In the Wake of the \u3ci\u3eTampa\u3c/i\u3e: Conflicting Visions of International Refugee Law in the Management of Refugee Flows

The Australian Government\u27s decision in August 2001 to close its doors to a maritime Good Samaritan, Norwegian Captain Rinnan, his crew, and 433 Afghan and Iraqi rescuees, provided a curious contrast to the image of humanity, generosity, and openness that Australia tried so hard to foster during the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney. Victims or villains according to how the facts and the law are characterized, the MI/V Tampa rescuers represented for lawyers the intersection of a variety of areas of law and a clash of legal principles. The ambiguities in both international and state law pertaining to asylum seekers and refugees give rise to questions of state responsibility. The stand taken by Australia set a precedent that, if followed by other refugee receiving countries, could only worsen the already deplorable problems facing asylum seekers in the world today. The immediate Australian response to the Tampa Affair was a rash of legislative amendments to Australia\u27s 1958 Migration Act that stifled appeals to federal courts and granted officers a broad range of power over rescuers within and outside of Australia\u27s territorial jurisdiction. Australia has also responded with Operation Relex and the Pacific Solution which have not only been inadequate to address the needs of the rescuers, but have arguably violated both state and international law. The conflicting interpretations of the law—both domestic and international—that have emerged in the wake of the Tampa may be testament to the inadequacies of the legal framework for the protection of refugees

Central Issues in the Protection of Child Migrants

In this introductory chapter we identify themes that will be carried throughout the book. We begin in section 2 with a discussion of the human rights challenges presented by children on the move, posing questions that our contributors will address as they build on the themes we identify. This is followed by an examination ofobstacles that have been created to recognising child migrants as rights bearers. After setting out in section 4 a brief outline of the book’s structure, the chapter concludes with some comments on global initiatives that have been made to address the challenges associated with mass migration on the one hand and of forced movement of refugees on the other. We will argue that the uncertainty and risks facing the world in the new millennium certainly constitute problems – but they also offer opportunities for positive change. Four foundational principles inform our discussion of how states should respond to children on the move. The first is that childhood is unique in that the status of being a child is transitory and (absent disabilities) thecapacities of children evolve as children age. Second, it follows that children require special protection and assistance, most particularly in their younger and adolescent years, if they are to develop and thrive. The third point is that procedural accommodations should be made for children in recognition of the physical and cognitive stages of their development. The fourth and final principle both flows from and unites the three that precede it. It is that the treatment of child migrants matters because it has long term consequences – both for the children themselves and for their host communities

Cases before International Courts and Tribunals concerning Questions of Public International Law Involving Australia 2020

In the year 2020, Australia’s engagement with international law was oriented around several key areas. In relation to the International Criminal Court (‘ICC’), Australia submitted amicus curiae observations relating to the Court’s jurisdiction over Palestine. In addition, the ICC Office of the Prosecutor published its decision not to further investigate alleged crimes against humanity committed by Australian officials against asylum seekers and refugees in offshore detention centres. Australia also closely watched the proceedings in the International Court of Justice (‘ICJ’) regarding Myanmar’s alleged breaches of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (‘Genocide Convention’). Australia also had an active year in the sphere of international trade disputes, with several matters in the World Trade Organization

Cases before Australian Courts and Tribunals concerning Questions of Public International Law 2022

The Sydney Centre for International Law (SCIL), within the University of Sydney Law School, was established in 2003 as a centre of excellence in research and teaching in international law. Each year, the Centre’s interns prepare an article for the Australian Year Book of International Law about the role of international law in Australian courts, under supervision of SCIL staff. This year's article reviews decisions made in 2022 by select federal courts (the High Court of Australia, Federal Court of Australia, and newly created Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia), along with the state and territory supreme and appeal courts, in which international law played a part

Cases before Australian Courts and Tribunals Concerning Questions of Public International Law 2020

This article summarises Australian cases from 2020, with a focus on the relevance of international law. In the year 2020, international treaties and United Nations (‘UN’) declarations were considered by Australian courts in several key areas, including: the status of Aboriginal Australians under the Constitution; discrimination claims; and migration decisions, particularly those involving deportation due to criminal conduct (that is, cases involving so-called ‘crimmigration’ law). International law was also relevant in Australian cases concerning the human rights implications of COVID-19 restrictions, with the Victorian Supreme Court observing that ‘[h]uman rights are not suspended during states of emergency or disaster’.The publication of the ‘Brereton Report’ — which documents potential war crimes by members of the Australian Defence Force (‘ADF’) in Afghanistan — underscored the relevance of both international humanitarian law and international criminal law to our own military personnel

Echoes of the Old Countries or Brave New Worlds ? Legal Responses to Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Australia and New Zealand

In spite of their colonial origins and their continuing ties with Great Britain and Europe, it is only recently that Australia and New Zealand have begun to think in global terms about immigration control and the challenges posed by asylum seekers. The experience of unauthorized migration in these two countries has been somewhat different. Nevertheless, both are now feeling the effects of the burgeoning industry of people smuggling. The closure of traditional migration routes throughout Europe brought about by the harmonization of laws and practice within the European Union may be one factor in the rise of unauthorized migration in the Asia Pacific region. While European laws and policies rarely rate a mention in the refugee discourse in this part of the world, the response to the mobile asylum seeker phenomenon reveals many resonances with the approaches adopted in the "old World" of the European Union -and, more recently, in the United States. This paper argues that, in Australia's case, some "borrowings" from Europe and from North America have been inappropriate for this region. Far from evincing a commitment to global solutions and rationalized responses to humanitarian crises, the Australian initiatives suggest a country immersed in local concerns and self-interest. In spite of its tiny size and geographical isolation, the greater openness of New Zealand's laws provides some interesting contrast material. Of equal interest, however, is the attention the world is beginning to pay to Australia's asylum laws -most particularly those relating to the detention and removal of asylum seekers who come as unauthorized arrivals.Malgré leurs origines coloniales et leur lien à la Grande-Bretagne et à l'Europe, ce n'est que récemment que l'Australie et la Nouvelle-Zélande ont réexaminé en termes globaux le contrôle de l'immigration et les défis engendrés par les demandeurs d'asile. Dans chacun de ces pays, l'expérience d'immigration non autorisée est quelque peu différente. Néanmoins, tous deux ressentent aujourd'hui les effets d'une grandissante industrie de trafiquants humains. L'augmentation des migrations non-autorisée vers l'Asie Pacifique s'explique entres autres par la fermeture des routes traditionnels à travers l'Europe, conséquence de l'harmonisation des lois et des pratiques à l'intérieur de l'Union européenne. Tandis que les lois et pratiques européennes sont rarement mentionnées dans le discours sur les réfugiés dans cette région du monde, la réaction au phénomène de mobilité des demandeurs d'asile révèle plusieurs ressemblances avec les approches adoptées sur le «vieux continent » de l'Union européenne. Plus récemment, cette réaction ressemble à l'approche véhiculée par les Etats-Unis. Cet article soutient que dans le cas australien, certains «emprunts » d'Europe et de l'Amérique du Nord se sont avérés inappropriés pour l'Australie. Loin de manifester un engagement à des solutions globales et de trouver des réponses rationnelles à la crise humanitaire, les initiatives australiennes laissent plutôt croire à un État centré sur lui-même et absorbé par ses propres intérêts. Malgré sa petite étendue et son isolation géographique, l'ouverture des lois néo-zélandaises représente un contraste intéressant . Toutefois, il faut noter également l'intérêt que plusieurs pays commencent à porter aux lois australiennes sur l'asile, et plus particulièrement celles relatives à la détention et aux renvois des demandeurs d'asile arrivés de façon non-autorisée.Crock Mary. Echoes of the Old Countries or Brave New Worlds ? Legal Responses to Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Australia and New Zealand. In: Revue Québécoise de droit international, volume 14-1, 2001. Cinquantenaire de la Convention de Genève sur les réfugiés, sous la direction de Michael Barutciski . pp. 55-89

Rethinking the guardianship of refugee children after the Malaysian Solution

The arrival of children seeking asylum in Australia without a parent or guardian continues to pose challenges for the Australian government’s legislative and policy framework. The central problem is the potential for conflict between the Minister for Immigration’s responsibility as guardian under the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) (IGOC) Act 1946 (Cth) (‘IGOC Act’) and the Minister’s roles under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (‘Migration Act’). The rise in the number of unaccompanied children presenting as irregular maritime arrivals has led to various attempts to challenge Ministerial interpretations of the IGOC Act. The authors show that successive governments have fought hard to deny much or any content to the Ministerial role of guardian. They examine a series of cases leading up to the High Court ruling which invalidated Australia’s ‘Arrangement’ to transfer asylum seekers, including unaccompanied minors, to Malaysia. Although a clear departure from earlier jurisprudence, they argue that the ruling in Plaintiff M70/2011 and Plaintiff M106/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship should not have surprised or confounded the government as much as it did. The case provides an important object lesson in doctrinal exegesis. Rulings made at a point in time rendered fraught by war, terrorist attacks or other acute events cannot be expected again when a matter is re-litigated a decade later and in a period of relative calm. The authors argue that the current impasse in relation to offshore processing of asylum seekers presents an opportunity to reconsider Australia’s approach to this vulnerable group: children seeking asylum alone

Echoes of the Old Countries or Brave New Worlds ? Legal Responses to Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Australia and New Zealand

In spite of their colonial origins and their continuing ties with Great Britain and Europe, it is only recently that Australia and New Zealand have begun to think in global terms about immigration control and the challenges posed by asylum seekers. The experience of unauthorized migration in these two countries has been somewhat different. Nevertheless, both are now feeling the effects of the burgeoning industry of people smuggling. The closure of traditional migration routes throughout Europe brought about by the harmonization of laws and practice within the European Union may be one factor in the rise of unauthorized migration in the Asia Pacific region. While European laws and policies rarely rate a mention in the refugee discourse in this part of the world, the response to the mobile asylum seeker phenomenon reveals many resonances with the approaches adopted in the "old World" of the European Union -and, more recently, in the United States. This paper argues that, in Australia's case, some "borrowings" from Europe and from North America have been inappropriate for this region. Far from evincing a commitment to global solutions and rationalized responses to humanitarian crises, the Australian initiatives suggest a country immersed in local concerns and self-interest. In spite of its tiny size and geographical isolation, the greater openness of New Zealand's laws provides some interesting contrast material. Of equal interest, however, is the attention the world is beginning to pay to Australia's asylum laws -most particularly those relating to the detention and removal of asylum seekers who come as unauthorized arrivals.Malgré leurs origines coloniales et leur lien à la Grande-Bretagne et à l'Europe, ce n'est que récemment que l'Australie et la Nouvelle-Zélande ont réexaminé en termes globaux le contrôle de l'immigration et les défis engendrés par les demandeurs d'asile. Dans chacun de ces pays, l'expérience d'immigration non autorisée est quelque peu différente. Néanmoins, tous deux ressentent aujourd'hui les effets d'une grandissante industrie de trafiquants humains. L'augmentation des migrations non-autorisée vers l'Asie Pacifique s'explique entres autres par la fermeture des routes traditionnels à travers l'Europe, conséquence de l'harmonisation des lois et des pratiques à l'intérieur de l'Union européenne. Tandis que les lois et pratiques européennes sont rarement mentionnées dans le discours sur les réfugiés dans cette région du monde, la réaction au phénomène de mobilité des demandeurs d'asile révèle plusieurs ressemblances avec les approches adoptées sur le «vieux continent » de l'Union européenne. Plus récemment, cette réaction ressemble à l'approche véhiculée par les Etats-Unis. Cet article soutient que dans le cas australien, certains «emprunts » d'Europe et de l'Amérique du Nord se sont avérés inappropriés pour l'Australie. Loin de manifester un engagement à des solutions globales et de trouver des réponses rationnelles à la crise humanitaire, les initiatives australiennes laissent plutôt croire à un État centré sur lui-même et absorbé par ses propres intérêts. Malgré sa petite étendue et son isolation géographique, l'ouverture des lois néo-zélandaises représente un contraste intéressant . Toutefois, il faut noter également l'intérêt que plusieurs pays commencent à porter aux lois australiennes sur l'asile, et plus particulièrement celles relatives à la détention et aux renvois des demandeurs d'asile arrivés de façon non-autorisée.Crock Mary. Echoes of the Old Countries or Brave New Worlds ? Legal Responses to Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Australia and New Zealand. In: Revue Québécoise de droit international, volume 14-1, 2001. Cinquantenaire de la Convention de Genève sur les réfugiés, sous la direction de Michael Barutciski . pp. 55-89

Rethinking the Guardianship of Refugee Children after the Malaysian Solution

The arrival of children seeking asylum in Australia without a parent or guardian continues to pose challenges for the Australian government’s legislative and policy framework. The central problem is the potential for conflict between the Minister for Immigration’s responsibility as guardian under the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) (IGOC) Act 1946 (Cth) (‘IGOC Act’) and the Minister’s roles under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (‘Migration Act’). The rise in the number of unaccompanied children presenting as irregular maritime arrivals has led to various attempts to challenge Ministerial interpretations of the IGOC Act. The authors show that successive governments have fought hard to deny much or any content to the Ministerial role of guardian. They examine a series of cases leading up to the High Court ruling which invalidated Australia’s ‘Arrangement’ to transfer asylum seekers, including unaccompanied minors, to Malaysia. Although a clear departure from earlier jurisprudence, they argue that the ruling in Plaintiff M70/2011 and Plaintiff M106/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship should not have surprised or confounded the government as much as it did. The case provides an important object lesson in doctrinal exegesis. Rulings made at a point in time rendered fraught by war, terrorist attacks or other acute events cannot be expected again when a matter is re-litigated a decade later and in a period of relative calm. The authors argue that the current impasse in relation to offshore processing of asylum seekers presents an opportunity to reconsider Australia’s approach to this vulnerable group: children seeking asylum alone