Justice: Is Australia's policy of detaining asylum seekers a violation of international law and fundamental justice?

Resources will be posted here that will inform participants on the issues of justice as applied to the Australian asylum seeker / detention situation. All material so posted is the opinion or position of the creators of that material and does not necessarily reflect the position of this blogger, the debate participants, or related institutions. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why Australia hates asylum seekers Christos Tsiolkas THE MONTHLY: September, 2013 "Our governments and press have demonised boat people for 15 years. Organisations like the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre worry they’re fighting a losing battle. “I received a text from one of my colleagues, and he wrote, I feel like we have failed,” says Kon Karapanagiotidis. “I texted back and wrote, Yeah, so do I.” It is a few days after Prime Minister Kevin Rudd announced his “PNG solution” to his latest political crisis, whereby no asylum seeker arriving by boat will be settled in Australia. .............. " Read the full article on THE MONTHLY http://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2013/september/1377957600/christos-tsiolkas/why-australia-hates-asylum-seekers --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "No Advantage: Inside Australia's Offshore Processing Centres" - Monday 29 April 2013 Next on Four Corners, we go inside Australia's offshore refugee processing centres on Nauru and Manus Island. What you see will shock you. Protests, evidence of self-harm and testimony of suicide attempts. Last year, when two boats sank off the north coast of Australia killing over 90 men, women and children the Federal Government responded by re-opening offshore processing centres, abandoned after the defeat of the Howard Government in 2007. Read the full article on: http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2013/04/29/3745276.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 30 April 2013, 11.25am AEST What if it was our kids? Four Corners and asylum seekers The federal government does not say how it chooses those it sends for offshore processing. It does not explain how it chooses children to go to Manus Island. Australian doctors have told the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) that children should not be there. Regardless, DIAC have sent an anaemic girl with a history of blood transfusions and a boy with anaphylaxis to be indefinitely detained on Manus. Doctors' protests were not responded to – by either the medical service contracted to deliver health services or DIAC. On Manus Island there is a 24 hour delay between calling for medical evacuation by air and a plane arriving. Doctors assess this as too long for children. Despite this, 30 children are currently in the Manus camp and most have been there for longer than four months. Read the full article on THE CONVERSATION http://theconversation.com/what-if-it-was-our-kids-four-corners-and-asylum-seekers-13811 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Australian Human Rights Commission: on asylum seekers, reports, cases Read at: http://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/asylum-seekers-and-refugees ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UNHCR: The UN Refugee Agency New "excision" law does not relieve Australia of its responsibilities. E-mail Print PDF The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) on Wednesday reiterated its concerns about the treatment of asylum-seekers arriving by sea to Australia. According to new legislation, all asylum-seekers arriving by boat anywhere in Australia are now subject to transfer to Nauru or Papua New Guinea for processing and will only have their claims for refugee status assessed in Australia if the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship makes a personal decision to allow them to, on the basis of it being in the public interest to do so. Read more at: http://unhcr.org.au/unhcr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=299:new-qexcisionq-law-does-not-relieve-australia-of-its-responsibilities-towards-asylum-seekers-unhcr&catid=35:news-a-media&Itemid=63 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Australian Broadcast Corporation Asylum seeker boat push-backs may breach international laws, UN warns Updated Tue 4 Feb 2014, 6:00pm AEDT An asylum seeker boat sits in a bay at Christmas Island. Photo: UN says reports of asylum seeker boat push-backs from Australia are the first since 2009. (Audience submitted: Mark Trenorden) External Link: ABC statement on asylum seeker claims Related Story: PM Tony Abbott likens anti-people smuggling campaign to 'war' Related Story: Indonesia's government and military united in opposing boat turn-backs Map: Australia The UN refugee agency says it is awaiting an explanation from the Australian Government over reports asylum seeker boats have been forcibly returned to Indonesia. Read more at: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-11/un-investigating-reports-australia-sent-asylum-seeker-boats-bac/5195328 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sovereignty: Can the international community violate Syrian sovereignty?

Resources will be posted here that will inform participants on the issues of sovereignty as applied to the contemporary Syrian situation.

All material so posted is the opinion or position of the creators of that material and does not necessarily reflect the position of this blogger, the debate participants, or related institutions.


The Charter of the United Nations
This is the starting point document.  Read the preamble.  It sets out the purpose and direction of the UNO.
Chapter I, Article 2 clearly sets out the strength of sovereignty, and of its inviolability.  Clause 7 is worthy of special note for use during the debate.  Clause 7 also mentions "but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.", which means we have to know what Chapter VII might say about the inviolability of sovereignty.

Several simple resources here help to explain the history and nature of sovereignty.

Sovereignty: Supreme Power & Authority


SECURITY COUNCIL: VETOSs ON SYRIAN INTERVENTION The United Nations Security Council has debated several resolutions about taking action in Syria. I has not mattered what the object of the resolutions was - humanitarian intervention, disarming chemical weapons, sending in troops, or a condemnation of the regime - all resolutions have been defeated by veto. Why? Those exercising the veto 'NO' vote effectively killed these resolutions. Their reasoning is about the important principle of sovereignty. If sovereignty of Syria is violated in this case, whatever the reason, it sets a president that makes it easier next time to again violate the sovereignty of another state. China and Russia are voting 'no' on these resolutions. They have serious concerns about the erosion of sovereignty - every State's right to conduct its own internal affairs in the way it sees fit, free from outside interference. China and Russia point to what happened in Libya. Security Council Resolution 1973 (2011) authorized the use of military intervention (with no soldiers to be deployed into Libya), in order to protect civilians from attacks by government forces. This was an exercise in the new principle of Responsibility to Protect (R2P), which will be explained in the next post. China and Russia decided to let this experiment in R2P go forward. They did not use their veto to vote 'no'. Instead they abstained, reserving judgement until they saw the consequences of the Resolution in action. The consequences? With the SC Resolution authorization NATO forces began to attack Libyan government forces that were attacking civilians in Benghazi. Benghazi is over 900 kilometers from the capital city of Tripoli. As days progressed the NATO forces evolved increasingly from defending civilians in Benghazi to supporting rebel fighters as they pressed their attacks against government forces. Very shortly the NATO mission seemed to morph from just defending civilians in Benghazi, to directly supporting the fight to topple the government, with NATO attacking military and government targets in Tripoli. By destroying government armor, aircraft, communications and infrastructure NATO directly assisted in the overthrow of Muammar al-Gaddafi and his government. Gaddafi was soon after found and killed. China and Russia argue that that outcome was an abuse of the Security Council Resolution, and of the principle of R2P. They felt tricked into allowing this resolution to pass in the SC. They will not let themselves be tricked again. When it comes not to Syria, China and Russia do agree that terrible things are happening. However, they strongly believe that absolute sovereignty is a principle too important to allow any more R2P-type resolutions to erode. Watch these clips related to the Syria and Libya cases.