10 Nov 2020
1 The topic on Expulsion of Aliens has been difficult, because of the complex and sensitive interface between a State’s sovereign right to expel aliens from its territory, that State’s obligation to comply with applicable international human rights law, the rights and obligations of the receiving States as well as of individuals.
2 My delegation shares the view expressed by other delegations that progressive development in respect of the laws and practices applicable to the expulsion of aliens must be approached with caution. Singapore has made its views on this topic very clear at previous debates of this Committee. We have concerns with the content of the draft articles, and the extent to which the International Law Commission had sought to achieve progressive development through them. We also share the concerns of other delegations about the lack of distinction between codification and progressive development in the draft articles and its commentaries. We have consistently disagreed with the expansion of the principle of non-refoulement articulated in paragraph 2 of draft article 23. This paragraph is not reflective of customary international law. There is no customary international law obligation to the effect that a State that has abolished the death penalty is bound not to expel a person to another State where the death penalty may be imposed. My delegation rejects such progressive development as is captured in the draft articles.
3 In view of these concerns, Singapore does not support their status as draft articles. Our view is that the General Assembly should simply take note of the draft articles as well as the concerns raised, and reservations expressed by delegations on them.
4 Thank you.
. . . . .