Protection of Refugees and Displaced Persons in the Asia Pacific Region

The chapters in this book explore the impact of recent shifts in global and regional power and the subsequent development and enforcement of international refugee protection standards in the Asia Pacific region. Drawing on their expertise across a number of jurisdictions, the contributors assess the challenges confronting the implementation of international law in the region, as well as new opportunities for extending protection norms into national and regional dialogues. The case studies span key jurisdictions across the region and include a comparative analysis with China, Indonesia, Thailand, Myanmar, Malaysia, Bangladesh and Australia. This topical and important book raises critical questions for the Asia Pacific region and sheds light on the challenges confronting the protection of refugees and displaced persons in this area. Interdisciplinary in its approach, it will be of interest to academics, researchers, students and policy-makers concerned with the rights and protection of refugees.

Re-envisioning sovereignty : the end of Westphalia?

Fables of sovereignty / Wayne Hudson Sovereignty discourse and practice : past and future / Joseph Camilleri Guises of sovereignty / Gerry Simpson Westphalian and Islamic concepts of sovereignty in the Middle East / Amin Saikal Wither sovereignty in Southeast Asia today? / See Seng Tan Ambivalent sovereignty : China and re-imagining the Westphalian ideal / Yongjin Zhang Confronting terrorism : dilemmas of principle and practice regarding sovereignty / Brian L. Job Sovereignty in the 21st century : security, immigration, and refugees / Howard Adelman State sovereignty and international refugee protection / Robyn Lui Do no harm : towards a Hippocratic standard for international civilisation / Neil Arya Sovereignty and the global politics of the environment : beyond Westphalia? / Lorraine Elliott Westphalian sovereignty in the shadow of international justice? a fresh coat of paint for a tainted concept / Jackson Nyamuya Maogoto Development assistance and the hollow sovereignty of the weak / Roland Rich Corruption and transparency in governance and development : reinventing sovereignty for promoting good governance / C. Raj Kumar Re-envisioning economic sovereignty : developing countries and the International Monetary Fund / Ross P. Buckley Trust, legitimacy, and the sharing of sovereignty / William Maley Sovereignty as indirect rule / Barry Hindess Indigenous sovereignty / Paul Keal Civil society in a post-statist circumstance / Jan Aart Scholte.

Bringing protection home : healing the schism between international obligations and national safeguards created by extraterritorial processing

Extraterritorial processing schemes are designed to prevent and deter access to statutory and judicial safeguards in the country responsible for the interception and transfer of asylum seekers to a third country. In line with this objective, they incorporate interdiction, transfer and processing practices and standards that are deliberately isolated from the national legal and institutional protections within either the intercepting state or the third country where processing occurs. Australia's recent disbandment of its extraterritorial processing centres in third countries highlights the fact that extraterritorial processing schemes have proven unworkable as a matter of international law, as they negate the national safeguards fundamental to the satisfaction of a state's protection obligations.

Removing barriers to protection at the exported border : visas, carrier sanctions, and international obligation

Asylum is being gradually denuded of the national institutional mechanisms (judicial, legislative and administrative) that provide the framework for a fair and effective asylum hearing. In this sense, there is an ongoing ‘denationalization’ or ‘deformalization’ of the asylum process. This chapter critically examines one of the linchpins of this trend: the erection of pre-entry measures at ports of embarkation in order to prevent asylum seekers from physically accessing the territory of the state. Pre-entry measures comprise the core requirement that foreigners possess an entry visa granting permission to enter the state of destination. Visa requirements are increasingly implemented by immigration officials posted abroad or by officials of transit countries pursuant to bilateral agreements (so-called ‘juxtaposed’ immigration controls). Private carriers, which are subject to sanctions if they bring persons to a country who do not have permission to enter, also engage in a form of de facto immigration control on behalf of states. These measures constitute a type of ‘externalized’ or ‘exported’ border that pushes the immigration boundaries of the state as far from its physical boundaries as possible. Pre-entry measures have a crippling impact on the ability of asylum seekers to access the territory of states to claim asylum. In effect, states have ‘externalized’ asylum by replacing the legal obligation on states to protect refugees arriving at ports of entry with what are perceived to be no more than moral obligations towards asylum seekers arriving at the external border of the state.

Access to protection for 'Offshore Entry Persons' aka asylum seekers

In 2001, amendments to the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) made possible the offshore processing of protection claims. The same amendments also foreshadowed the processing of claims by ‘offshore entry persons’ in Australia according to non-statutory procedures. After disbanding offshore processing the then Rudd Labor Government commenced processing of protection claims by ‘offshore entry persons’ in Australia under the Refugee Status Assessment process (RSA). The RSA process sought to substitute well established legislative criteria for the grant of a protection visa, as interpreted by the courts, with administrative guidelines and decision-making immune from judicial review. This approach was rejected by the High Court in the cases M61 and M69. This article analyses these developments in light of Australia’s international protection obligations, as well as considering the practical obstacles that continue to confront offshore entry persons as they pursue judicial review of adverse refugee status determinations after the High Court’s decision.

Shifting Powers : Protection of Refugees and Displaced Persons in the Asia Pacific Region

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' (UNHCR) 2011 statistics on refugee populations residing by region are a stark reminder of the challenge facing states and civil society in the Asia Pacific. In 2011, Africa hosted 2,149,000 refugees; the Americas, Europe, and Middle East and North Africa hosted 513 ,500, 1,605,500 and 1,889,900 respectively, while the Asia Pacific hosted a staggering 3,793,900. The fact that 35 per cent of the world's refugees reside in the Asia Pacific, coupled with the fact that 84 per cent of refugees displaced in Asia remain in the region,raises the questions why so few countries in the region are signatories to the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees ('Refugee Convention') or cognate rights instruments and why no formally binding regional agreement exists for the equitable sharing of responsibilities for refugees...

The 1989 Comprehensive Plan of Action (CPA) and refugee policy in Southeast Asia : twenty years forward what has changed?

In 2012, the only South East Asian countries that have ratified the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (hereafter referred to as the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol) is Philippines (signed 1954), Cambodia (signed 1995) and Timor Leste (signed 2001). Countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand have annual asylum seeking populations from Myanmar, South Asia and Middle East, that are estimated to be at 15 000-20 000 per country (UNHCR 2012). The lack of a permanent and formal asylum processing process in these countries means that that asylum-seeking populations in the region are reliant on the local offices of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees based in the region to process their claims. These offices rely upon the good will of these governments to have a presence near detection camps and in capital cities to process claims of those who manage to reach the UNHCR representative office. The only burden sharing mechanism within the region primarily exists under the Bali Process on People Smuggling, Trafficking in Persons and Related Transnational Crime (the Bali Process), introduced in 2002. The Bali Process refers to an informal cooperative agreement amongst the states from the Asia-Pacific region, with Australia and Indonesia as the co-chairs, which discusses its namesake: primarily anti-people smuggling activities and migration protocols. There is no provision within this process to discuss the development of national asylum seeking legislation, processes for domestic processing of asylum claims or burden sharing in contrast to other regions such as Africa and South America (i.e. 2009 African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of the Internally Displaced, 1969 African Union Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa and 1984 Cartagena Declaration on Refugees [Americas]) (PEF 2010: 19).