Ahani v. Canada: A Persuasive Dialogue within the Courts

Authors

  • Adrian di Giovanni University of Toronto

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.25071/1920-7336.21296

Keywords:

Canada, law, domestic courts, international law, justiciability, asylum

Abstract

This paper is a comment on Ahani v. Canada (OCA). Canadian courts are presently involved in a dialogue over the role of international law domestically. The courts’ own grappling with various norms of international law, however, has helped to clarify and reinforce the status of these norms. In Baker v. Canada, the Supreme Court gave a new prominence to the “persuasive approach” of applying international law. Ahani demonstrates that while the persuasive approach has begun to be internalized into Canadian law, the courts are still at odds with how persuasive international law should be. To complicate this account, the Supreme Court’s discussion in Suresh of peremptory norms of international law demonstrates that an over-emphasis on the “persuasive” approach can in fact weaken the role of international law domestically. At the same time, the dialogue within the courts is linked to a much more general dialogue. The importance of cases such as Ahani ultimately stretches beyond the domestic context.

Metrics

PDF views
343
Jul 2003Jan 2004Jul 2004Jan 2005Jul 2005Jan 2006Jul 2006Jan 2007Jul 2007Jan 2008Jul 2008Jan 2009Jul 2009Jan 2010Jul 2010Jan 2011Jul 2011Jan 2012Jul 2012Jan 2013Jul 2013Jan 2014Jul 2014Jan 2015Jul 2015Jan 2016Jul 2016Jan 2017Jul 2017Jan 2018Jul 2018Jan 2019Jul 2019Jan 2020Jul 2020Jan 2021Jul 2021Jan 2022Jul 2022Jan 2023Jul 2023Jan 2024Jul 2024Jan 2025Jul 2025Jan 202619
|

Published

2003-02-01

How to Cite

di Giovanni, A. (2003). Ahani v. Canada: A Persuasive Dialogue within the Courts. Refuge: Canada’s Journal on Refugees, 21(2), 120–129. https://doi.org/10.25071/1920-7336.21296

Similar Articles

<< < 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.