Article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention 1951: is the classification of actions as 'political' or 'non-political' itself a political decision?

Abstract In this article I examine Article 1F of the Refugee Convention and, in particular, the interpretation of the phrase 'non-political crime‘, found in Article 1F(b), by the English courts in T v SSHD (1996). I argue that Article 1F, in general, is inconsistent with the aims of the Refugee Convention and that the phrase 'non-political crime‘ as interpreted in T is incoherent. The weight of these claims will be supported by the methodology of 'immanent critique‘ which method is intended to explore the internal consistency of claims to their own presuppositions and to confront these claims with an empirical reality which they do or do not capture : I argue that the interpretation of Article 1F(b) by the English courts is deficient under both of these tests imposed under scrutiny by way of immanent critique. I conclude that the decision to define article 1F(b) in the way that it has been defined is a political one.