Is British Columbia violating the 1949 Geneva Convention on Road Traffic by requiring foreign drivers to exchange their license within three months? According to the 1949 Geneva Convention citizens of any country that signed the agreement are able to drive in any other country for up to one year with an international driving permit: No Contracting State shall be required to extend the benefit of the provisions of this Convention to any motor vehicle or trailer, or to any driver having remained within its territory for a continuous period exceeding one year. (Article 1, paragraph 2) ... Each Contracting State shall allow any driver admitted to its territory who fulfils the conditions which are set out in Annex 8 and who holds a valid driving permit issued to him, after he has given proof of his competence, by the competent authority of another Contracting State or subdivision thereof, or by an Association duly empowered by such authority, to drive on its roads without further examination motor vehicles of the category or categories defined in Annexes 9 and 10 for which the permit has been issued. (Article 24, paragraph 1) The only requirement as set out in Annex 8 is... The minimum age for driving a motor vehicle under the conditions set out in Article 24 of the Convention shall be eighteen years. But at the same time British Columbia (which is a member state of Canada, which is a party to the convention) requires foreign drivers to exchange their licenses within three months of becoming a resident: a person who has become ordinarily resident in British Columbia and who has a validly issued and subsisting driver’s or operator’s licence or permit issued according to the laws of the jurisdiction where he or she was most recently ordinarily resident, for 90 days after he or she became ordinarily resident in British Columbia; Isn't there a conflict between domestic and international law in this situation? Or am I misunderstanding the 1949 Geneva Convention?
My own answer to the question is yes, but not directly. As with many other laws it would take a court ruling to definitively spell out how international agreements are applicable to a given situation. Unfortunately it doesn't seem that such a court ruling was ever produced so far: Google Scholar fails to list any US court cases relevant to the Convention on Road Traffic. The only somewhat relevant case is Busby v. State in which the court rules that one cannot drive in Alaska with an IDP after having been previously restricted from driving in Alaska. The court does stress out that: The Convention does forbid a signatory country (or subsidiary state) from imposing or enforcing license revocations in a manner that discriminates against residents of other signatory countries. But Busby does not claim that he was the victim of such discrimination. Busby's license was revoked for conduct that would have led to license revocation if committed by an Alaska resident. (Indeed, Busby's license was revoked while he was an Alaska resident.) And Busby does not claim that he was singled out for prosecution because he was a resident of a foreign country—i.e., that the State would not have charged him with the offense of driving with a revoked license if he had still been an Alaska resident. This could possibly mean that the court believes that the Convention only applies to foreign residents, but its not spelled out specifically. Searching for Canadian court cases likewise doesn't turn up anything useful. The only relevant case is R. v. Lawend where the person in question was trying to drive in Ontario on a foreign license after previously having had their Ontario license suspended. Here the court rules similar to the decision in Alaska in that having a foreign license does not allow one to circumvent locally imposed license restrictions. Searching for UK case law doesn't turn up any relevant court cases. Australian case law is likewise mute on the subject. There is also a relevant legal opinion by the Department of State quoted in the Digest of United States practice in International Law, 2002: Reading these provisions as a whole, we believe that the State of Georgia, consistent with the CRT, (1) must permit an alien to drive in Georgia using a foreign driver’s license issued by a country party to the CRT only if the alien has been lawfully admitted to the United States; (2) must permit a lawfully admitted alien to drive in Georgia using a foreign driver’s license of a CRT party only during the first year after the alien’s admission; and (3) may, in accordance with Georgia’s residency laws, require an alien resident in Georgia to obtain a Georgia driver’s license as a condition for continued authorization to drive. By the same token, nothing in the CRT would prevent the State of Georgia from applying more liberal rules with respect to the driving privileges of aliens. In Automated Vehicles Are Probably Legal in the United States, 2014 the author further analyses how the 1949 Geneva Convention is applicable within the United States. First, to settle the definition of "international traffic": Nonetheless, the United States ultimately accepted that “the purpose of chapter II was to establish, in effect, an international code of minimum safety requirements. By indirection, the rules of the road set forth in the convention would apply to the pattern of domestic as well as to international traffic. The author the meaning behind Article I of the Convention: Article 1 states in part that no party “shall be required to extend the benefit of the provisions of this Convention to any motor vehicle or trailer, or to any driver having remained within its territory for a continuous period exceeding one year.” This provision, on its face, indicates that the parties recognized that the treaty would benefit individuals. In no way does this recognition compel a conclusion that the Convention is self-executing, but it does suggest that the treaty is of a type that the Senate might have understood to be directly enforceable. And finally on the issue of whether or not the treaty is "self-executing": For these reasons, it is likely that courts will continue to treat the Geneva Convention as self-executing. Nonetheless, a court might conclude that, with respect to section II’s rules of the road, the governmental obligation is merely to “take appropriate measures” and that such an obligation is too vague to be enforced judicially. So it seems absolutely clear that the Convention intended for participating countries to allow foreign drivers to drive abroad for up to one year. However international treaties are not self-executing by default in Canada, unlike the US: Canada is bound by the terms of treaties that it enters into and breach thereof may give rise to international claims. However, in Canada treaties are not self-executing; they do not constitute part of the law of the land merely by virtue of their conclusion. So even though British Columbia is violating the 1949 Geneva Convention one cannot directly rely on said international agreement to enforce their rights. But another state party could theorethically sue Canada on behalf of its citizen to request that Canada rectifies its laws with accordance to the agreement.
Exact wording might matter here, so I looked up the law. It says "a permanent resident complies with the residency obligation with respect to a five-year period if, on each of a total of at least 730 days in that five-year period, they are physically present in Canada". Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, 28(2)(a). If you visit the Canadian side of the park, you're "physically present in Canada". It would therefore appear that this would meet the requirement. I am by no means an expert in Canadian immigration law, though.
The Colorado Drivers Handbook says: Instruction permits: An instruction permit allows limited driving privileges for people learning to drive. Regardless of age, if you are driving with an instruction permit, you must be accompanied by a person 21 years of age or older who holds a valid Colorado license and is riding in the seat beside you. (Emphasis mine) So if you are an adult, regardless of your age, you are required to have somebody 21 years of age or older who has a valid Colorado drivers license. An 18 year old (or anybody for that matter) with just an instruction permit may not drive alone. In Colorado adults (21 years of age or older) are required to get a permit, but there is no time requirement to hold it before taking the written and driving test to obtain a regular (Class-R) drivers license.
New York has a "stop and identify" law which says that a police officer may stop a person in a public place located within the geographical area of such officer's employment when he reasonably suspects that such person is committing, has committed or is about to commit either (a) a felony or (b) a misdemeanor defined in the penal law, and may demand of him his name, address and an explanation of his conduct. However, there is no requirement to carry an identifying document or to prove your verbal statements of identity. For that matter, there is no requirement that you have your license in your possession when driving, you simply have to be duly licensed. In this case, the officer has reasonable suspicion of a crime, so you do have to tell him your name, address, and what you were doing. In Washington, there is no stop-and-identify law, so you don't even have to tell the police who you are. There does exist a requirement to identify yourself if you are stopped for an traffic infraction: (1) Any person requested or signaled to stop by a law enforcement officer for a traffic infraction has a duty to stop. (2) Whenever any person is stopped for a traffic infraction, the officer may detain that person for a reasonable period of time necessary to identify the person, check for outstanding warrants, check the status of the person's license, insurance identification card, and the vehicle's registration, and complete and issue a notice of traffic infraction. (3) Any person requested to identify himself or herself to a law enforcement officer pursuant to an investigation of a traffic infraction has a duty to identify himself or herself and give his or her current address. However, the proposed scenario does not fall under this requirement because you weren't stopped. Also note that the limited ID law of Washington does not compel you to provide a document, it compels you to provide information. It is a misdemeanor to drive without a valid Washington license, but it is only an infraction to drive having been issued a license but not having it in your possession, as long as you provide an alternative ID document. So if you drive without a license in WA and are stopped, you have to show an ID document or suffer the misdemeanor alternative. But again, in this scenario you were not driving and were not stopped, you will not be forced to provide a document. Because driving without a license is a misdemeanor and the officer did not observe you driving, under Washington's arrest without warrant law, he cannot arrest you for suspicion of having committed the misdemeanor of driving without a license. (The arrest without warrant law is a bit more complicated, see the 11 exception subsections, none of which apply here). If your goal is to try to be forced to show your driver's license, you might try Indiana, where the law says A person who knowingly or intentionally refuses to provide either the person's: (1) name, address, and date of birth; or (2) driver's license, if in the person's possession; to a law enforcement officer who has stopped the person for an infraction or ordinance violation commits a Class C misdemeanor. But again, you were not stopped for an infraction or ordinance violation, so you may keep your license in your wallet.
The vehicle occupying the lane has right of way i.e. if you merge and cause a collision, you are liable. The fact that the other driver was in breach of the road rules as well as you is immaterial. If you rephrased the question to be "A vehicle behind you in that lane is exceeding the speed limit - can I exceed the speed limit too?" you would see why. "Because they were breaking the law I should be allowed to" is not a defence that has any prospect of being successful. The law says you must give way when merging, so give way when merging.
Yes for individuals, and yes for vehicles. They're customs laws rather than immigration laws.
Just wondering, in the plight of some recent news coming from Canada, and the Emergencies Act being evoked (protesters; thier right to protest in a certain area were vanquished and they were arrested); is there any justification for the current government to do so? There is legal justification for the current government to do so. As explained in the link above: In the weekend before the invocation of the Emergencies Act, Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland, who also serves as the finance minister, met with the CEOs of the largest Canadian banks to discuss how they could help resolve the situation. On February 14, 2022, during the Canada convoy protest, the Emergencies Act was invoked for the first time in Canadian history by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government, declaring a public order emergency. Under the Emergency Measures Regulations enacted after the declaration of emergency, participation in public assemblies that could result in a breach of peace by disrupting the movements of goods and people, interfering with the operation of critical infrastructure, or by supporting violence, was prohibited. Travel to and within places where these rallies were occurring was restricted, and foreign nationals were barred from coming to Canada to attend them. The regulations also specifically outlawed the bringing of children under the age of 18 to these assembles. Additionally the use, provision, collection, and solicitation of property and funds to support the prohibited assemblies or the people participating in them was banned. The regulations further empowered the federal government to protect critical infrastructure, Parliament Hill and the parliamentary precinct, official government residences and buildings, war monuments, and any other places that may be designated by the minister of public safety. The federal government was also given the authority to compel the towing and removal of vehicles, structures, and other objects used in blockades. Violations of the regulations is punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment and/or a fine up to $5000. Under the Emergency Economic Measures Order, also enacted pursuant to the declaration of emergency, crowdfunding platforms and their payment processors were required to register with the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC), and report large and suspicious transactions. Cryptocurrencies are also included in the expanded financial regulations. Banks were ordered to freeze personal and corporate bank accounts suspected of being used by people violating the regulations, and are protected from civil liability in enforcing the order. Insurance coverage for trucks being used in blockades will be suspended. Furthermore financial institutions had to determine on a continuing basis whether any persons violating the regulations were using their services and were required to promptly report findings to the RCMP or CSIS (Canadian Security Intelligence Service). Background and links to other stories with background can be found in a recent article at the Washington Post which notes that: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Wednesday revoked the use of emergency powers that he invoked to quell weeks-long blockades in the Canadian capital that spread to several U.S.-Canada border crossings and inspired copycats abroad. “Today, after careful consideration, we’re ready to confirm that the situation is no longer an emergency,” he said at a news conference in Ottawa. “Therefore, the federal government will be ending the use of the Emergencies Act. We are confident that existing laws and bylaws are now sufficient to keep people safe.” The move was a shift for Trudeau, who on Monday said his government still needed the sweeping powers even after the blockades protesting public health restrictions and his government were cleared over the weekend because it had “real concerns” that new blockades could pop up and that protesters might be regrouping at satellite hubs outside Ottawa. Trudeau last week became the first leader to invoke the 1988 Emergencies Act, and the House of Commons voted Monday to endorse the use of the law. But its unprecedented use also drew criticism from civil liberties groups, some opposition lawmakers and several provincial premiers, who cast it as government overreach. The act was written to be a last resort, to use when there were no other laws on the books that might end an emergency. Several legal analysts said that it wasn’t clear that the blockades met the threshold or that authorities had exhausted existing tools. Alberta Premier Jason Kenney is challenging it in court. The Emergencies Act allowed police to designate no-go zones where people participating in prohibited public assemblies or bringing minors to them could face arrest. One such area was Parliament Hill in Ottawa and the surrounding precinct. The fact that the House of Commons approved the use is pretty much the end of the line since the parliament in Canada has the authority of suspend individual rights in most cases under the Canadian constitution. And also to note, a State in the USA is trying to pass a bill for these oppressed Canadians to give them temporary asylum. This is clumsy and naked political posturing. States have no say in immigration matters including asylum and the people trying to pass that bill know perfectly well that such a bill is meaningless even if passed. Should Canadians be fleeing their country in light of what has happened in the past few days? No. I believe the CCLA stated, &quot;Let's be clear: There is no legal justification for using the Emergencies Act.&quot; The CCLA's statement greatly overstates the situation. If there is no legal justification, could Canadians seek asylum in other countries on the evoking of the emergencies act and would other countries take in Canadians seeking asylum from this current situation? No. Asylum requires an individualized threat of persecution which the vast majority of Canadians who didn't participate don't face. Moreover, they would have to show that it violated their human rights without lawful justification which they would be unable to do, and it has to be so severe that it puts your life and ability to live in the long run in your country in danger. Not being permitted to fully protest at a particular place for a week and having your bank accounts frozen for allegedly engaging in illegal activities doesn't meet that threshold.
A variety of Canadian national laws have established general restrictions that impart largely universal rights upon all "employees", as well as certain duties upon all "employers" with regard to the definition of who qualifies as an employee and who must be paid. Despite the national framework, the provincial standards construed through case law are largely controlling. Employees in Canada are protected by the employment standards set forth by each province, which then will typically be given precedence over in the national rubric unless the latter gives greater rights to workers. These provincial laws apply to all “employees” and “employers” within the province unless a clearly defined exemption or restriction in the national framework applies, or unless there is not a provincial framework in place. The provincial, versus the national legislation, makes it necessary to determine whether he or she fits into the definition of an “employee” under either of these legal structures; chances are, if a person is working in any way they are employees who need to be paid. While the extended definitions vary, a person is an employee in all provinces if they generally appear to be an employee ( they perform the type of work a person would typically be paid for, they are controlled to some extent by the employer, etc.) As defined through these statutes and stare decisis, individuals who fit these definititoins and tests are employees, and hence, are entitled to receive wages. This is almost always true regardless of any signed contracts or verbal agreements suggesting otherwise - agreements of this type are largely unenforceable except in the rarest of circumstances. Thus, unlike the U.S. where an intern can form a contract with the consideration being the value of the educative environs, in Canada, not so. Hence, whether the intern is willing to not be paid, or has signed an agreement acknowledging that he or she would not be paid, if they decide to sue for wages (or even if the employer is audited without the employees input), the existence of a written waiver of pay is not determinative of employers' liability. Much like the FSLA, these national and provincial employment laws were adopted with the goal of preventing the exploitation and abuse of workers who are in a vulnerable position relative to their employers. The Supreme Court of Canada has held that provincial employment laws should be construed and interpreted in a broad and generous manner because they provide minimum benefits and standards to protect workers as a general class. However, this framework can also backfire and put young Canadian professionals at a disadvantage in this growing global economy. In some circumstances - especially in competitive professional employment markets where experience is an intangibly invaluable asset - and their neighbors to the south (the U.S.) have the benefit of entering into these relationships. In professions such as law, medicine, business, and many others, internships are an invaluable tool and a stepping stone to permanent lucrative employment, that these "protections" may serve to deprive parties the benefit of. It is nearly always illegal in Canada to allow an individual to work in an internship or volunteer like capacity if they do so unpaid, even in ways that would traditionally be exempt from the FSLA (Fair Labor Standards Act) in the United States. Despite their nearness geographically to the U.S., there are a number of statutory and common laws that differ considerably between the two sovereign nations. Canadian courts and provincial authorities apply both the provincial and national employment standards and provisions. Together and/or independent of each other, these laws act in such a way that the test for who qualifies as an employee will inevitably end up encompassing nearly everyone working unpaid, except student interns working few hours. If an intern is not specifically exempted, they are entitled to and must be paid at least the National minimum wage (if the provincial wage is higher, it is the applicable minimum). Interns who do the same work of "employees" or who are subject to any amount of substantial control and direction by their employers, must be paid according to the test that various cases of the Canadian Supreme Court has engrained into Canadian common law. Even in situation where a would-be intern enters into an contractual agreement that he or she will not be paid does not mean that the employer is complying with their provincial employment standards. Any such clause in an oral or written contract is null and void if it contravenes the respective laws, The following link will bring you to a professional publication that examines the history and reasoning for these divergent provincial statutes, as well as the few existing exceptions, citing the most important relevant cases that have determined these issues nationally: http://www.gowlings.com/KnowledgeCentre/article.asp?pubID=3190