The Dilemma of Australian Pacific Solution: The Non-Refoulement Principle Versus National Security

Abstract

The Australian Government has issued various policies to deal with refugees. One of the policies is the Pacific Solution and it is considered as a manifestation of national security principles. On one hand, the policy against the non-refoulement principle, which is the central principle of the refugee convention and Australia is one of the states that ratified the 1951 Refugee Convention. Obviously, Australia should not violate the non-refoulement principle. On the other hand, Australia has experienced a dilemma between prioritizing its interests and fulfilling international obligation to protect refugees who entering its territory. This article discusses whether the national security principle is contrary to the non-refoulement principle; and how Australia can accommodate both principles without neglecting the rights of refugees and still be able to maintain their interests. This article also reviews how Australia can implement policies based on national security principle when it has to face international obligations–in this case, the non-refoulement principle. This research concludes that the national security and the non-refoulement principle are basically contradictory. However, Australia can accommodate these two principles by counterbalancing actions, such as the establishment of national laws that still highly consider humanitarian standards contained in the non-refoulement principle. Australia has the right to implement number of policies based on its national law, while that the same time Australia cannot ignore their international obligation to protect refugees in accordance with the 1951 Refugee Convention that they have ratified. Reflecting on some previous policies, this study concludes that Australia has not been able to accommodate both principles.