澳大利亚移民拘留中的私有化和问责制:一个国家与企业共生的案例

IF 2.3 1区 社会学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Mark Yin
{"title":"澳大利亚移民拘留中的私有化和问责制:一个国家与企业共生的案例","authors":"Mark Yin","doi":"10.1177/14624745221135175","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Across the global north, immigration detention has become an increasingly common punishment for ‘illegal’ movement between borders. The punitive nature of Australia's border protection laws is enhanced by a privatised and offshored model of operation, drawing in corporations and neighbouring territories to sustain a policy of indefinite, offshore detention. Reading these arrangements as resulting in actions that might be described as state-corporate crime, this article considers how such punitive regimes are sustained by the institutional actors who operationalise them. It analyses documents tabled before the Australian Senate in 2019 which detail the contractual relationship between the Department of Home Affairs and private security provider Paladin. Communications materials in particular, including emails and meeting minutes, reveal a compromised framework of accountability that failed to apprehend underlying forms of harm in offshore detention, therefore sustaining its capacity to punish. The results also suggest a shared interest between government and Paladin in maintaining this compromised framework, and an absence of voices which might challenge it. Noting that public-private contracts are commonplace in contemporary punitive regimes, the article concludes by interrogating the place for human rights compliance within these regimes.","PeriodicalId":47626,"journal":{"name":"Punishment & Society-International Journal of Penology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Privatisation and accountability in Australian immigration detention: A case of state-corporate symbiosis\",\"authors\":\"Mark Yin\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/14624745221135175\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Across the global north, immigration detention has become an increasingly common punishment for ‘illegal’ movement between borders. The punitive nature of Australia's border protection laws is enhanced by a privatised and offshored model of operation, drawing in corporations and neighbouring territories to sustain a policy of indefinite, offshore detention. Reading these arrangements as resulting in actions that might be described as state-corporate crime, this article considers how such punitive regimes are sustained by the institutional actors who operationalise them. It analyses documents tabled before the Australian Senate in 2019 which detail the contractual relationship between the Department of Home Affairs and private security provider Paladin. Communications materials in particular, including emails and meeting minutes, reveal a compromised framework of accountability that failed to apprehend underlying forms of harm in offshore detention, therefore sustaining its capacity to punish. The results also suggest a shared interest between government and Paladin in maintaining this compromised framework, and an absence of voices which might challenge it. Noting that public-private contracts are commonplace in contemporary punitive regimes, the article concludes by interrogating the place for human rights compliance within these regimes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47626,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Punishment & Society-International Journal of Penology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Punishment & Society-International Journal of Penology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/14624745221135175\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Punishment & Society-International Journal of Penology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14624745221135175","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在全球北部,移民拘留已成为对边境之间“非法”流动日益普遍的惩罚。澳大利亚边境保护法的惩罚性因其私有化和离岸化的运作模式而得到加强,吸引了公司和邻近地区来维持无限期离岸拘留政策。将这些安排解读为导致可能被描述为国家公司犯罪的行为,本文考虑了实施这些惩罚制度的机构行为者如何维持这些制度。它分析了2019年提交给澳大利亚参议院的文件,这些文件详细说明了内政部与私人安保提供商帕拉丁之间的合同关系。尤其是通信材料,包括电子邮件和会议记录,揭示了一个受损的问责框架,未能理解离岸拘留中潜在的伤害形式,从而维持了其惩罚能力。研究结果还表明,政府和帕拉丁在维护这一折衷框架方面有着共同的利益,而且没有可能对其提出质疑的声音。文章指出,公私合同在当代惩罚性制度中很常见,文章最后质疑了这些制度中遵守人权的位置。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Privatisation and accountability in Australian immigration detention: A case of state-corporate symbiosis
Across the global north, immigration detention has become an increasingly common punishment for ‘illegal’ movement between borders. The punitive nature of Australia's border protection laws is enhanced by a privatised and offshored model of operation, drawing in corporations and neighbouring territories to sustain a policy of indefinite, offshore detention. Reading these arrangements as resulting in actions that might be described as state-corporate crime, this article considers how such punitive regimes are sustained by the institutional actors who operationalise them. It analyses documents tabled before the Australian Senate in 2019 which detail the contractual relationship between the Department of Home Affairs and private security provider Paladin. Communications materials in particular, including emails and meeting minutes, reveal a compromised framework of accountability that failed to apprehend underlying forms of harm in offshore detention, therefore sustaining its capacity to punish. The results also suggest a shared interest between government and Paladin in maintaining this compromised framework, and an absence of voices which might challenge it. Noting that public-private contracts are commonplace in contemporary punitive regimes, the article concludes by interrogating the place for human rights compliance within these regimes.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
12.50%
发文量
60
期刊介绍: Punishment & Society is an international, interdisciplinary, peer reviewed journal that publishes the highest quality original research and scholarship dealing with punishment, penal institutions and penal control.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信