Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Australia treat asylum seekers essay
Asylum seekers in Australia
Australia treat asylum seekers essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Australia treat asylum seekers essay
Following the tragic death of Reza Barati at the Manus island detention centre in February, raised concern about the treatment of asylum seekers. The ABC exposed the lawlessness of the Manus island centre and the vulnerability of the asylum seekers to violence. Australia’s policy to asylum seekers is debatably ‘inhumane’ and on the island has seen 62 men seriously injured in the care of either Australian and Papua New Guinea authorities. Mark Cormack, the immigration department deputy secretary said that the Australian government is
Some of Australia’s legal responsibilities in regards to asylum seekers come from ratifying the International Covenant on Civil Political Rights (ICCRP). When ever Australia exercises power of effective control
…show more content…
International law consists of international agreements to which countries have approved upon to be bound. Customary principles, which have been recognized by the international community as being ‘law’ and general principles of that law, are accepted by nations. However the problem lies when unlike domestic law, as there is no system of punishment or police to enforce international law if a country acts unlawful. If a country breaks international law, The international community has two options; they can chose to wither take military force against it, but evidently this happens extremely rare in practice or act through …show more content…
However the courts can not fully monitor the legality of the governments actions as they can only enforce the governments actions under domestic laws compared to international laws. Section 198A of the Migration Act, set out the foundation of the High Court ruling that Australia could relocate asylum seekers to a country that meets certain humans rights standards, when overturning the previous Gillard government ‘Malaysia Solution’ in 2011. As a consequence of the High Court ruling saw an amendment to the Migration Act. The amendment was to eliminate the obligation for Australia to declare that a country will meet before transferring asylum seekers abroad. This amendment to the wording of the Migration Act resulted in difficulty to enforce in the courts Australia’s International obligations. The High Court is currently testing Australia’s extraterritorial processing regime under the new law. If the challenge presented were successful, Australia will perhaps have to cease the detention and processing of asylum seekers in
Australians by not clarifying it’s stance on it’s international obligations to Indigenous Australians or reflecting it’s international rhetoric and signature on UN conventions by implementing some in domestic law. This inadequacy in the development of Indigenous Peoples Land Rights in Australia has been declared by the Working Group on Indigenous Populations in July 1997, and highlights the Australian government policy regarding Indigenous Peoples Land Rights and may be argued as a denial of justice for Indigenous People by the Australian legal system. Australia can be said to be ineffective in achieving justice for Indigenous People due to it’s failure to recognise Indigenous Australians rights to land domestically by failing the Human Rights standards contained in international initiatives to which it is a signatory.
The number of people that are detained within immigration detention in Australia changes constantly. As of 30th of November 2015, there were 1,852 people held in immigration detention facilities and 585 in community detention. 174 children were being detained in closed immigration detention facilities: 104 were being held in closed immigration detention facilities within Australia and 70 children were detained in the Regional Centre in Nauru. However, there was also 331 children in community detention in Australia. That’s over 400 children being held in detention centres. Australia’s refugee policy has no set time limit to how long a person may be held in immigration detention. The period of time in which an individual spends in detention may vary from a few
Controversy has surrounded Australia’s boat arrivals since 2001, when the Howard government took office. Howard instituted Operation Relex, a policy directing the Royal Australian Navy to intercept and board suspected illegal entry vessels, or SIEV’s (Turning Back Boats). Initially widely accepted, this policy was designed to discourage people from arriving illegally by boat. However, turning back small, overcrowded boats, and returning them just inside Indonesian waters, quickly became a safety issue (Turning Back Boats). According to the “Senate Select Committee’s Inquiry into a Certain Maritime Incident,” of the 12 boats intercepted from September 2002 to March 2003, four were turned back and three sank, killing two people (Turning Back Boats). Although Australia has a right to protect its borders from illegal aliens, over 90% of these asylum-seekers qualify as refugees (Turning Back Boats). Such a low success rate is reason enough to end the hazardous practice, but even more concerning are the detention centers where the remaining 10% are held. In 2001, the Howard government passed the Pacific Solution, authorizing the transport of asylum-seekers to island nations and offshore detention centers (Turning Back Boats). Since then, countless human rights violations have occurred at the Christmas Island, Manus Island, and Nauru detention centers (Murray). The asylum-seekers, some children, are often detained in poor conditions for indefinite periods of time, subjected to enhanced screenings, and refused legal representation or the right to appeal (Australia). After Howard left office in 2006 the refugee policies stopped, and the Australian government worked to heal the damage done to the islanders and its international reputation (Turning Back Boats). However, under PM Tony Abbott, the asylum seeker policies returned in 2014 through Operation Sovereign
As a part of my English communications study I have chosen to explore the various social and political issues regarding asylum seekers in Australia. Firstly I would like to clarify the term asylum seekers, or as they are more commonly referred to: ‘boat people’.
In Adelman’s Canadian Borders and Immigration Post 9/11 and Hugo’s Australia Immigration Policy: The Significance of the Events of September 11, both authors explore the effects of 9/11 on the Canadian immigration and refugee policy and on the Australian asylum seeker policy respectively. To arrive at their findings, both authors use media coverage, public opinion, and examination of post 9/11 impacts on the policies of both states. Additionally, Adelman uses new legislations that Canada adopted after the attacks while Hugo uses the justification of the Australian government for their change in policy. Attempting to reason states’ actual purpose for introducing controversial immigration policies is problematic. Adelman and Hugo’s method of analysis and hurried conclusions show that the dilemma that arises in explaining immigration trends, including policies.
The term government policy is any cause of action implemented by the government to change a certain situation and to tackle a wide range of issues in all areaslikefinance,education,statewelfare,immigrationlaw(https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/government-policy).For the purpose of this essay, I will be talking more about government policies in relation to refugees and asylum seekers and its implication for social work.
Although, asylum seekers and refugees are given a few options if they feel as though their rights are being breached, like they can apply to tribunals and courts to view their visa related decisions, they can also make a complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission about their human rights being breached in immigration detention centres, yet they do not have control over who enters the country, the government is not obliged to comply with the recommendations that are made. Although the government has made few attempts to comply with the human rights obligations towards asylum seekers and refugees by introducing new policies and prioritising the safety of the children in these detention camps, there are currently still many breaches towards their rights that the government continues to adapt, therefore they are still constituting a breach of international law.
They have been found to have detrimental psychological effects, as they leave refugees in a state of limbo, fearing their imminent forced return, where they are unable to integrate into society. This emotional distress is often compounded by the fact that refugees on TPVs in Australia are not able to apply for family reunification nor are they able to leave the country. Family reunification is a well-established right in Sweden, as well as most western countries. Moreover, it is a human right protected under the ICCPR whereby refugees have the right to family (Article 23) and the right to freedom from arbitrary interference with family life (Article 17). As a result of living in a state of uncertainty and heartache caused by family separation, refugees on TPVs face a “700 percent increased risk of developing depression and post-traumatic stress disorder in comparison with PPV (permanent protection visa) refugees (Mansouri et al. 2009, pp. 145). Denial of family reunification under TPVs is likely to cause more asylum seekers to engage in illegal means to arrive in
There should therefore be emphasis placed on assessing the mental health of these kids because of the adverse experiences in their home countries and the distress experienced in an alien country or culture in which they find themselves. Weaver and Burns (2001) thus argue that social workers need a greater understanding of the impact of trauma to be effective with asylum seekers in general and UASC. However, many people who are exposed to traumatic experiences do not necessarily develop mental issues so social workers should be cautious about making assumptions as studies shows that most asylum seekers point to social and economic factors as important rather than psychological
An extraordinary 65.3 million Refugees have been displaced around the world. In 2015 Australia took 12,000 of them. But where are Australians placing these Refugees? Australia is deporting these Refugees to a third country, either on Manus or Nauru Island. These Islands have reports of inhumane and cruel treatment towards Refugees For those who aren’t fully aware of what Refugees are; they are people whom come to Australia illegally without the appropriate visas. They cannot obtain these visas because of the reasons they are fleeing their country … their Government. None the less it should be the Australian Government they fear. The concepts of refugees are kept hidden away from us by our own Government in reflection of their Governments own self-interest. This tragedy is classified as a modern day witch hunt.
According to Article 38 of the 1946 Statute of the International Court of Justice, the Court shall apply “international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law” in its decisions (Kritsiotis 123). In other words, the International Court of Justice cites customs as a formal source of law. According to Roberto Unger, author of Law in a Modern Society, customary international law is best defined as “any recurring mode of interaction among individuals and groups, together with the more or less explicit acknowledgement of these groups and individuals that such patterns of interaction produce reciprocal expectations of conduct that out to be satisfied (Shaw 72-73). In other words, customary international laws are primarily concerned with how and why sates behave in a particular manner. Customs derive from the behavior of states (state practice) and the subconscious belief that a behavior is inherently legal (opinio juris). Evidence of state behavior is documented in the decisions of domestic courts, international courts, and international organizations. Unlike treaty law, customary laws are binding on all states. Additionally, if a treaty derives from a custom it is also binding on all states. Some of the international court cases that have been instrumental in the development of customary international law include the Nicaragua v. United States case, the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries case, the Scotia case, the Asylum case, the Paquete Habana case, and the Lotus case.
Reflection (Choose a quote or series of quotes and respond. Locate your reflection in evidence and LANGUAGE not in feelings)
What is international law and is international law really considered to be law; the answer to these questions can be found in the examples of different international resolutions. Some of these examples of when the law has been followed and upheld can be called law can be found in the examples of New Zealand v. France with the bombing and sinking of the Greenpeace vessel. Another example can be seen in the case of the Islamic Republic of Iran v. Untied States of America in regards to the United States shooting down an Iranian commercial aircraft. There also is an example in the case of New Zealand v. France where the law was not followed so could this still be considered law.
Globalisation has increased modern technology all over the world enabling more people, such as globally separated families, to maintain contact. Increased media coverage also draws the attention of the world to human rights violation which can lead to an improvement in human rights. This is not a reflection of all marginalised groups. In Australia, the detention of unaccompanied asylum seeking children (UASC) contravenes the United Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), however the media are prohibited to enter detention centres and report on this issue (Cemlyn and Briskman, 2003).
Public International law International law contains of rules and principles, which preside over the relations and communication of nations with each other. International Law that is in most other countries referred to as Public International Law concerns itself only with questions of rights among more than a few nations or nations and the citizens or subjects of other nations. In dissimilarity, Private International Law deals with controversies among confidential persons, natural or juridical, arising out of situations having important association to further than one nation. In current years the line up connecting public and private international law have became more and more doubtful. Issues of private international law may also associate issues of public international law and numerous matters of private international law nave considerable meaning for the international group of people of nations. International Law consists of the basic, classic concepts of law in nationwide legal systems, status, property, responsibility, and tort. It also includes substantive law, procedure, process and remedies. International Law is rooted in receipt by the nation states, which comprise the system. Customary law and conventional law are primary sources of international law. Customary international law results when states trail convinced practices usually and time after time out of an intelligence of legal responsibility. Lately the customary law was codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Conventional international law derives from international agreements and may obtain any appearance that the constricting parties have the same opinion upon. Agreements may be complete in admiration to any substance except for to the leve...