Applying the Canadian legal framework for refugees in compliance with binding international instruments has entailed significant challenges. In order to fulfil its dual obligations of protecting people under threat of torture and persecution, while denying refugee status to those responsible for such atrocities, Canada relies on the exclusion clause of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as a practical and expedient solution. This article provides a comprehensive review of the jurisprudence related to Canada’s exclusion system, examining the judicial reasoning of decisions issued by the Immigration and Refugee Board, the Federal Court, the Federal Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court of Canada. The analysis endorses the position that Canada’s continuing prioritization of security trumps humanitarian aims by an overly broad application of article 1F of the Refugee Convention. The interpretation of Canadian judiciary can lead to the improper application of international law, prompting the need for a reassessment of the Canadian exclusion system 70 years after the adoption of the Refugee Convention.

中文翻译：

---

加拿大的排除条款：优先考虑实用权宜之计

根据具有约束力的国际文书适用加拿大的难民法律框架带来了重大挑战。为了履行其保护遭受酷刑和迫害威胁的人的双重义务，同时拒绝为此类暴行负责的人获得难民身份，加拿大将 1951 年《关于难民地位的公约》的排除条款作为一种切实可行的权宜之计解决方案. 本文全面回顾了与加拿大排除制度相关的判例，考察了移民和难民委员会、联邦法院、联邦上诉法院和加拿大最高法院发布的决定的司法推理。该分析支持这样的立场，即加拿大通过过于广泛地适用《难民公约》第 1F 条，继续将安全置于优先地位高于人道主义目标。加拿大司法解释可能导致国际法的不当适用，促使需要在《难民公约》通过 70 年后重新评估加拿大的排斥制度。