{"title":"忽视国际不驱回义务?澳大利亚对刑事驱逐出境的做法","authors":"C. Bostock, J. Cabarrús","doi":"10.1093/IJRL/EEAB008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Australia’s Migration Act 1958 (Cth) provides for visas that honour Australia’s international non-refoulement obligations; it also provides for visas to be refused or cancelled on criminal grounds, resulting in removal from Australia. In 2014, Australia introduced mandatory visa cancellation for certain criminal non-citizens sentenced to 12 months or more in prison. Coinciding with these changes was the codification of aspects of refugee and human rights law, the severing of references to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, and the introduction of section 197C in the Migration Act, which provides that non-refoulement obligations are irrelevant when considering the power to remove non-citizens. This article focuses on the interaction between these changes in the law, analysing the application of the complex legal provisions which govern the legal position of those seeking protection or owed international non-refoulement obligations.\n This analysis identifies a number of unintended consequences that appear to have resulted from these changes. These include risks that Australia’s international non-refoulement obligations may not be adequately considered or safeguarded, resulting in serious consequences for the individual concerned, including the possibility of indefinite detention or refoulement. They also include implications for the rule of law, and uncertainty, delay, and cost in aspects of the system for decision making and review.","PeriodicalId":45807,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Refugee Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Short Shrift to International Non-Refoulement Obligations? Australia’s Approach to Criminal Deportation\",\"authors\":\"C. Bostock, J. Cabarrús\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/IJRL/EEAB008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Australia’s Migration Act 1958 (Cth) provides for visas that honour Australia’s international non-refoulement obligations; it also provides for visas to be refused or cancelled on criminal grounds, resulting in removal from Australia. In 2014, Australia introduced mandatory visa cancellation for certain criminal non-citizens sentenced to 12 months or more in prison. Coinciding with these changes was the codification of aspects of refugee and human rights law, the severing of references to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, and the introduction of section 197C in the Migration Act, which provides that non-refoulement obligations are irrelevant when considering the power to remove non-citizens. This article focuses on the interaction between these changes in the law, analysing the application of the complex legal provisions which govern the legal position of those seeking protection or owed international non-refoulement obligations.\\n This analysis identifies a number of unintended consequences that appear to have resulted from these changes. These include risks that Australia’s international non-refoulement obligations may not be adequately considered or safeguarded, resulting in serious consequences for the individual concerned, including the possibility of indefinite detention or refoulement. They also include implications for the rule of law, and uncertainty, delay, and cost in aspects of the system for decision making and review.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45807,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Refugee Law\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Refugee Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/IJRL/EEAB008\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Refugee Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/IJRL/EEAB008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
Short Shrift to International Non-Refoulement Obligations? Australia’s Approach to Criminal Deportation
Australia’s Migration Act 1958 (Cth) provides for visas that honour Australia’s international non-refoulement obligations; it also provides for visas to be refused or cancelled on criminal grounds, resulting in removal from Australia. In 2014, Australia introduced mandatory visa cancellation for certain criminal non-citizens sentenced to 12 months or more in prison. Coinciding with these changes was the codification of aspects of refugee and human rights law, the severing of references to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, and the introduction of section 197C in the Migration Act, which provides that non-refoulement obligations are irrelevant when considering the power to remove non-citizens. This article focuses on the interaction between these changes in the law, analysing the application of the complex legal provisions which govern the legal position of those seeking protection or owed international non-refoulement obligations.
This analysis identifies a number of unintended consequences that appear to have resulted from these changes. These include risks that Australia’s international non-refoulement obligations may not be adequately considered or safeguarded, resulting in serious consequences for the individual concerned, including the possibility of indefinite detention or refoulement. They also include implications for the rule of law, and uncertainty, delay, and cost in aspects of the system for decision making and review.
期刊介绍:
The journal aims to stimulate research and thinking on the protection of refugees and other displaced persons in international law, taking account of the broadest range of State and international organization practice. In addition, it serves as an essential tool for all engaged in the protection of refugees and other displaced persons and finding solutions to their problems. It provides key information and commentary on today"s critical issues, including the causes of refugee and related movements, internal displacement, the particular situation of women and refugee children, the human rights and humanitarian dimensions of displacement and the displaced, restrictive policies, asylum.