Protecting recognized Geneva Convention refugees outside their states of asylum

This article highlights the predicament of persons recognized as refugees according to the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (CSR1951 refugees) when they travel outside their state of asylum. Their status entails ipso facto that, if they are ill-treated abroad, they cannot turn to representatives of their state of nationality and request its diplomatic protection, nor can they expect to receive its consular assistance. It is submitted that a state of asylum ought to extend the scope of protection that it offers CSR1951 refugees residing in its territory, and provide them diplomatic protection and consular assistance when they travel abroad as if they were its nationals. Four claims are advanced in support of this contention: First: the advent of human rights treaties has not rendered obsolete the protection of nationals abroad nor has the practice fallen into disuse. On the contrary, protection abroad retains its pedigree and significance, as is illustrated by the recently adopted International Law Commission's Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection and by frequent resort to consular assistance. Second: while states previously enjoyed unfettered discretion concerning whether and when to protect their nationals abroad, recent developments in domestic jurisdictions as well as in European Union (EU) treaties point to the potential emergence of a qualified duty to exercise state protection or to be willing to provide justifications for its refusal. These developments call particular attention to the vulnerability of CSR1951 refugees: the professed aim of the EU treaty regime is that EU citizens should enjoy effective state protection wherever they travel; by contrast, CSR1951 refugees are in need of state protection wherever they travel. Third: according to CSR1951, states of asylum are required to issue Convention Travel Documents (CTDs) to recognized refugees lawfully staying in their territory. While CTDs do not in of themselves authorize states of asylum to provide protection abroad to their CSR1951 refugees, they reflect partial recognition of the instrumental role of these states in facilitating safe refugee travel. Fourth: while the 'nationality of claims' requirement remains pivotal to the institution of diplomatic protection, and efforts to effectuate its general relaxation have thus far failed, the International Law Commission (ILC) has 'carved out' an exception authorizing states of asylum to provide protection abroad to their recognized refugees. The ILC's protection-enhancing agenda, reflecting progressive development of the law, is laudable, even though it has opted for a rather cautious approach.

The legacy of Australia's treatment of onshore asylum seekers

The Australian government's response to the 'unlawful' arrival of asylum seekers has been characterised by a host of draconian measures - most notably mandatory detention and a punitive 'temporary protection visa' with severely limited access to settlement services. This hard stance was seen as important in stemming the tide of 'illegal' asylum seekers - most of whom seek protection in Australia from their war-torn countries in the Middle East. However, the government's own statistics suggest that this strategy is not working, as the number of asylum seekers has not decreased since these tough measures were adopted in October 1999. Moreover, as this study [2] argues, the restricted access to social services and income support imposed on TPV holders is causing significant economic hardships and unnecessarily traumatic settlement experiences. Many non-government agencies (most notably community organizations and ethnic associations) are left with the daunting challenge of meeting both practical and special needs of traumatized refugees.

"Disturbing practices":dehumanizing asylum seekers in the refugee "Crisis" in Australia, 2001-2002

Throughout late 2001 and 2002, the Australian Government, seeking re-election, campaigned on a tough line against so-called "illegal" immigrants. Represented as "queue jumpers," "boat people," and "illegals," most of these asylum seekers came from Middle Eastern countries, and, in the main, from Afghanistan and Iraq. This paper explores the way particular representations of cultural difference were entwined in media and government attacks upon asylum seekers. In particular, it analyzes the way key government figures articulated a negative understanding of asylum seekers' family units--representing these as "foreign" or "other" to contemporary Australian standards of decency and parental responsibility. This representational regime also drew upon post-September 11 representations of Middle Eastern people, and was employed to call into question the validity of asylum-seekers' claims for refugee status. Manufactured primarily through the now notorious "children overboard" incident, these images became a central motif of the 2001 election campaign. This paper concludes by examining the way these representations of refugees as "undeserving" were paralleled by new Temporary Protection Visa regulations in Australia.

A psychological perspective on Australia's asylum policies

This paper discusses mental and psychological impacts of Australia's temporary protection visa (TPV) policy on individual asylum seekers. The paper is based on personal narratives constructed by individual asylum seekers during one-on-one interviews and aims principally to sketch the discursive manifestations of stressful events in the lives of TPV holders. The fact that refugees exhibit signs of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is not entirely new or surprising given the level of trauma, and in many cases torture and persecution, endured in the pre-migration phase.

What is particularly revealing among many TPV holders is the fact that their pre-migration traumatic experiences are compounded by a post-migration condition of being in indefinite "temporary" protection. This is further exacerbated by an awareness of the exclusionary discourses and policies advocated by the host government. Past trauma and persecution, combined with present family separation and social exclusion, further compounded by uncertainty about the future, results in almost chronic states of anxiety and depression among a significant number of TPV holders.