Asylum Seeker And Refugee Response

In 2013, Australia signed a Regional Settlement Arrangement (RSA) with PNG and later a new Memorandum of Understanding with Nauru regarding refugees resettlement . Notwithstanding Australia’s attempt to evade from its international human rights obligations by sending asylum seekers and refugees outside its territory, as Australia is a party to a number of treaties, including the ICCPR, the ICESCR, the CRC, the CAT and the Refugee Convention , Australia’s international human rights obligations clearly apply when transferring asylum seekers to a third country.

The United Nations have implemented many treaties that have been imperative to the progression of the Australian Government. The Australian Government ratifying treaties is highly beneficial and works towards facilitating a progressive society which is ultimately favorable for all Australian citizens. Australian law tends to adhere to international law in order to prevent conflict and restore peace and security. In doing this the Australian Government demonstrates its dedication to alleviating human suffering and to protect civilians in times conflict and distress. The Australian Government Ratifying treaties is not only appealing to citizens it illustrates its concern with global issues and promotes positive change to the country. The Racial

Upholding human rights is essential for ensuring a fair and equitable society. In 1966, Australia and a majority of the world’s nations signed on to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). After the atrocities committed in World War II this seemed like a positive step for ensuring acknowledgement and respect for the rights and freedoms of all people. However, the means of enforcing human rights is not a straightforward process. In response to ratifying the ICCPR, Australia set up the Australian Human Rights Commission. However, after a number of failed attempts, it has not followed through with implementing a

In this essay I will be critically analysing an article and report on the relationship between Australian law and International law, reflecting on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and whether it ensures the safe guard of human rights for future generations. I will then analyse whether this promotes peace and equality internationally.

Human rights have been a perpetual concern for the contemporary global society in terms of its meaning, and interpretation. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) define human rights as “inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family” . Governments have different forms to protect these human rights; United States of America, United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand following many other countries obtain a form of Bill of Rights or charter of rights. Australia does not have said document. However, there are other forms of laws which protect human rights in Australia.

Under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), Australia must not to return people or send people to third countries where they would face a violation of their human rights; applying to both refugees and non-refugees (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2014, para. 2). Again Australia has been found guilty of contradicting

Australia’s international obligations extend extra-territorially according to these agreements and Australia is legally responsible for any contravention of obligations, regardless of whether or not an Australian official was liable. However, the international obligations vary significantly between Australia, PNG and Nauru, creating much difficulty in terms of effectively implementing these obligations. For instance, Nauru is not a signatory to the Refugee Convention, nor do they have the domestic legal structure to implement such obligations, due to the impoverished state of the country (Dr Hathaway, 2016). PNG faces similar challenges in regards to the socio-economic state of the country and struggles to implement such obligations, despite being a signatory to the Refugee Convention. Neither of these designated offshore processing states have the legal capacity to uphold international obligations, thus creating great potential for violations of these obligations (Archbold, 2015). This impacts the Australian government as it is difficult to regulate activity in the regional processing centres and if obligations were to be breached, the government would be responsible regardless of who contravened. The Hon Chris Bowen MP commented on this issue, claiming that

“Terms and conditions apply” depicts the conditions you require to gain access to Australia as a refugee. This being an “authentic work or living visa” or the forced attending of an offshore detention centre for evaluation. This title was developed to be a shot at the government who are not upholding the lyrics to our respected anthem that many Australian’s base their life choices and values on.

Australia’s policies in regard to asylum seekers and refugee processing, are viewed as very controversial, and often inhumane by the international community (Lock, Quenault & Tomlinson 2002, p.37). To discuss this policy, I will apply an external analysis. In order to decide whether this policy is seen as good or bad, through a social, economic and human rights perspective.

In particular the potential that asylum seekers will be subjected to arbitrary detention. Also, under Australia’s international human rights obligations, anyone deprived of their liberty should be able to challenge their detention in a court. Currently, in breach of its international obligations, Australia does not provide access to such review. While people in immigration detention may be able to seek judicial review of their detention, Australian courts have no authority to order that a person be released from immigration detention on the grounds that the person’s detention is arbitrary. These two circumstances are explicit breaches of Australia’s international human rights obligations, which shows that even after the years of work to allow multi-cultural migration and acceptance of refugees, even today Australia is still unacceptably breaching the basic human rights of

The importance of the subject lays on the fact that, today more than ever, the current humanitarian crisis caused by children and families fleeing the war zone in Syria worries the whole world. And lately, the Australia's policy towards asylum seekers arriving by boat has attracted the most attention. The former Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, said “Australia’s strong stance on asylum seekers, which includes a policy of turning back boats and offshore processing of refugee claimants, had stopped the people smuggling trade to Australia and opened up more places for those in genuine need” . Internationally, Australia has always been considered as a model in terms of immigration. Indeed, its broad immigration program, its discretionary offshore humanitarian resettlement program and the respect of its international legal obligations made mark in history. However, this ideology seems to belong to the past given the recent affairs. Asylum policies implemented by the Howard Government (1996-2007), and more recently the Coalition Government known as Operation Sovereign Borders, have tremendously reduced the flow of asylum seekers reaching Australia by boat. It is described as "inhumane, of dubious legality and

Nearly sixty million individuals are displaced from their homes. That’s one in every 122 people on our planet. The world we live in has never been richer, healthier or any more advanced. Yet, never before has there been such a large amount of individuals that have been expelled and stripped of their basic human rights. It’s time to own up to what it really is; it is no longer simply a "refugee crisis.” However, it is a crisis of global security and governance, that’s manifesting itself as the worst refugee crisis ever recorded – and a time of mass displacement. Australia must enable asylum seekers to enter the country, to permit them the possibility to start a new life, free from the horrors of war. Asylum seekers arrive in our country, seeking

Since 2000, both the refugee rights political movement in Australia as a whole as well as the Australian National Committee on Refugee Women (ANCORW) have primarily been focused on key issues such as the differential treatment of asylum seekers based on how they arrived in Australia or apply for protection, the Pacific and Malaysian solution, the detention of asylum seekers and combating the view that boat arrivals are not ‘genuine refugees’. Although there are many other concerns, the issues listed above are the major ones.

Asylum seekers and refugees have been left and deserted on Nauru and Manus Island following the act to shut down detentions centres by the government. These refugees are unable to contact the Australian public and they lack legal support as well as medical services. And although Australians are protesting the unjust and unfair treatment of these people who are in need, the Australian government has refused to help these people out of what the Government placed them in the first place, despite their knowledge of their terrible living conditions and treatment.

One of the basic rights that is established is the right to international protection when people are fleeing from serious harm in their country. This right is provided through national asylum systems. It is made sure that no advantages are taken of these systems through common minimum standards and procedures for asylum throughout Europe. These determine the process one needs to go through in order to obtain asylum and the requirements that need to fulfilled in order to be granted asylum.