees" and that "the United States does not intend to
return to Haiti any Haitian migrants whom the United States authorities determine to qualify
for refugee status." Interdiction Agreement, supra note 49, at 3559-60. Executive Order
12,324 requires that when interdictions occur beyond the territorial waters of the United States
"no person who is a refugee will be returned without his consent." Exec. Order No. 12,324,
supra note 51, § 2(c)3. Section 3 of Exec. Order No. 12,324 provides, inter alia:
The Attorney General shall, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the
Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating, take whatever
steps are necessary to ensure the fair enforcement of our law relating to immigra-
tion ... and the strict observance of our international obligations concerning those
who genuinely flee persecution in their homeland.
The INS Guidelines similarly provide that:
INS officers shall be constantly watchful for any indication (including bare claims)
that a person or persons on board the interdicted vessel may qualify as refugees
under the United Nations Convention and Protocol.
INS GUIDELINES, supra note 52, at C.
54. See generally INS GUIDELINES, supra note 52, at C; Sarah Ignatius, HaitianAsylum-
Seekers: Their Treatment as a Measure of the INS Asylum Officer Corps, 7 GEO. IMMIGR. L.J.
119 (1993).
were "screened out" and repatriated to Haiti. 5 In November of 1991, the

United States opened Guantanamo Bay, Cuba for the purpose of inter-
viewing interdictees.56
On May 24, 1992, then President George Bush, by Executive Order
12,807 (Kennebunkport Order) terminated the screening process and
allowed the Coast Guard to interdict Haitians on the high seas and to
immediately return them to Haiti without making any determination as
to their political refugee status.5 7 The Kennebunkport Order provides, in
relevant part:
Neither this order nor any agency guidelines, procedures, instruc-
tions, directives, rules or regulations implementing this order shall
create or shall be construed to create any right or benefit, substan-
tive, or procedural (including without limitation any right or benefit
under the Administrative Procedure Act), legally enforceable by
any party against the United States, its agencies or instrumentali-
ties, officers, employees, or any other person. Nor shall this order
be construed to require any procedure to determine whether a
person is a refugee."
Consequently, the minimal due process rights granted Haitian refugees
on the high seas by the bilateral agreement, Executive Order 12,324, and
INS Guidelines were effectively rescinded by the Kennebunkport Order.
The interdiction program became the fodder for litigation in the
federal courts. Class action suits were initiated by the Haitian Refugee
Center (HRC) and the Haitian Centers Council (HCC), two nonprofit
organizations providing assistance to Haitian emigrants. The issue as to
whether the Coast Guard's interception of Haitian refugees on the high
seas contravened domestic and international law by violating sec-
tion 243(h) of the INA, as amended by the Refugee Act of 1980, and
article 33 of the 1967 Refugee Protocol was litigated in both the Baker
and McNary cases.5 9 The Eleventh Circuit in Baker and the Second
55. Ignatius, supra note 54, at 119.

56. Id.
57. Exec. Order No. 12,807, 57 Fed. Reg. 23,133 (1992) [hereinafter Kennebunkport
Order].
58. Id. at 23,134; see Haitian Migrants, 28 WEEKLY COMP. PRES. Doc. 938 (May 27,
1992) (President Bush describing the Haitian refugees as economic refugees and stating that
the refugees would now be screened at the Embassy).
59. See generally Baker III, 953 F.2d 1498, 1499 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct.
1245 (1992); Haitian Ctrs. Council, Inc. v. McNary, 969 F.2d 1350 (2d Cir.), cert. granted,
113 S. Ct. 52 (1992). Although there were other legal issues decided in both Baker and
McNary, such as the right to counsel and collateral estoppel, the focus of the discussion in
this Article will be on the legality of the interdiction process under international law and the
domestic law of the United States. The legality of the interdiction program and the
Circuit in McNary reached contrary conclusions in deciding the legal

question. These conflicting voices were silenced when the Supreme
Court resolved the conflict in the Sale decision. Nevertheless, a brief
review of both Baker and McNary will aid in understanding the evolu-
tion of the law.
In Baker, the plaintiffs, represented by the HRC requested the
federal district court for the Southern District of Florida to grant injunc-
tive and declaratory relief against the U.S. government to prevent the
interdiction and repatriation of Haitian refugees on the high seas.6° The
plaintiffs alleged, among other contentions, that Executive Order 12,324,
INS Guidelines, the INA, as amended by the Refugee Act of 1980, and
article 33 of the 1967 Refugee Protocol prohibited the interdiction and
repatriation of refugees on the high seas without a determination of
political refugee status. 61 The Baker litigation involved three separate
appeals from the federal district court to the Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals (Baker I,Baker II, Baker 111).62
In Baker I, the district court judge, Clyde Atkins, issued a prelimi-
nary injunction ruling that the plaintiffs had demonstrated a substantial
likelihood of success on the merits of at least two of their claims. First,
Judge Atkins ruled that the HRC would likely succeed at trial on the
Kennebunkport Order was the sole issue resolved in Sale.

60. See Jones, supra note 15, at 3-6 (discussing in detail the allegations in the com-
plaints filed by Haitian Refugee Center, Inc.). See generally Haitian Refugee Ctr., Inc, v.
Gracey, 809 F.2d 794 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (upholding interdiction program because the HRC did
not have standing to challenge it). In his concurring opinion, Judge Harry T. Edwards wrote:
This section applies to aliens in exclusion and deportation proceedings. Thus,
section 1253(h), applying as it does both to aliens seeking entry and to aliens
within the United States, is actually more generous than is required by the Protocol.
At that time "[tihe relief authorized by § 243(h) [8 U.S.C. § 1253(h)] was not ...
available to aliens at the border seeking refuge in the United States due to perse-
cution.
This case presents a painfully common situation in which desperate people, con-
vinced that they can no longer remain in their homeland, take desperate measures
to escape. Although the human crisis is compelling, there is no solution to be found
in a judicial remedy. The stark reality here is that, pursuant to the allegations of the
amended complaint, this court is constrained to conclude that the HRC has not
alleged a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Id. at 841.
61. Baker 111, 953 F.2d at 1510.
62. Haitian Refugee Ctr., Inc. v. Baker, 949 F.2d 1109 (lth Cir. 1991) [hereinafter
Baker I]; Haitian Refugee Ctr., Inc. v. Baker, 950 F.2d 685 (l1th Cir. 1991) [hereinafter
Baker 11]; Baker II, 953 F.2d at 1498.
allegation that the refugees had a judicially enforceable claim under

article 33 of the 1967 Refugee Protocol not to be returned to Haiti
where they would be subjected to persecution or death. Second, Atkins
decided that the HRC had a substantial likelihood of success on its First
Amendment claim. The HRC asserted that the government had impinged
upon its right to association, as well as its right to advise and counsel
the interdictees, since the government would not allow the HRC access
to interdicted refugees. 63 The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals dis-
agreed with Judge Atkins and held that Haitian refugees on the high
seas had no enforceable rights under article 33 because the provision
was not self-executing nor directly 'applicable at the domestic level in
the United States. 6 Since Congress had not passed implementing legisla-
tion to bring article 33 of the 1967 Refugee Protocol into effect as
domestic U.S. law, the benefits or rights under article 33 could not be
invoked by the plaintiffs.65 Moreover, the Eleventh Circuit indicated that
the Haitians had not reached the territory of the United States. 6 The
logical inference to be drawn from the opinion is that the Eleventh
Circuit did not believe article 33 applied extraterritorially. The prelimi-
nary injunction was dissolved by the Eleventh Circuit and the case was
remanded with instructions that the article 33 claim be dismissed on the
merits.67 It must be noted that the appellate court failed to justify its
conclusion that article 33 was not self-executing.68
Subsequent to the Eleventh Circuit's ruling on December 17, 1991,
in Baker II, the district court issued a temporary restraining order pro-
hibiting the repatriation of Haitian interdictees based upon the Adminis-
trative Procedure Act (APA).69 The essence of the APA claim was that
the subordinates of the President had violated their discretion by failing
to follow procedures and guidelines established to carry out the Presi-
dent's interdiction program. 70 In reviewing Baker II, the Eleventh Circuit
63. Baker 1, 949 F.2d at 1110.

64. Id.
65. Id. The court defines a self-executing treaty as an international agreement "that
directly accords enforceable rights to persons without the benefit of Congressional implemen-
tation." Id.
66. Id.
67. Id. at 1111.
68. The Court of Appeals, in a conclusory statement with no explanation, held that
article 33 was not self-executing. Id. at I 110.
69. Baker 1I, 950 F.2d 685, 686 (11 th Cir. 1991).
70. Id. See discussion of APA claim in Jones, supra note 15, at 11-12, (citing Baker II,
950 F.2d at 687-88), 35 (citing Order Memorializing Oral Rulings, Case No. 91-2653, at 1,
n.1 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 18, 1991)).
characterized the district court's ruling as a preliminary injunction. 7' The

Eleventh Circuit held that the district court had previously decided the
APA claim and had refused to grant injunctive relief based on the
claim.7 2 Without presenting detailed legal reasoning,73 the Eleventh
Circuit decided that the plaintiffs had no likelihood of success on the
APA claim and suspended, pending appeal, the so-called temporary re-
straining order issued by the district court.74
Finally, in Baker III, the Eleventh Circuit ruled, that the plaintiffs
had no legally cognizable rights under the INA, as amended by the
Refugee Act of 1980, or international law. 75 First, the majority of the
court held that section 1253(h)(1) (section 243(h)1 of the Refugee Act
of 1980) was included in part V of the INA. 76 Part V of the INA, con-
cerning deportations, applies only to aliens within the United States. The
court concluded that the Haitian refugees were beyond the borders of
the United States and therefore could not avail themselves of judicial
review based upon the INA. The Eleventh Circuit supported its inter-
pretation of section 1253(h)(1) of the INA by discussing several cases
which it asserted revealed congressional intent to preclude judicial
review of administrative decisions covering aliens who had not reached
the borders of the United States or who were not within the country.77
Second, the Eleventh Circuit summarily concluded that the plain-
tiffs' claim of rights under customary international law or international
common law was "meritless., 78 Accordingly, the appellate court re-
manded the case to the district court with the order that the action be
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be grant-
ed. 79 In sum, Baker was a harbinger of the Supreme Court's ruling in
Sale, which reached the same legal, conclusion in permitting Haitian
refugees to be interdicted on the high seas by the Coast Guard and
returned to Haiti.
Following the Baker decision, on March 18, 1992, the HCC and
several other civil rights organizations filed suit, on behalf of Haitians
who had been interdicted pursuant to the U.S. government's interdiction
71. Baker II, 950 F.2d at 686.

72. Id.
73. See id. at 685. The lack of detail is reflected in the length of the opinion; the
Eleventh Circuit resolved the issue in less than two pages.
74. Id. at 687.
75. Baker!!!, 953 F,2d 1498, 1510-11 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 1245 (1992).
76. Id. at 1506.
77. Id. at 1506-1507.
78. Id.at 1511.
79. Id. at 1515.
program, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York. McNary raised all of the same issues already litigated in Baker.
In McNary, the substance of the plaintiffs' claim challenged the
legality of the Kennebunkport Order issued by former President George
Bush, in light of U.S. accession to the 1967 Refugee Protocol.80 As did
the Eleventh Circuit in Baker I, Judge Sterling Johnson ruled that the
1967 Refugee Protocol was not self-executing. It was therefore unen-
forceable by the court for the benefit of the plaintiffs."' Nevertheless,
Judge Johnson concluded:
It is unconscionable that the United States should accede to the
Protocol and later claim that it is not bound by it. The court is
astonished that the United States would return Haitians to the jaws
of political persecution, terror, death and uncertainty when it has
contracted not to do so. The government's conduct is particularly
hypocritical given its condemnation of other countries who have
refused to abide by the principle of nonrefoulement. Article 33 is a
80. See Haitian Ctrs. Council, Inc. v. McNary, No. 92-CV-1258, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
8452 (E.D.N.Y. June 5, 1992) (order denying plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction).
81. Id.at *5.
Although Judge Johnson was moved to reject plaintiffs' argument concerning the
applicability of article 33 of the 1967 Refugee Protocol and § 243(h)(1) of the INA to Haitian
refugees in international waters, he must be applauded for his recent decision requiring the
United States to move HIV-infected Haitians from Guantanamo Bay for treatment in the
United States. Judge Johnson held that the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment
required that the government provide adequate medical care to detainees who needed such
care. Haitian Ctrs. Council, Inc. v. Sale, 817 F. Supp. 336, 337 (E.D.N.Y. 1993) (order
granting preliminary injunction). Judge Johnson ordered the defendants to provide adequate
medical care for "screened-in" HIV-infected Haitians or medically evacuate the Haitians to a
place, other than Haiti, "where adequate medical care is available[.]" Id.
By his order of June 8, 1993, Judge Johnson ordered the government to evacuate HIV-
infected Haitians from Guantanamo Bay to some place where they might receive proper
medical care. The judge further ruled that the government was required to cease and desist
from denying the plaintiff Haitian Service Organizations access to the "screened-in" plaintiffs
at Guantanamo Bay. The Haitian Service Organizations had a right to communicate and
associate with the "screened-in" plaintiffs by virtue of the First Amendment. Haitian Ctrs.
Council, Inc. v. Sale, 823 F. Supp. 1028 (E.D.N.Y. 1993). Judge Johnson found:
Although the defendants euphemistically refer to its Guantanamo operation as a
"humanitarian camp," the facts disclose that it is nothing more than an HIV prison
camp presenting potential health risks to the Haitians held there .... It is outra-
geous, callous and reprehensible that defendant INS finds no value in providing
adequate medical care even when a patient's illness is fatal.
Id.at 1038-39.
See William Booth, 27 Haitians Freedfrom 'HIV Prison', WASH. POST, June 15, 1993,
at AI; Bruce Frankel & Bill Nichols, Judge: HIV Policy Callous, USA TODAY, June 9, 1993,
at IA; Help Guantanamo Haitians, N.Y. TIMES, Mar. 14, 1993, at A16; Bill Nichols & Bruce
Frankel, Ruling to Free HaitiansIs Yet Another Problem, USA TODAY, June 9, 1993, at I IA;
Martin Sieff, Clinton Won't Challenge Haitian Release Order, WASH. TIMES, June 10, 1993,
at A3. But see Samuel Francis, Flouting the Law on AIDS Refugees, WASH. TIMES, June 22,
1993, at Fl.
cruel hoax and not worth the paper it is printed on unless Congress
enacts legislation implementing
82
its provisions or a higher court
reconsiders Bertrand.
In denying the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction enjoin-
ing repatriation, Judge Johnson concluded that he was bound by
Bertrand v. Sava, 3 a Second Circuit decision. Judge Johnson ruled that
Bertrand held that the provisions of the 1967 Refugee Protocol were not
self-executing. 4 Hence, Bertrand was the controlling precedent. He
further ruled that section 243 (h)(1), of the INA as amended by the
Refugee Act of 1980,8" did not apply to Haitians in international wa-
ters.86 However, the district court judge criticized the U.S. government
for hypercritically accusing Great Britain of forcibly repatriating Viet-
namese boat people in 1990 when the United States was now engaging
in similar conduct.87 Finally, Judge Johnson reiterated his previous legal
conclusion that section 243(h)(1) of the INA, as amended by the Refu-
gee Act of 1980, did not provide a right to counsel for Haitians who
were not within the borders of the United States.88
The plaintiffs appealed the district court's denial of their request for
injunctive relief. On July 29, 1992, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit reversed the district court's decision8 9 Although
technically a ruling on a preliminary injunction is not a decision on the
merits, the Second Circuit held that section 243(h)(1) of the INA, as
amended by the Refugee Act of 1980, was applicable to aliens inter-
cepted in international waters. 90 The Second Circuit therefore concluded
82. Haitian Ctrs. Council, Inc. v. McNary, No. 92 CV 1258, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
8452, at *5 (order denying plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction).
83. Id. at *5. See also Bertrand v. Sava, 684 F.2d 204 (2d Cir. 1982).
.84. Haitian Ctrs. Council, Inc., v. McNary, No. 92 CV 1258, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
8452, at *5. See also Bertrand, 648 F.2d at 204.
85. 8 U.S.C. § 1253(h)(1).
86. Haitian Ctrs. Council, Inc. v. McNary, No. 92 CV 1258, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
8452, at *6. See also Judge Slams Bush But Clears his Haitian Repatriation Policy, WASH.
TIMES, June 6, 1993, at A3; U.S. Policy Appears to Deter Haitian Refugees, WASH. POST,
June 6, 1993, at A7.
87. Haitian Ctrs. Council, Inc. v. McNary, No. 92-CV-1258, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
8452, at *5 n.2.
88. Id. at *6. Judge Johnson's previous legal conclusion that no right to counsel exists
for refugees not within U.S. borders can be found in Haitian Ctrs. Council, Inc. v. McNary,
No. 92-CV-1258, 1992 WL 155853, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. April 6, 1992).
89. Haitian Ctrs. Council, Inc. v. McNary, 969 F.2d 1350 (2d Cir.), cert. granted, 113 S.
Ct. 52 (1992). See generally Michael G. Heyman, McNary v. Haitian Centers Council et al.,
6 REVIEW OF UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASES 249-51 (February 19, 1993); Jonathan
Harris, InternationalDecisions: Haitian Centers Council, Inc. v. McNary, 87 AM. J. INT'L L.
112-17 (1993).
90. McNary, 969 F.2d at 1367.
Michigan Journalof InternationalLaw [Vol. 15:77
that the Kennebunkport Order was illegal because it allowed the Coast
Guard to return Haitians to "their persecutors" in Haiti without a deter-
mination of political refugee status.9'
In reaching its decision that the request for preliminary injunctive
relief should have been granted, the Second Circuit applied the plain
meaning doctrine in its construction of the language found in sec-
tion 243(h)(1) of the INA. Prior to 1980, section 243(h)(1) read:
The Attorney General is authorized to withhold deportation of any
alien within the United States to any country in which in his opin-
ion the alien would be subject to persecution on account of race,
religion, or political opinion and for such period of time he deems
to be necessary for such reason.92
After amendment by the Refugee Act of 1980, the provision read:
The Attorney General shall not deport or return any alien ... to a
country if the Attorney General determines that such alien's life or
freedom would be threatened in such country on account of race,
religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or
political opinion.93
The Second Circuit reasoned that the new statute prohibited the
Attorney General from returning "any alien" to a place of persecution
rather than "any alien in the United States."94 The court stated that
section 243(h)(1) applied to any alien without regard to the alien's
location within or outside the United States.95 Since the language of the
statute is unambiguous, the majority of the court concluded that judicial
inquiry of the statute was complete. 96 The Second Circuit explained that
prior to 1980, section 243(h)(1) created a distinction between those
aliens "within the United States" and those aliens not within the coun-
try's borders.97 Because Congress had removed the words "within the
United States," the court concluded that Congress could not have intend-
ed "sub silentio, to enact statutory language that it [had] earlier discard-
ed."98 Thus, the government's conduct constituted a return of aliens to
91. Id. at 1366-67.

92. Id. at 1357 (emphasis added).
93. Id.
94. Id. at 1357-59.
95. Id. at 1358-59.
96. Id. at 1358.
97. Id. at 1359.
98. Id. (quoting Nachman Corp. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., 446 U.S. 359,
392-93 (1980)).
their persecutors within the meaning of the statute.99 The court conclud-
ed that the government's action flagrantly violated section 243(h)(1) of
the INA as amended by the Refugee Act of 1980.'0
The Second Circuit also rejected the government's argument that
article 33 of the 1967 Refugee Protocol and the 1951 Refugee Conven-
tion did not apply extraterritorially on the high seas.' ' The majority
contended that the practical effect of the government's action was to
prevent Haitians from not only entering the United States, but to also
prevent them from gaining entrance to the Bahamas, Jamaica, Cuba,
Mexico, the Cayman Islands, or any other country in which they might
seek safe haven. 0 2 The government's assertion "that returning ...
Haitians to their persecutors is somehow 'in regard for their safety' is
itself absurd." 113 Unfortunately, the Second Circuit refused to reach the
issue as to whether article 33 was self-executing. The majority charac-
terized any decision concerning the self-executing nature of article 33 as
"academic" because the plain language of section 243(h)(1) of the INA
prohibited the United States from returning aliens to their persecutors
"no matter where in the world these actions are taken."'1 4
On July 29, 1992, the U.S. government filed an application for a
stay of the Second Circuit's decision with the Supreme Court. On
August 1, 1992, the Court granted the request for a stay pending the
filing of a writ of certiorari by the applicants. The Court ordered that:
the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, 969 F.2d 1350 (1992), and the subsequent July 29, 1992
order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York ... are stayed pending the filing of a petition for a writ
of certiorari on or before August 24, 1992. Should the petition for
a writ be filed on or before that date this order is to remain in
effect pending the Court's action on the petition. If the petition for
a writ of certiorari is denied, the order is to terminate auto-
matically. In event the petition is granted, this order is to remain in
effect pending the sending down of the judgment of this Court." 5
Justices Blackmun and Stevens dissented, emphasizing that the plaintiffs
in the case faced the real and immediate prospect of persecution, terror,
99. Id. at 1360.

100. Id. at 1360-61.
101. Id. at 1361-66.
102. Id. at 1366.
103. Id. at 1367.
104. Id.
105. McNary v. Haitian Ctrs. Council, Inc., 113 S. Ct. 3 (1992).
and possible death at the hands of those to whom they were being
forcibly returned.'0° In their dissent, they noted that the government did
not make a strong showing that a balancing of the equities would be in
its favor. The government had simply presented the Court with "a vague
invocation of harm to foreign policy, immigration policy, and the federal
treasury."' 0 7
The petition for.. a writ of certiorari was granted and HaitianCenters
Council v. McNary was restyled Sale v. Haitian Centers Council.
C. Sale: The Dred Scott Case of Immigration

Law Revisited and Reaffirmed
The President has lirected the Coast Guard to intercept vessels

illegally transporting passengers from Haiti to the United Sates and
to return those passengers to Haiti without first determining wheth-
er they may qualify as refugees. The question presented in this
case is whether such forced repatriation, 'authorized to be under-
taken only beyond the territorial sea of the United States,' violates
§ 243(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 .... We
hold that neither § 243(h)(1) nor Article 33 of the United Nations
Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees applies to action taken
by the Coast Guard on the high seas.""a
In the preceding quotation, the Supreme Court framed the narrow issue
decided in Sale and held that Haitian refugees, intercepted on the high
seas by the Coast Guard, have no cognizable legal rights under the
domestic law of the United States or under conventional international
law.
The Court's opinion in Sale can be divided into three issues. Fol-
lowing a summary of the historical background of the Haitian refugee
phenomenon, the Court first analyzed the plain language of section
243(h)(1) of the INA, and whether it restricted the actions of the Presi-
dent. Second, the Court examined the validity of an extraterritorial
application of section 243(h)(1). Finally, the Court analyzed article 33 of
the 1967 Refugee Protocol to determine whether it was intended to have
extraterritorial effect.
The Court began its discussion by indicating that the interdiction
program was the result of a 1981 agreement between the U.S.
106. Id.
107. Id. at 4.
108. Sale v. Haitian Ctrs. Council, Inc., 113 S. Ct. 2549, 2552 (1993).
government and the Haitian government of Jean-Claude Duvalier."° The

Haitian government guaranteed the United States that it would not
punish repatriated citizens because of their "illegal departure."" 0 The
majority of the Court noted that the interdiction program was further
promoted by the issuance of Executive Order 12,324 which provided,
inter alia, that "no person who is a refugee will be returned without his
consent.""' Justice Stevens, speaking for, the majority, recounted the
historical progression of the Haitian refugee crisis, detailing and describ-
ing the events which ultimately led to the demise of the Aristide govern-
ment and the dramatic flood of refugees who attempted2
to escape Haiti
and the Cedras regime by way of the high seas."
Justice Stevens suggested that the resulting refugee flow was over-
whelming. The facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba were overcrowded
and unseaworthy vessels sank, causing thousands of deaths." 3 The U.S.
government could no longer protect the nation's borders or implement a
screening process of the Haitians to determine political refugee status, as
was required by Executive Order 12,324.' Consequently, President
Bush, by promulgating Executive Order 12,807, the Kennebunkport
Order, had decided to authorize repatriation of Haitian 5
refugees to Haiti
without a determination of political refugee status."
The first issue resolved by the Court focused on the language of
section 243(h)(1) of the INA. Justice Stevens began the majority opinion
by quoting the language:
The Attorney General shall not deport or return any alien ... to a
country if the Attorney General determines that such alien's life or
freedom would be threatened in such country on account of race,
religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or
t6
political opinion.'
This above-quoted provision resulted from the passage of the Refugee
Act of 1980 which amended the INA. The pre-1980 provision read as
follows:
109. Id. at 2553.

110. Id.
111. Id.
112. Id. at 2553-56.
113. Id. at 2554-55.
114. Id. at 2555.
115. Id.
116. Id. at 2558.
The Attorney General is authorized to withhold deportation of any

alien within the United States to any country in which his opinion
the alien would be subject to persecution on account of race, reli-
gion, or political opinion and11for
7
such period of time he deems to
be necessary for such reason.
The HCC contended that the removal of the words "within the United
States" and the addition of the word "return" was effected to conform
section 243(h)(1) with article 33(1) of the 1951 Refugee Convention and
1967 Refugee Protocol and to assure that the benefits or protection of
section 243(h)(1) applied extraterritorially." 8 The HCC argued that the
language of section 243(h)(1) is unambiguous" 9 and further contended
that the legislative history of the 1980 amendment supported their
position. 2 ' The petitioners submitted that an analysis of the entire INA
reveals that section 243(h)(1) does not apply to actions of the President
and Coast Guard occurring on the high seas.'
The Court, in agreement with the interpretation of the petitioners,
held that although section 243(h)(1) restricts the action of the Attorney
General, it could not be read as a restriction on the conduct of the
President. 22 The Court was not persuaded that section 243(h)(1) placed
any limitations on the President's authority to repatriate aliens interdict-
ed in international waters.' 23 The Supreme Court observed that other
provisions of the INA specifically or expressly conferred powers or
certain responsibilities on the Secretary of State, the President, the
Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Agriculture, and even the federal
24
courts.1 Both Executive Orders 12,324 and 12,807 "expressly. relied on
statutory provisions that confer authority on the President to suspend
entry of 'any class of aliens' or to 'impose on the entry of aliens any
restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.' ,'25 Accordingly, the major-
ity of the Court concluded that the reference to the Attorney General in
section 243(h)(1) did not circumscribe the authority of the President to
order the interdiction and repatriation of Haitian refugees by the Coast
117. See supra note 83 and accompanying text.

118. Sale, 113 S. Ct. at 2558.
119. Id.
120. Id.
121. Id.
122. Id. at 2559.
123. Id. at 2567.
124. Id. at 2559.
125. Id.
Guard. 26 The provision placed limitations on the Attorney General in

the performance of her normal responsibilities, such as conducting
deportation and exclusion hearings where requests for political asylum
are made pursuant to section 243(h)(1). 27 The Court emphasized that
there are no provisions in the INA which authorize holding deportation
or exclusion proceedings outside of the country. Moreover, Justice
Stevens noted that part V of the INA "obviously contemplates" that
such proceedings will be performed in the United States. 128 Therefore,
section 243(h)(1) could not be interpreted so as to limit or restrict the
Attorney General's actions in geographic areas where she has no author-
ity to conduct deportation or exclusion hearings.' 29 The Court concluded
that nothing in part V of the 'INA,which includes section 243(h)(1),
suggests that it is to be applied extraterritorially. 130 The Court also
briefly alluded to the presumption that acts of Congress generally do not31
have force or application outside of the borders of the United States.'
Section 243(h)(1) is one such act of Congress, 32
and the presumption is
that it applies only within the United States.
The second issue the Court discussed related to the definition of the
word "return" which was added to section 243(h)(1) when the language
"within the United States" was deleted. The Court concluded that if
Congress had intended to refer to all aliens who might be returned to
their persecutors, without regard to location, the use of the word "de-
port" would not have been necessary. 33 Thus, the use of both "deport"
and "return" in the statute "implie[d] an exclusively territorial applic-
ation" in 'both deportation and exclusion proceedings. 134 Earlier in its
opinion, the Court had distinguished between deportation and exclusion
proceedings by stating:
Aliens residing illegally in the United States are subject to deporta-
tion after a formal hearing. Aliens arriving at the border, or those
who are temporarily paroled into the country, are subject to an
exclusion hearing, the less formal process by which they, too, may
eventually be removed from the United States. In either a
126. Id.
127. Id. at 2559-60.
128. Id. at 2560.
129. Id.
130. Id.
131. Id.
132. Id.
133. Id.
134. Id.
deportation or exclusion proceeding the alien may seek asylum as

a political refugee for whom removal to a particular country may
threaten his life or freedom.' 35
Consequently, the Court characterized the HCC's definition of "return"
as expansive and stated that the HCC's interpretation of the word would
make the usage of the word "deport" redundant. 36 The HCC argued that
the word "return" referred to the location or destination to which the
refugee would be removed or sent back. 37 The Court asserted that if this
interpretation of "return" was correct, there would be no need to use the
word "deport."'138 The word "return" would have been adequate to cover
both deportation and exclusion proceedings. 9 Thus, Congress had
included both words to be certain thatthe protection provided by sec-
tion 243(h)(1) was available both in deportation and exclusion proceed-
ings. "
In support of its conclusion, the majority of the Court looked to the
legislative history of the Refugee Act of 1980. The Supreme Court
decided that there was not a "scintilla of evidence" in the legislative
history or in the language of the post-1980 section 243(h)(1) provision
that revealed congressional intent to give section 243(h)(1) extraterritori-
al effect. 4 ' The Court suggested that "[it] would have been extraordi-
nary for Congress to make such an important change in the law without
any mention of that possible effect."' 42 The Court reasoned that the 1980
amendment to section 243(h)(1) of the INA had served only to destroy
the distinction between deportable and excludable aliens for the purpos-
es of political asylum. Congress had removed the term "within the
United States" and added the word "return," so that the benefits of
section 243(h)(1) applied to both deportation and exclusion proceedings.
Prior to the 1980 amendment to section 243(h)(1), the protection of the
norm of nonrefoulement was available only to aliens subject to deporta-
tion. 143 Hence, the purpose of the post-1980 section 243(h)(1) provision
is to provide protection for those who are illegally in the country and
subject to deportation as well as those who are at the border or "on the
135. Id. at 2552-53.

136. Id. at 2560.
137. Id.
138. Id.
139. Id.
140. Id.
141. Id.
142. ld. at 2561.
143. Id.
threshold of initial entry," and those who have been temporarily paroled
into the country and subject to exclusion hearings. Therefore, no extra-
territorial application was intended by the changes in section 243(h)(1).
In its disposition of the third issue, the Court held that neither a
textual analysis nor the negotiation history of the treaties supported the
position that article 33 of the 1957 Refugee Convention and the 1967
Refugee Protocol is applicable on the high seas or extraterritorially.'"
Article 33(1) and article 33(2) are reproduced as follows:
Article 33. - Prohibition of expulsion or return ('refoulement')
1. No Contracting State shall expel or return ('refouler') a refugee

in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his
life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, reli-
gion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or politi-
cal opinion.
2. The benefit of the present provision may not, however, be

claimed by a refugee whom there are reasonable grounds for re-
garding as a danger to the security Of the country in which he is, or
who, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly
serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that coun-
try. 4 5
The majority of the Court explained that article 32(2) does not allow an
alien to invoke the benefits of the principle of nonrefoulement set forth
in article 33(1), if 'the alien creates or poses a threat or danger to the
country in which he is present. The Court stated that if article 33(l)
applied extraterritorially on the high seas, no country could apply the
exception found in article 33(2) with respect to an alien found in inter-
national waters, since the high seas is not a cotntry.' 46 The Court further
expatiated:
If Article 33.1 applied extraterritorially ... Article 33.2 would
create an absurd anomaly: dangerous aliens on the high seas would
be entitled to the benefits of 33.1 while those residing in the coun-
try that sought to expel them would not. It is more reasonable to
assume that the coverage of 33.2 was limited to those already in
the country because it was understood that 33.1 obligated47 the
signatory state only with respect to aliens within its territory.
144. Id. at 2563.

145. Id. (emphasis in original).
146. Id.
147. Id.
Interpreting article 33(1), the Court further ruled that the phrase
"expel or return (refouler)" paralleled the phrase "deport or return"
found in section 243(h)(1) of the INA. The Court explained that "expel"
has the same meaning as "deport;" the expulsion of an alien already
present in the host country. 48 "Return" (refouler) refers to the exclusion
of an alien who is at the borders, or "on the threshold of initial entry."' 4 9
The Court stated that, contrary to the HCC's interpretation, the denota-
tion of the word "return" was narrower than its common or ordinary
meaning because the French word "refouler" is not a synonym for "re-
turn." In support of its conclusion, the Court referred to two French-
English dictionaries and noted that "refouler" is not translated as "re-
turn" and "return" is not translated as "refouler."'' ° However, the Court
conceded that "refouler" is translated as "repulse," "drive back," or
"expel."'' Therefore, the Court stated that within the context of the
1951 Refugee Convention, "return" denoted "a defensive act of exclu-
sion at a border rather than an act of transporting someone to a particu-
lar destination ....[T]o 'return' means to 'repulse' rather than to "rein-
state.' ,152Hence, the Court held that article 33 of the 1967 Refugee
Protocol does not have extraterritorial effect.
The Court turned to the travaux preparatoires, the preparatory
works or legislative history of the 1951 Refugee Convention, to prove
that article 33(1) was not intended to apply extraterritorially. The major-
ity of the Court quoted at length statements made by the Swiss and
Netherlands delegates as to their understanding of the meaning of the
terms "expel" and "return." The Swiss delegate stated that the word
''expel" or "expulsion" referred to refugees who had been admitted to
the territory of the host nation. 53 Thus, the term "refoulement had a
vaguer meaning" and could not be applied to refugees who had not
entered the territory of a nation. 54 The Swiss government interpreted the
English word "return" as applicable only to refugees who had entered a
country but were not residents of that country. 55 The Swiss government
desired to clarify the term "return" to make sure that article 33, then
article 28, did not require them to open their frontiers to large groups of
148. Id.
149. Id. (quoting Shaughnessy v. United States ex. rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 212
(1953)).
150. Id. at 2564.
151. Id.
152. Id.
153. Id. at 2565.
154. Id. at 2556-66.
155. Id. at 2566.
56
refugees engaged in mass migration.
The Court suggested that there was a general consensus by several
delegates that the right of nonrefoulement applied only to aliens physi-
cally present within a country. 5 7 Justice Stevens highlighted the absence
of any express disagreement with the Swiss delegate's position at the
Conference of Plenipotentiaries as to his explanation of the words
"expel" and "return."'' 58 Indeed, Justice Stevens emphasized that two
weeks later, the Netherlands delegate supported the Swiss delegate's
opinion, arguing that article 33 then article 28 would not create an
obligation upon a party to admit refugees in a case of mass migration or
attempted mass migration across borders.' 59 The Netherlands delegate
then requested that his agreement with the Swiss delegate's position be
"placed on the record" to reassure his government."' ° The President of
the Conference ruled that the Netherlands delegate's representation
should be placed on the record as requested. There was no objection to
this action. 6' In addition, the Court stated that the word "refouler" was
placed in the English text of the 1951 Refugee Convention to avoid the
erroneously expansive interpretation of the word "return."162 According-
ly, in light of the negotiating history of the treaty, the majority of the
Court refused to interpret article 33 as prohibiting the extraterritorial
interdiction and repatriation of aliens on the high seas.
D. A CriticalAnalysis of the Sale Decision

The Supreme Court in Sale can justifiably be accused of engaging in
"politically correct" judicial activism of the conservative mode.' 63 The
Sale decision reaffirms Baker which decided that Haitian refugees inter-
dicted on the high seas by the Coast Guard have no legal rights under
the domestic laws of the United States or conventional international law.
However, the legal analysis in Sale is flawed in numerous respects.
Specifically, the Court's opinion raises troublesome issues in five dis-
tinct areas: (1) the legal and moral validity of the bilateral interdiction
agreement between the United States and Haiti; (2) the Court's conclu-
sion that section 243(h)(1) of the INA places no limitations on
156. Id.
157. Id.
158. Id.
159. Id.
160. Id.
161. Id.
162. Id. at 2567.
163. Michael Kinsley, Right-Wing PC. Is Still P.C., TIME, Aug. 9, 1993, at 66.
presidential action; (3) the Court's reliance on the presumption against

extraterritorial application of a congressional act; (4) the Court's failure
to interpret the plain meaning of section 243(h)(1) of the INA; and
finally, (5) the Court's analysis of article 33.
Initially, the Court's invocation of the bilateral interdiction agree-
ment between the United States and Haiti as a justification, for the
interdiction program is perplexing. The bilateral interdiction agreement
was an agreement between the Reagan administration and the Jean-
Claude Duvalier regime - a regime which has been described as "a
ferocious system of political repression.' ' 64 The reliance on the bilateral
agreement is most peculiar because the United States has returned or
repatriated Haitians to a political regime which it does not recognize and
has declared an illegal and illegitimate entity. Moreover, the bilateral
interdiction agreement itself reflects the nonrefoulement principle, since
the United States vowed not to return political refugees to Haiti. 6 '
Further, the Court emphasized a provision in the agreement which states
that the Secretary of State obtained assurances from Haiti that the inter-
dicted Haitians would not be prosecuted upon their repatriation to
Haiti.' 66 There is clear and convincing evidence that individuals who
have been repatriated to Haiti have suffered persecution and death. 67
There is no rational basis upon which the United States could conclude
that the illegal and nefarious C6dras regime, whose legitimacy the
United States does not recognize, would abide by the rule of law with
regard to the treatment of repatriates. The C6dras regime demonstrated
its contempt for the rule of law by overthrowing President Aristide.
The very existence of the bilateral interdiction agreement which
restricts the movement of persons on the high seas raises serious issues
as to the validity of such agreements under international law. The Court
cited no legal authority for the proposition that nations may enter into
agreements or treaties which restrict access or movement on the high
seas. The bilateral agreement may violate the international, juridical
principle of freedom on the high seas. The high seas are the property of
no particular nation; the high seas are res communis. 16' The U.N. Con-
vention on the High Seas provides, inter alia: "The high seas being
164. William G. O'Neil, The Roots of Human Rights Violations in Haiti, 7 GEO. IMMIGR.
L.J. 87, 92 (1993).
165. Sale, 113 S. Ct. at 2532.
166. Id.
167. See .supra note 29 and accompanying text.
168. Thomas D. Jones, The International Law of Maritime Blockade - A Measure of
Naval Economic Interdiction, 26 How. L.J. 759, 760 (1983).
open to all nations, no state may validly purport to subject any part of
them to its sovereignty."' 69 By restricting the access of Haitian refugees
to the high seas and interfering with the movement of refugees on the
high seas, arguably, both Haiti and the United States are in violation of
conventional and customary international law. The United States and
Haiti have attempted to exercise their sovereignty in international wa-
ters. Indeed, it must give us pause that the United States would con-
demn the C6dras regime as illegal and then cooperate with this interna-
tional criminal entity by repatriating Haitian refugees pursuant to an
interdiction agreement between the United States and a prior legitimate
government.
Second, the Court's analysis of section 243(h)(1) is logically flawed.
The Court concluded that section 243(h)(1) of the INA does-not restrict
the power of the President to require the Coast Guard to repatriate
Haitian interdictees without a determination of political refugee status.
The Court explained that section 243(h)(1) only restricted the actions of
the Attorney General within the United States. 70 Although the language
of section 243(h)(1) does refer specifically to the Attorney General
when it prohibits her from deporting or returning aliens to the country
of their persecutors, the Court erred in its conclusion that the President
is not bound by the categorical imperative expressed in the language of
section 243(h)(1) of the INA. It is beyond dispute that the Refugee Act.
of 1980 was promulgated by Congress, to conform our refugee law to
the international obligations set forth in the 1967 Refugee Protocol to
which the United States is a party. 7 ' Section 243(h)(1) mirrors article 33
of the 1967 Refugee Protocol. In order for the 1967 Refugee Protocol to
become the law of the United States, the President, in exercise of his
constitutional, treaty-making power, was required to negotiate and sign
the treaty. Ratification of the treaty occurred with the advice and con-
sent of two-thirds of the Senate, consistent with Article 11(2) of the U.S.
Constitution. The legal obligations under the 1967 Refugee Protocol
bind the government of the United States. Therefore, it is ludicrous to
suggest that an agent of the President is bound by section 243(h)(1)
which mirrors article 33 of the 1967 Refugee Protocol, but the President
169. Convention on the High Seas, Apr. 29, 1958, art. 2, 13 U.S.T. 2312, 2314, 450
U.N.T.S. 582 (entered into force Sept. 30, 1962).
170. Sale, 113 S. Ct. at 2559-60.
171. INS v. Cardoza-Fonesca, 480 U.S. 421,436-37 (1987). The Cardozo-Fonesca court
stated: "If one thing is clear from the legislative history of the new definition of 'refugee,'
and indeed the entire Act, it is that one of Congress' primary purposes was to bring United
States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the
Status of Refugees ...to which United States acceded in 1968."
Michigan Journal of InternationalLaw[ [Vol. 15:77
himself is not so bound, even though as the chief executive he negoti-

ates and concludes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate.
Article 33 of the 1967 Refugee Protocol is substantially identical in
substance to section 243(h)(1) of the INA. Therefore, section 243(h)(1)
binds the President and all agents of the President. Any other conclusion
"turns" logic on its head.
Third, the Court's conclusion that section 243(h)(1) has no extrater-
ritorial effect is based solely upon a canon of statutory interpretation. To
deny the extraterritorial effect of section 243(h)(1), the Supreme Court
relied upon the so-called presumption against the extraterritorial reach of
congressional acts.' The presumption states that the domestic or inter-
nal laws of the United States are ordinarily applicable only within the
borders of the country.173 It must be noted that the presumption against
the extraterritorial application of the domestic laws of the United States
is only a presumption of statutory construction; it is not a rule of law.
Moreover, the policy arguments against extraterritorial effect of the
statute are absent in the Haitian "boat people" situation. The presump-
tion is usually applied where there is ambiguity as to whether a statute
is to apply extraterritorially or where congressional intent as to its
extraterritorial application is unexpressed. 74 The presumption is also
applied where there is some risk that the extraterritorial application of a
statute might impinge upon the jurisdictional rights of another nation.'75
Originally, the presumption was a conflict of laws doctrine. Courts
applied the presumption to avoid conflicts between sovereign states in
certain cases where each state attempted to apply its law to the same
event or transaction. In the Haitian refugees cases, since the high seas
belong to no one, the potential for such conflicts of law is nonexis-
tent. 176
Justice Blackmun, the lone dissenter in Sale, summarized the argu-
ments against the application of the presumption against
extraterritoriality:
172. Sale, 113 S. Ct. at 2561-63.

173. Id. at 2561.
174. Foley Bros., Inc. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281, 285 (1949). See Brief for Nicholas
Katzenbach, Benjamin R. Civiletti, and Griffin Bell, Former Attorneys General of the United
States of America in Support of Respondents, amicus curiae, at 11, McNary v. Haitian Ctrs.
Council., Inc., 969 F.2d 1350 (2d Cir.) (No. 92-344), cert. granted, 113 S. Ct. 52 (1992)
[hereinafter Brief of Attorneys General].
175. EEOC v. Arabian Oil Co., I11 S. Ct. 1227, 1230 (1991); Brief of Attorneys
General, supra note 174, at 14.
176. American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U.S. 347 (1909); Brief of Attorneys
General, supra note 174, at 14.
Fall 19931 HaitianRefugees
The judicially created canon of statutory construction against

extraterritorial application of United States law has no role here
It applies only where congressional intent is 'unexpressed'
(citation omitted). Here there is no room for doubt: a territorial
restriction has been deliberately deleted from the statute.
Even where congressional intent is unexpressed, . . . a statute
must be assessed according to its intended scope. The primary
basis for the application of the presumption (besides the desire ...
to avoid conflicts with the laws of other nations) is 'the common-
sense notion that Congress generally legislates with domestic
concerns in mind.' Where that notion seems unjustified or
unenlightening, ... generally-worded laws covering varying sub-
ject matters are routinely applied extraterritorially.
-In this case we deal with a statute that regulates a distinctively
international subject matter: immigration, nationalities, and refu-
gees. Whatever force the presumption may have with regard to a
primarily domestic statute evaporates in this context. There is no
danger that the Congress. that enacted the Refugee Act was blind to
the fact that the laws
77
it was crafting had implications beyond the
Nation's borders.1
Justice Blackmun then cited Murray v. The Charming Betsy 7 8 for the
canon of statutory construction which states that congressional legisla-
tion should never be interpreted so as to violate international law where
another possible interpretation is available.179
Fourth, in its interpretation of section 243(h)(1) of the INA and the
reasons for the change in the language effected by the Refugee Act of
1980, the Court ignored its own teachings concerning the plain meaning
doctrine.8 0 Instead, the Court proceeded to construe the language of the
statute by reference to its legislative history as a method of determining
congressional intent and meaning. The Court held that the words "within
the United States" were deleted from the statute and the word "return"
added so that the benefit or protection of section 243(h)(1) would apply
to deportation proceedings and exclusion proceedings.' 8 ' The Court
stated that prior to the 1980 amendment, section 243(h)(1) protection
177. Sale, 113 S. Ct. at 2549, 2576-77.

178. 6 U.S. 137, 143 (1804), cited in Sale, 113 S. Ct. at 2577.
179. Sale, 113 S. Ct. at 2557.
180. United States v. Stuart, 489 U.S. 353, 371 (1989); Connecticut Nat'l Bank v.
Germain, 112 S. Ct. 1146, 1149 (1992) (holding that where language or words in a statute are
clear and unambiguous, "the judicial inquiry is complete") (citations omitted).
181. Sale, 113 S. Ct. at 2560.
was only available in deportation hearings. The Court supported its

conclusion by invoking the legislative history of the Act. 8 2 The majority
of the Court found no evidence in the legislative history to indicate 83
the
intention of Congress to apply section 243(h)(1) extraterritorially.
However, the Court in its own case law has held that the meaning
of any statute must be initially determined by reference to the ordinary
or plain meaning of the words in the statute. If the text of a statute is
clear and unambiguous on its face, there is no need for further interpre-
tation. 84 The court may not go outside of the statute by using extrinsic
aids to provide a different interpretation of the statute.8 5 It is assumed
that the legislature understood the plain, literal, or ordinary meaning of
the words it chose to use in the statute.8 6 In the instant case, the Su-
preme Court ignored the plain meaning doctrine even though the lan-
guage of section 243(h)(1) is both syntactically and grammatically
unambiguous on its face. The Court immediately resorted to the use of
an extrinsic aid of statutory construction, the legislative history, to
justify its interpretation of the statute. Even though Congress chose to
delete the territorial limitation "within the United States" and added the
word "return," the Supreme Court held that Congress did not mean what
it clearly stated in the statute. Although the language of the statute is
unambiguous, the Court denied that the word "return" refers to the
location or place to which refugees are to be transported, as argued by
the respondents. The fact that there are no specific statements concern-
ing the extraterritorial application of section 243(h)(1) in the legislative
history is understandable given Congress' deliberate act of deleting the
geographically restrictive language - "within the United States." As
Justice Blackmun rightly contended:
To read into section 243(h)'s mandate a territorial restriction is to
restore the very language that Congress removed. 'Few principles
of statutory construction are more compelling than the proposition
that Congress does not intend sub silentio to enact statutory lan- 87
guage that has earlier been discarded in favor of other language." 1
If Congress had intended a territorial limitation in the statute, it would
not have excised the language "within the United States" from the
182. Id.
183. Id.
184. SUTHERLAND STAT. CONST. § 46 (Norman J. Singer ed., 5th ed. 1992) (Supp.
1993).
185. See id. § 46.01.
186. Id.
187. Sale, 113 S. Ct. at 2574 (Blackmun, J., dissenting) (citation omitted).
statute. Congress could have placed language in section 243(h)(1) which

made it clear that the provision did not apply on the high seas.
Congress' intent to have section 243(h)(1) apply extraterritorially is
reflected by Congress' excision of the geographically specific language
"within the United States." In addition, the international nature of sec-
tion 243(h)(1) of the INA makes extraterritorial application wholly
logical. Often refugees must utilize the high seas as a means of escape
from their jurisdictions. This is evident not only by the Haitian refugee
crises, but by the recent traffic in illegal aliens arriving in the United
States from China.' 8
Finally, the Court's holding that article 33 did not apply
extraterritorially on the high seas - so that the United States had not
breached an international obligation - is problematic for three specific
-reasons: (1) the Court's failure to acknowledge the express absence of
any limitation on the territorial application of article 33; (2) the Court's
curious definition of "return" or "refouler"; and (3) the Court's improper
reliance on article 33's ambiguous legislative history. First, the Court
argued that a dangerous alien under article 33(2) who poses a threat to
the country- in which he is located does not receive the benefits of
article 33(1) which categorically prohibits the expulsion or return of
aliens to the country of their persecutors. The Court stated that if article
33(1) applied on the high seas, no country could apply article 33(2) on
the high seas to an alien found there because the dangerous alien on the
high seas would not be in a country. Thus, dangerous aliens in interna-
tional waters could invoke the benefits of 33(1), but dangerous aliens in
a country which sought to expel them could not do so.' 89 The Court then
concluded that "it is more reasonable to assume" that the coverage of
article 33(2) is restricted to dangerous aliens already within a country
because article 33(1) applied only to those aliens within a signatory's
country. '90
The strained and tortured analysis of articles 3.3(1) and 33(2) is glar-
ingly evident. If the drafters of the 1967 Refugee Protocol and 1951
Refugee Convention had intended article 33(1) to apply only within the
territory of a signatory state, the drafters could have specifically used
geographically restrictive language as they did in article 33(2). Justice
Blackmun observed: "The signatories' understandable decision to allow
nations to deport criminal aliens who have entered their territory hardly
suggests an intent to permit the apprehension and return of noncriminal
188. See infra note 218 and accompanying text.

189. Sale, 113 S. Ct. at 2563.
190. Id. ;
aliens who have not 'entered their territory, and who may have no desire
ever to enter.''. The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (High
Commissioner) in both the Baker and Sale cases submitted amicus
curiae briefs contending that article 33 applies extraterritorially. In the
Baker case, the High Commissioner stated:,
It is significant that the principle of non-refoulement perhaps the
-
foremost principle of international law protecting refugees - is

stated in mandatory terms' as an absolute obligation, and that no
territorial limitation appears in the language of Article 33. When
the drafters of the 1951 Convention as a whole wished to condition
the rights of refugees on their physical location or residence, they
did so expressly in the language of the treaty. Thus, in the article
on the separate matter of 'expulsion' immediately preceding Article
33, the 1951 Convention expressly limits the scope of the right to
'a refugee' 'lawfully in the territory . . . .' Article 4 on freedom of
religion and 27 on the issuance of travel documents state, also ex-
pressly, that States' obligations under these articles are limited to
refugees who are present in the territory of the State. Article 18 on
rights to self-employment and 26 on freedom of movement clearly
state that their scope is limited to refugees lawfully on [sic] the
territory of the Contracting State. Similarly, Articles 15, 17(1), 19,
21, 23, 24, and 28 (regarding,- respectively, rights related to associ-
ation, employment, exercise of the liberal professions, housing,
public relief, labor conditions, and travel documents) all are ex-
pressly conditioned on the refugee's legal status on [sic] the territo-
ry of the State. In stark contrast to all of these provisions, Article
33 contains no such restrictions. To the contrary, Article 33 pro-
hibits the return of refugees 'in any manner whatsoever." 92
It is therefore incontrovertible, that when the drafters intended to place
geographical limitations on provisions in the 1951 Refugee Convention,
they did so unequivocally.
Second, the majority of the Court's conclusion that the words "ex-
pel" and "return" have the same meanings as "deport" and "return"
found in section 243(h)(1) of the INA rests on a peculiar definition of
those words.' 93 Specifically, the Court asserted that "return" or
"refouler" did not have the meaning ascribed to it by the HCC. Refer-
ring to two French dictionaries, New Cassell's and Larousse, the Court
191. Id. at 2570 (Blackmun, J., dissenting).

192. Quoted in Jones, supra note 15, at 32.
193. Sale, 113 S. Ct. at 2563.
concluded that "return" or "refouler" means an act of exclusion at the

border of a country, not an act involving transporting a person to a
particular location. 94 Yet, the Court did concede that the English trans-
lation of the term "refouler" includes terms such as "drive back," "re-
pulse," or "repel."' 9 5 It is interesting that the Court chose the New
Cassell's French Dictionary and the Larousse Modern French-English
Dictionary.96 Whereas the above two dictionaries are standard collegiate
dictionaries, it is widely acknowledged that Le Petit Robert is consid-
ered one of the most authoritative dictionaries of the French language.
In contrast to New Cassell's and Larousse's definition, Le Petit Robert
defines "refouler" as: "Faire reculer, refluer (des personnes) ....
Refouler des immigrants,des indisirables,t lafrontiere."' 97 Schoenholtz
translates this definition as: "To drive back or to repel. To drive back
immigrants, undesirables, at the border (italics in original)."' 98 Le Petit
Robert's definition indicates that "refouler" or "return" entails an affir-
mative act of physically "driving back" or transporting persons. The
majority's definition of "return" or "refouler" as exclusion at the border
simply does not bear to reason.
Finally, the Supreme Court referred extensively to the travaux
preparatoiresor preparatory works to justify its conclusion that article
33 does not apply extraterritorially. The Court discussed, in detail,
statements made by the Swiss and Netherlands delegates. Both of the
delegates expressed concern that article 33 should not be interpreted so
as to require their countries to admit refugees in the case of mass migra-
tion across frontiers. 199 The Swiss delegate suggested that the term
"refoulement" could not be applied to a refugee who had not entered the
territory of a nation.m
No better rebuttal of these statements or opinions can be presented
than the rebuttal of the dissenter, Justice Blackmun. Justice Blackmun
forcefully argued that a statement or opinion of a delegate to the 1951
Refugee Convention's conference cannot be used to change the plain
20
meaning of the text of a treaty; the language of the treaty controls. '
194. Id. at 2564.

195. Id.
196. Id. n.37.
197. Quoted in Andrew I. Schoenholtz, Aiding and Abetting Persecution: The Seizure
and Return of Haitian Refugees in Violation of the U.N. Refugee Convention and Protocol,7
GEO. IMMIGR. L.J. 67, 77 (1993).
198. Id. at 77 n.37.
199. Sale, 113 S.Ct. at 2565-67.
200. Id. at 2565-66.
201. Id. at 2572-73 (Blackmun, J., dissenting).
Justice Blackmun stated that the Court's reliance on the travaux

preparatoireswas misplaced. Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on
the Law of Treaties provides:
(General rule of interpretation). A treaty shall be interpreted in
good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to
the terms of the treaty in their context and in light of its object and
purpose." 2
Article 32 of the Vienna Convention allows reference to the travaux
preparatoiresas a last resort when there is ambiguity in the language.
Article 32 of the Vienna Convention states:
Recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpreta-
tion, including the preparatory work of the treaty and the circum-
stances of its conclusion, in order to confirm the meaning resulting
from the application of article 31, or to determine the meaning
when the interpretation according to article 31:
(a) leaves the meaning ambiguous or obscure; or
(b) leads to a result which is manifestly absurd or unreason-
able. 3
Also, the request by the Netherlands delegate that his understanding
be "placed on the record" was the delegate's method of memorializing
his government's position or interpretation of article 33. The phrase is
remarkably similar with the phrase "for the record" used by U.S. law-
yers for the purpose of ensuring the lawyer's legal position has been
duly recorded by a court. As Justice Blackmun argued, the language
"placed on the record" is not the means by which the conference adopts
amendments to a treaty. 2°4 When conference delegates amend or change
a provision of a treaty the terms "adopted" or "agreed to" are used. The
failure of the other delegates to object to the Netherlands delegate's
request to place his position on the record cannot be construed to mean
that there was a general consensus among the delegates.2) 5 There is
seemingly no evidence in the travaux preparatoireswhich indicates that
the opinions of the Swiss and Netherlands delegates were adopted or
agreed to by the Conference delegates. More importantly, nothing in the
Swiss or Netherlands delegates' statements indicate that article 33 was
interpreted so as to permit governments to interdict aliens on the high
202. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, adopted May 22, 1969, art. 31, 1155
U.N.T.S. 331, reprinted in 8 I.L.M. 679 (1969) (entered into force Jan. 27, 1980).
203. id. art. 32.
204. Sale, 113 S. Ct. at 2571-72 (Blackmun, J., dissenting).
Fall 1993l Haitian Refugees
seas and return them to the country of their persecutors. Having decided
that article 33 did not apply extraterritorially, the Court shrewdly avoid-
ed the issue of the self-executing nature of the 1967 Refugee Protocol.
The self-execution issue was rendered irrelevant and academic.
In sum, a careful analysis of the Sale decision reveals that the
Court's reasoning is seriously flawed and does monumental injury to the
human rights norm of nonrefoulement. Even the majority of the Court
admitted that interdicting refugees on the high seas and returning them
to their persecutors might violate the spirit of article 33. The Court
acknowledged: "The drafters of the Convention and the parties to the
Protocol - like the drafters of 243(h) - may not have contemplated
that any action would gather fleeing refugees and return them to one
country they had desperately sought to escape; such actions may even
violate the spirit of article 33." 206 The tragedy of Sale is perhaps best
described by Justice Blackmun who wrote:
I believe that the duty of nonreturn expressed in both the Protocol
and statute is clear. The majority finds it 'extraordinary' . . . that
Congress would have intended the ban on returning 'any alien' to
apply to aliens at sea. That Congress would have meant what it
said is not remarkable. What is extraordinary in this case is that the
Executive, in disregard of the law, would take to the seas to inter-
cept fleeing refugees and force them back to their persecutors
2
and that the Court would strain to sanction that conduct. ()
CONCLUSION: HAITIAN REFUGEES -

A QUEST FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
During congressional hearings on the Refugee Act of 1980, the
promotion of humanitarian goals and concerns was emphasized by the
Department of State. One witness from the Department of State testified:
[W]e should remember that the United States is a land of immi-
grants, and since the founding of the Republic we have had a
special national heritage of concern for the uprooted and persecut-
ed ... [B]eyond our national ethos of humanitarian concern for the
uprooted and persecuted, there are solid foreign policy reasons why
we should involve ourselves substantially and regularly in resolv-
ing refugee problems ... [I]t is decidedly in our foreign policy
interest to project in countries around the world the image of U.S.
206. Id. at 2565.

humanitarian assistance for refugees. Such humanitarian assistance

is a glowing example of the purposes and processes of the free
democracy which We are, and of the free society which makes such
assistance possible.""
This concern for human rights was denigrated by the Sale decision. The
human rights norm of nonrefoulement is not simply a rule of conven-
tional international law; it is a principle of customary international law
which has been characterized as jus cogens.." Haitian refugees have not
demanded that they be admitted to the United States. Article 33 of the
1967 Refugee Protocol does not require such admission. However,
article 33 and the customary human rights norm of nonrefoulement
prohibit interdiction on the high seas and repatriation of refugees to a
country where they will suffer persecution or death. The conduct of the
United States has been described by one writer as "aiding and abetting
persecutors. 2 10 The Haitian refugees who fled the politically oppressive
and illegal C~dras regime were involved in a quest for fundamental
human rights - human rights which have been consistently and grossly
violated by the Cddras junta and preceding governments.
The action of the United States in "aiding and abetting persecutors"
of Haitian refugees contravenes a veritable laundry list of international
legal principles. Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
provides that no one should be the subject of torture, cruel, inhuman, or
degrading punishment. 21' Article 14 establishes the right of each person
208. Hearings on H.R. 3056 Before the Subcomm. on Immigration, Citizenship and Int'l
Law of the House Comm. on the Judiciary,95th Cong., 1st Sess. 16 (1977).
209. See Jones, supra note 15, at 34; see also Report of the United Nations High
Commission for Refugees, I 22-23U.N. Doc. E/1985/62 (1985); Brief of the Office of the
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Support of Respondents, amicus curiae,
at 17-18, Haitian Refugee Ctr., Inc. v. Baker, 949 F.2d 1109 (11 th Cir. 1991) (No. 91-6060).
See generally JERZY SZTUCKI, Jus COGENS AND THE VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF
TREATIES (1974); CHRISToS L. ROZAKIs, THE CONCEPT OF JUS COGENS IN THE LAW OF
TREATIES (1976); Gordon A. Christenson, Jus Cogens: Guarding Interests Fundamental to
International Society, 28 VA. J. INT'L L. 585 (1988); A. Gbmez Robledo, Le jus cogens
international: sa gnese, sa nature, ses fonctions, 172 RECUEIL DES COURS 167, 183-84
(1981).
210. See generally Schoenholtz, supra note 197, at 67. See Bruce Fein, Where the
Haitian Issue Lands Now, WASH. TIMES, June 25, 1993, at F1 (asserting that temporary
protected status ought be offered to Haitians by the Attorney General); USA Must Do More
Than Just Send HaitiansBack, USA TODAY, June 22, 1993, at 10A ("Washington continues
to treat Haitians as second-class claimants to rights of asylum"); The HaitianAsylum Ruling,
WASH. POST, June 23, 1993, at A16. See also Max Boot, Haitian Refugee Decision Will Limit
Asylum Seekers, CHRISTIAN SCI. MONITO1, June 23, 1993, at 6; Frances Murphy, Rangel
'Saddened' by Court Decision, WASH. AFRO-AM., June 26, 1993, at AI.
211. Universal Declarationof Human Rights, supra note 10, at 71.
to seek and enjoy asylum in other countries." 2 Article 6 of the Interna-

tional Covenant on Civil and Political Rights declares that every human
being has the inherent right to life. Article 6 further states that the death
penalty should be imposed only for the most serious crimes.2 3 Article 7
prohibits torture and cruel or degrading treatment. 2 4 Article 12 gives
every person the right to leave his or her country.2 5 Article 3 of the
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment proscribes the expulsion, return (refouler), or
extradition of a person to a state where there are substantial grounds to
believe that he* would be subject to torture. Substantial grounds exist
when the state concerned is guilty of a consistent pattern of gross,
flagrant, and mass violation of human rights.216 The foregoing interna-
tional legal rules support, the author's contention that an act of "aiding
and abetting" the persecutors of refugees violates'international law. The
United States, by intercepting Haitians on the high seas and repatriating
them to their persecutors, knowingly facilitated the torture and death of
refugees. The United States thereby became a co-conspirator, unwitting-
ly or not, in the criminal persecution of these refugees. The intercepted
Haitians were not free to go to the Bahamas, the Dominican Republic,
the Cayman Islands, or South America. They were captured at sea and
repatriated by the Coast Guard to the present illegal regime governing
Haiti. Although the Coast Guard has stemmed the flow of these refu-
gees, the Haitian refugee crisis is a situation that is capable of repetition.
The political branch of government must now act to correct the error of
the judiciary.
This author must further mention that the HCC failed to raise the
issue of racial discrimination before the Supreme Court. The case of
Jean v. Nelson217 stands for the proposition that the subordinates of the
212. Id. art. 14.

213. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature Dec. 19,
1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171; G.A. Res. 2200A, U.N. GAOR, 21st Sess., Supp. No. 16, U.N. Doc.
A/6316 (1966).
214. Id. art. 7.
215. Id. art. 12.
216. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment, G.A. Res. 39/46, U.N. GAOR, Supp. No. 51, U.N. Doc. A/39/51 (1985).
217. 472 U.S. 846 (1985).
The issue of discrimination against Haitians based on race or nationality was first raised
in the Baker litigation by Judge Hatchett, the dissenter. In Baker I, he noted that Haitian
refugees were the only refugees interdicted on the high seas and prevented from reaching the
territorial waters or shores of the United States and repatriated to their country of origin.
Baker I, 949 F.2d 1109, 1111 (1 lth Cir. 1991). Judge Hatchett claimed that the primary goal
of the United States government's interdiction program was and is to prevent Haitians from
entering the United States. Id. at 1112. In Baker II1, Judge Hatchett observed that there was
Michigan Journal of International Law [Vol. 15:77
no evidence of an interdiction agreement between the United States and any other nation in
the world. Baker 111, 953 F.2d 1498 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 1245 (1992). Al-
though the dissenting Judge Hatchett cited Jean v. Nelson, originally an appellate decision of
the Eleventh Circuit, he did not rely upon it for the proposition that discrimination against
Haitian refugees might exist based on grounds of race or nationality. Baker 1, 949 F.2d at
1116; Baker 111, 953 F.2d at 1516-17, 1522; see Jean v. Nelson, 727 F.2d 957 (11th Cir.
1984) (en banc).
In its amicus curiae brief supporting the Respondents, the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), TransAfrica, and the Congressional Black Caucus
agreed that the interception of Haitians on the high seas constituted impermissible national
origin discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
See Brief of NAACP, TransAfrica, and the Congressional Black Caucus in Support of
Respondents, amici curiae, at 4, McNary v. Haitian Ctrs. Council, Inc., 969 F.2d 1350 (2d
Cir. 1992), cert. granted, 113 S. Ct. 52 (1993) [hereinafter Brief of NAACP]. These amici
curiae asserted that one of the purposes for enacting the Refugee Act of 1980 was:
[T]o regularize the admission of aliens fleeing persecution and to limit executive
discretion to dispense political asylum. To this end, Congress expressly removed
from the United States' refugee program all ideological and geographical prejudic-
es, and mandated that all aliens, regardless of race, religion or national origin, shall
have an equal opportunity to petition the United States government for asylum. The
Act thus explicitly requires the Executive to implement the asylum program in a
non-discriminatory manner.
The Kennebunkport Order does just the opposite: it establishes a two-track
system that treats aliens fleeing their countries radically different based on nothing
more than their national origins. Thus, non-Haitians are afforded all the protection
guaranteed by the Congress in the Refugee Act.... In addition, non-Haitians who
qualify as refugees have an absolute right not to be returned to their persecutors.
By contrast, Haitian applicants, like respondents, are denied all such
protections. They are summarily interdicted at sea and repatriated to Haiti, where
many 'face political prosecution and even death,' without being given an opportu-
nity whatsoever to present their asylum claims....
This separate and unequal asylum program for Haitians violates not only
Section 243(h)(1) of the Refugee Act of 1980, but also the Equal Protection Clause
of the United States Constitution. Respondents have a constitutionally protected
interest, conferred upon them by Congress, to make a meaningful application for
political asylum. The Executive's denial of this right to Respondents merely
because they are Haitians creates a constitutionally impermissible distinction based
on national origin ..... Once petitioners reach out and take Haitians into their
custody - whether on United States soil or at sea - such aliens are within the
jurisdiction of the United States even if outside its territory. Petitioners have a duty
to offer aliens in such circumstances minimal constitutional protections.
Id. at 4-6. The amici curiae relied upon Jean v. Nelson for the legal principle that due
process and equal protection are guaranteed to all individuals who are within the reach of the
sovereignty of the United States. Id. at 17.
The amici curiae further contended that the "flag doctrine" should be applied in the case
of Haitian interdictees. The flag doctrine requires the application of the law of the flag-state
to the conduct or acts of agents of the United States which occur on ships operating under the
U.S. flag. By virtue of a legal fiction, the ships become an extension of the territory of the
country whose flag it flies. Consequently, under the flag doctrine, Coast Guard cutters would
be floating territorial extensions of the United States. Therefore, the constitutional and statu-
tory law of the United States should be enforced on these cutters for the benefit of Haitians.
Id. at 18.
Discrimination based on national origin or race appears to continue in the admission of
refugees. President Clinton has reserved most refugee slots for individuals coming from the
Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and East Asia. President Clinton has ordered the following
refugee allocation for admittance to the United States: (1) 55,000 from the former Soviet
Union and Eastern Europe; (2) 45,000 from East Asia; (3) 7,000 from Africa; (4) 6,000 from
President, such as INS officials, are proscribed from applying the Presi-
dent's immigration policy in a discriminatory manner. The immigration
laws are neutral on their face and should be applied without regard to
race or national origin. 18 In Sale, it appears that Haitian refugees have
been subject to discrimination based on their race or nationality. Neither
Chinese refugees 2 9 nor Cuban refugees,2 0 though similarly situated, are
interdicted on the high seas and automatically returned to their home-
land without some minimal form of due process.
Near East or South Asia; (5) 4,000 from both Latin America and the Caribbean; and (6) 3,000
from other countries. Refugee Allocation Favors FormerSoviets, ADvOC. (Baton Rouge, LA),
Oct. 2, 1993, at 2A.
218. Jean v. Nelson, 472 U.S. at 855. A recent report by' the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees (Sadako Ogato is the current High Commissioner for Refugees)
reveals that there is growing public hostility toward immigrants. Refugees have become the
subjects or principal victims of racial persecution and violence, even after they have been
granted asylum. UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES, THE STATE OF THE
WORLD'S REFUGEES: THE CHALLENGE OF PROTECTION 58 (1993).
The problem of racial violence against refugees is particularly acute in Europe. Id. at
58-59. The following statement found on a wall poster in Central Europe' expresses the
vehement hostility towards refugees:
There are only 90,000 of them here but they are a disgusting and painful abscess
on the body of our nation. An ethnic group without any culture, moral, or religious
ideals, a nomad mob only robbing and stealing. Dirty, full of lice, they occupy the
streets and railway stations. Let them pack their dirty tatters and leave forever.
Id. at 58; see Juan L. Waite, U.N. Report: Refugees Struggle Amid Racism, USA TODAY,
Nov. 10, 1993, at 6A.
219. See generally Policy Implementation With Respect to Nationals of the People's
Republic of China, Exec. Order No. 12,711, 55 Fed. Reg. 13,897 (1990) (reporting that
Chinese immigrants are almost automatically granted asylum if they claim that they are
persecuted because of the country's family control policy - forced abortion or sterilization);
George J. Church, Send Back Your Tired, Your Poor, TIME, June 21, 1993, at 26 (commenta-
tors criticizing the overly generous asylum rules applied to Chinese; under Bush order,
Chinese need only claim they are victims of Beijing's strict one-child population rule); Brian
Duffy, Coming to America, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, June 21, 1993, at 26, 29 (report-
ing that Bush executive order grants asylum to all who leave China for the purpose of
escaping strict family-planning policies).
See also Boat Refugees from China Held in Winchester, WASH. TIMES, June 10, 1993, at
B3; John Dillin, Illegal are on Capital Fast Track, CHRISTIAN SCI. MONITOR, June 14, 1993,
at*6 (reporting that under Bush order "[m]ost of China's 1-billion plus people would qualify
[for asylum]"); Matt Forney, China Blames Asylum Law for Wave of Emigration, CHRISTIAN
SCI. MONITOR, June 16, 1993, at 3; Malcolm Gladwell & Rachel E. Stassen-Berger, Courts
Log Tragic Seagoing Saga, WASH. POST, June 8, 1993, at A3 (reporting that "[u]nder an
executive order dating to the last days of the Reagan administration, immigrants from China
are allowed to cite that country's prohibition on'a family having more than one child as the
basis for seeking political asylum. That policy has resulted in many more Chinese immigrants
being granted asylum than those from other countries."). But see Seth Faison, U.S. Cutting
Back on Generosity in Granting of Asylum for Chinese Refugees, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 5, 1993,
at 7.
220. Jones, supra note 15, at 46. See generally Cuban Refugees Adjustment Act, 8
U.S.C. § 1255 (1966) (legislating that Cuban refugees who arrive in United States may be
released to relatives without applying for asylum and Cuban refugees may qualify for
permanent residency in one year).
Consideration of the wisdom of Judge Hatchett, the sole dissenter in

Baker, is merited. Judge Hatchett in crystallizing the essence of Baker
has captured the essence of Sale. Judge Hatchett wrote:
The majority cites many cases for many legal propositions, but
when all is said and done, the majority simply accepts the govern-
ment's contention that these refugees have no enforceable rights in
an American court because they have not reached the continental
United States . . . . [allthough everyone in this case agrees that
agencies of the United States captured the refugees and are holding
them on United States vessels and leased territory. Moreover, the
majority accepts this argument although everyone in the case
agrees that the refugees are being prevented from reaching the
shores of the continental United States. 22'
Under existing law, any refugee may reach the shores of the Unit-
ed States and thereby acquire the right to enforce the United States
immigration laws in the United States courts, except Haitian refu-
gees. Only Haitian refugees are interrupted in international waters
and repatriated to their country of origin ....
The government seeks to convince this court that its interdiction

program was instituted as an effort to save the lives of Haitian
refugees travelling in unseaworthy vessels. But the government's
own brief shows that the program was instituted in 1981, long
before the current immigration wave .... The primary purpose of
the program was, and has continued to be, to keep Haitians out of
the United States. 223
[T]he capture of Haitian refugees in international waters is autho-

rized under a 1981 agreement between the Reagan administration
and the totalitarian government of Jean-Claude "Baby Doc"
Duvalier. The record does not disclose such an agreement with any
other country. 4
221. Baker Hi1, 953 F.2d 1498, 1515 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 1245 (1992).
222. Baker 1, 949 F.2d 1109, 1111 (llth Cir. 1991).
223. id. at 1112.
224. Baker 111, 953 F.2d at 1515-16 n.2.
Haitians unlike other aliens from anywhere in the world, are pre-
vented from freely reaching the continental United States. 225
The Dred Scott case of immigration law lives on in the form of Sale v.
Haitian Centers Council.
225. Id. at 1516.

The Haitian Refugee Crisis 1993

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Haitian Refugee Crisis 1993

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Haitian Refugee Crisis 1993

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Michigan Journal of International Law

The Haitian Refugee Crisis: A Quest for Human Rights

Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil

Thomas David Jones*

INTRODUCTION: THE HAITIAN REFUGEE CRISIS

INTRODUCTION: THE HAITIAN REFUGEE CRISIS AND

On June 14, 1993, the Vienna Conference on Human Rights, spon-

* Visiting Scholar, Georgetown University Law Center; Associate Professor, Southern

developing nations articulated a culture-bound or relativistic concept of

position was championed by such nations as China, Iran, Cuba, and

regional particularities and various historical, cultural, and religious

5. Bangkok Declaration, supra note 4, para. 8; Krauthammer, supra note 3, at A25.

I. THE PATH TO SALE: POLITICAL TURMOIL,

A. Political Turmoil and Human Rights Abuses in Haiti

notorious Duvalier regime was instituted by Francois Duvalier, and its

of the United States, other countries in the Caribbean, or South

often characterized as economic emigrants, the abysmal human rights

freedom of expression,, assembly and association than Haiti has

In response to the overthrow of President Aristide, the United

Haitian republic. 40 On July 26, 1993, exiled President Aristide chose

minister.4 3 Consequently, the future of democracy and human rights

Condemning the assassination of officials of the legitimate Government of Presi-

Taking note of the letter of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide to the Secretary-

Mindful of the report of the Secretary-General of 13 October 1993 (S/26573)

Reaffirming its determination that, in these unique and exceptional circumstances,

the recent problematic enforcement of the Governor's Island Accord, the

1. Calls upon Member States, acting nationally or through regional agencies or

2. Confirms that it is prepared to consider further necessary measures to ensure full

3. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.

(a) Who have contributed to the obstruction of the implementation of

(b) Who have perpetuated or contributed to the violence in HAITI; or

(c) Who have materially or financially supported any of the foregoing,

officials have welcomed a compromise peace proposal suggested by a

B. Conflicting Voices: Baker and McNary

were "screened out" and repatriated to Haiti. 5 In November of 1991, the

55. Ignatius, supra note 54, at 119.

Circuit in McNary reached contrary conclusions in deciding the legal

Kennebunkport Order was the sole issue resolved in Sale.

allegation that the refugees had a judicially enforceable claim under

63. Baker 1, 949 F.2d at 1110.

characterized the district court's ruling as a preliminary injunction. 7' The

71. Baker II, 950 F.2d at 686.

91. Id. at 1366-67.

99. Id. at 1360.

C. Sale: The Dred Scott Case of Immigration

The President has lirected the Coast Guard to intercept vessels

government and the Haitian government of Jean-Claude Duvalier."° The

109. Id. at 2553.

The Attorney General is authorized to withhold deportation of any

117. See supra note 83 and accompanying text.

Guard. 26 The provision placed limitations on the Attorney General in

deportation or exclusion proceeding the alien may seek asylum as

135. Id. at 2552-53.

1. No Contracting State shall expel or return ('refouler') a refugee

2. The benefit of the present provision may not, however, be

144. Id. at 2563.

D. A CriticalAnalysis of the Sale Decision

presidential action; (3) the Court's reliance on the presumption against

himself is not so bound, even though as the chief executive he negoti-