Abstract: The principle of non-refoulement is seen by most in the international law arena as fundamental to refugee law. Since its expression in the Refugee Convention in 1951, it has played a key role in how states deal with refugees and asylum seekers. Scholars and Experts in refugee law define it as the idea that ‘no refugee should be returned to any country where he or she is likely to face persecution or torture’. This paper discusses the non-refoulement in Canada, Australia, and Belgium–three western States knowing for their constant reference to international law. When deporting a person can lead to torture and arbitrarily deprivation of life, that deportation potentially violates an international obligation or a State’s constitution. It is now well established that International Human Rights treaties impose obligations on States to protect persons from refoulement beyond the terms of the Refugee Convention. The paper expresses its concerns for the violation of international conventions from these Western States. I argue that these developed States’ application of these norms reflects partial compliance with its obligations, as it acknowledges important humanitarian concerns regarding international protection. This paper argues that these States’ application of these norms reflects partial compliance with their obligations, as it acknowledges important humanitarian concerns regarding international protection. The paper offers suggestions, which might assist their respective governments in developing a more effective approach to the assumption and implementation of international human rights obligations.