Australia’s International Obligation to Refugees in Offshore Processing Centres
The treatment of asylum seekers and refugees in offshore processing centres has been described in numerous articles as ‘overly harsh, inhuman and degrading’, with many scholars highlighting their concerns that Australia is not complying with their international obligation to refugees and subsequently, neglecting their responsibilities by transferring refugees to offshore processing centres in other countries. The Australian Government has rebutted any allegations to breaching the rights of refugees in offshore processing centres by claiming they hold no responsibility over the treatment of refugees in offshore processing centres as it’s not in their jurisdiction. …show more content…
However, it argued throughout the literature that this is not the case. An article by Archbold (2015) argued that Australia is indeed responsible for the treatment of refugees in offshore detention centres as these refugees’ sort refuge in Australia, transferring them to another country should not change their international obligation to provide appropriate protection and care. Additional literature refers to the United Nations stance on extra-territorial responsibilities that identifies Australia’s international obligations extends extra-territorial, meaning that Australia has a joint responsibility for any violations of human rights obligations that arise in countries where Australia has transferred refugees. Current literature notes that although Australia has now acknowledged some responsibilities and signed a memoranda of understanding with Nauru and PNG to treat refugees under the human rights standards, it is never stated by whose standards, as Australia is obligated to more international standards than both PNG and Nauru. These findings are highly relevant and important to the role of a United Nations Representative as they illustrate the current debate regarding Australia’s international obligations towards refugees in offshore detention centres and …show more content…
The majority of the literature argues in consensus that the Australian Government has adapted and amended the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) in multiple instances to benefit and validate their decision in relations to the care of refugees and the introduction of offshore processing in specific countries. The history of amendments to the Migration Act in Australian history has been drawn in numerous reports to justify how the Australian Government has abused their authority and adapted certain areas of the act to suit their preference and future plans for refugees. For example, work by …. Emphasise the amendments made in 1992 to accommodate the Mandatory Immigration Detention System by the Australian Government was not previously prohibited as it was seen to be highly similar to arbitrary detention which against international law. Furthermore, multiple sources have mentioned how this amendment was expanded in 1994 to remove the original 273-day detainment limit, leaving in its place no specified time limit. It is
The treatment of asylum seekers and refugees in offshore processing centres has been described in numerous articles as ‘overly harsh, inhuman and degrading’, with many scholars highlighting their concerns that Australia is not complying with their international obligation to refugees and subsequently, neglecting their responsibilities by transferring refugees to offshore processing centres in other countries. The Australian Government has rebutted any allegations to breaching the rights of refugees in offshore processing centres by claiming they hold no responsibility over the treatment of refugees in offshore processing centres as it’s not in their jurisdiction. …show more content…
However, it argued throughout the literature that this is not the case. An article by Archbold (2015) argued that Australia is indeed responsible for the treatment of refugees in offshore detention centres as these refugees’ sort refuge in Australia, transferring them to another country should not change their international obligation to provide appropriate protection and care. Additional literature refers to the United Nations stance on extra-territorial responsibilities that identifies Australia’s international obligations extends extra-territorial, meaning that Australia has a joint responsibility for any violations of human rights obligations that arise in countries where Australia has transferred refugees. Current literature notes that although Australia has now acknowledged some responsibilities and signed a memoranda of understanding with Nauru and PNG to treat refugees under the human rights standards, it is never stated by whose standards, as Australia is obligated to more international standards than both PNG and Nauru. These findings are highly relevant and important to the role of a United Nations Representative as they illustrate the current debate regarding Australia’s international obligations towards refugees in offshore detention centres and …show more content…
The majority of the literature argues in consensus that the Australian Government has adapted and amended the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) in multiple instances to benefit and validate their decision in relations to the care of refugees and the introduction of offshore processing in specific countries. The history of amendments to the Migration Act in Australian history has been drawn in numerous reports to justify how the Australian Government has abused their authority and adapted certain areas of the act to suit their preference and future plans for refugees. For example, work by …. Emphasise the amendments made in 1992 to accommodate the Mandatory Immigration Detention System by the Australian Government was not previously prohibited as it was seen to be highly similar to arbitrary detention which against international law. Furthermore, multiple sources have mentioned how this amendment was expanded in 1994 to remove the original 273-day detainment limit, leaving in its place no specified time limit. It is