Australia’s harsh asylum policies are touted as a potential way to Europe’s so-called refugee catastrophe. However there are a couple reasons Europe ought to be careful of following this guide.
Australia’s practice of turning back ships and overseas processing have drawn the most attention. When Australia can not safely return a ship, it transports the asylum seekers on board into another state (Nauru and, until lately, Papua New Guinea), in which their asylum claims are evaluated. Refugees are warehoused in these places without a possibility of settling in Australia.
While turn backs and overseas processing have been called the Australian version, these policies have their roots in the USA. Australia directly drew to the US case when creating its present border control policies. Now Europe is after Australia.
There have been a lot of proposals lately for establishing overseas processing camps in countries neighbouring the EU.
There is also a recent push to prepare camps farther afield in transit nations including Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Chad and Sudan. While none of those initiatives has been executed, the EU-Turkey deal in force since 2016, could be regarded as a sort of overseas processing.
Under the deal, Turkey takes the recurrence of certain asylum seekers out of Greece. The strategy is reminiscent of the unsuccessful Malaysian Option under which Malaysia was going to take 800 asylum seekers trying to reach Australia by ship, in return for Australia resettling 4,000 UNHCR-recognised refugees from camps in Malaysia.
The arrangement has been struck by the Australian High Court before it may be put into place.
Italy returned migrant ships to Libya in 2009, with no screening for asylum claims. These activities were shown to be criminal in a 2012 conclusion by the European Court of Human Rights.
To go around this judgment, there were efforts to outsource the responsibility for quitting ships to Europe’s neighbours.
This includes financing the Libyan coastguard to permeate migrant boats until they leave Libyan waters.
Hazards Of This ‘Australian Model’
Europe should carefully consider the dangers of moving down the Australian route. As the conclusion of the European Court of Human Rights on turn backs shows, Europe has considerably more powerful human rights protections compared to Australia.
The checks and balances which exist in Europe may frustrate attempts to proceed farther towards the Australian version.
Along with also the dark side of Australia’s border management policies is well-documented.
They’ve imposed devastating physical and mental harm on asylum seekers, also generated endemic social issues from the communities of Nauru and Manus Island that have hosted Australia’s offshore camps.
It has come at an exorbitant fiscal cost to the Australian taxpayer.
Australia’s asylum policies are convicted by the UN as breaking international law. If European nations were to follow suit, it could greatly undermine global refugee protection.
The threat is that we’ll see a race towards the floor, as nations compete to discourage asylum seekers.
This aggressive approach produces a vicious cycle where governments try to outdo each other by executing increasingly more restrictive policies.
When inventing asylum policies, authorities weigh their validity in deterring undesirable immigration against the worth of abiding by their obligations under international law. As more nations elect for deterrence more security, this puts pressure on other nations to do the same.
This situation has and will continue to have a catastrophic effect on the power of these in danger to achieve safety.
Their efficacy in the actual world is formed by the activities of countries. Implementing global law demands leadership it requires countries to lead by example to convince other nations to protect refugees.
This job has traditionally been completed by rich liberal democraciesthat have experienced the legitimacy and resources necessary for the endeavor.
The brutal policies introduced in the united states and Australia imply these countries now lack the credibility to have this leadership function. All eyes are currently on European nations.
If Europe goes down precisely the exact same route as the united states and Australia, it is going to be inflicting a mortal wound on the international rule of asylum and the global refugee protection program more widely.