The Implications of the Failed 'Malaysian Solution': The Australian High Court and Refugee Responsibility Sharing at International Law

By Foster, Michelle | Melbourne Journal of International Law, June 2012 | Go to article overview

The Implications of the Failed 'Malaysian Solution': The Australian High Court and Refugee Responsibility Sharing at International Law


Foster, Michelle, Melbourne Journal of International Law


The notion that international cooperation is required in order to adequately respond to the challenge of refugee protection is a well established and accepted concept, yet in recent decades many states' attempts to engage in responsibility sharing regimes have tended to undermine rather than expand refugee protection. Against this background, the attempt by Australia to implement a regional agreement with Malaysia in 2011 raised serious concerns about its compliance with international and domestic law and was hence challenged in the High Court of Australia. The High Court's intervention, in which it found that the Arrangement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Malaysia on Transfer and Resettlement was not capable of complying with legislative protections designed to uphold the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees ('Refugee Convention'), has not only provided guidance as to the limits of Australian domestic law in this regard, but has made an important contribution to our understanding of the limits of the Refugee Convention in accommodating responsibility sharing regimes. This article examines the High Court's judgment in Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, explaining its background and significance in Australian law, and analyses and assesses its importance to our understanding of the constraints which international law places on the ability of states lawfully to engage in responsibility sharing regimes.

CONTENTS

I   Introduction
II  Background to the High Court's Decision in MTO
III The Reviewability of Responsibility Sharing Regimes by Domestic
      Courts
IV  International Law and Responsibility Sharing: The High Court's
        Contribution
      A Sharing with Whom? Minimum Obligations of States Parties to
        Responsibility Sharing Arrangements
      B The Constraint of Non-Refoulement: Substantive and Procedural
        Aspects
      C The Meaning of 'Protection' in the Refugee Convention
      D The Decision to Transfer Individual Asylum Seekers: Procedural
        and Substantive Concerns
V   Conclusion and Implications

I INTRODUCTION

The Preamble to the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees ('Refugee Convention') (1) recognises that 'a satisfactory solution' to the 'social and humanitarian' challenge of refugee protection cannot be achieved without 'international co-operation', (2) a notion that remains as true today as it was (60) years ago when the key treaty for the protection of refugees at international law was drafted. (3) However, the Refugee Convention does not set out the manner by which states may engage in such cooperation, nor does it clearly outline the constraints that operate upon any attempt to engage in responsibility sharing regimes. (4)

This lack of precision and clarity has arguably been exploited by (mainly developed northern) states which increasingly in recent decades have relied on concepts of cooperation to engage in what is more accurately understood as burden-shifting, rather than burden-sharing arrangements. (5) This is perhaps illustrated most vividly in Australia's experience of the so-called 'Pacific Solution' (6)--a policy which ended ignominiously in 2008 with the acknowledgement by the then government that rather than promoting refugee protection, the policy was about 'the cynical politics of punishing refugees for domestic political purposes'. (7) Yet in 2011 the same government that ended the Pacific Solution attempted to institute a new scheme of responsibility sharing in the form of an Arrangement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Malaysia on Transfer and Resettlement ('Malaysian Arrangement'), (8) which would have resulted in the transfer of 800 asylum seekers from Australia to Malaysia in exchange for up to 4000 recognised refugees from Malaysia to Australia. However, before the first asylum seekers could be transferred from Australia to Malaysia, the Australian High Court intervened, in dramatic fashion, to prevent their removal. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

The Implications of the Failed 'Malaysian Solution': The Australian High Court and Refugee Responsibility Sharing at International Law
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.