Abstract
This article examines offshore processing arrangements of four different time-periods and geo-political regions—the Safe Havens of the United States with Jamaica and the Turks and Caicos Islands; the 2001 and 2012 Pacific Solutions of Australia with Nauru and Papua New Guinea; and the EU–Turkey deal. In examining these arrangements, the article attempts to ascertain whether each of these arrangements had an impact on the ratification of refugee and human rights-related treaties by the states receiving the asylum seekers and refugees for processing and/or settlement. It does so by first assessing the contents of the offshore processing agreements for refugee and human rights clauses and obligations. The article then looks at the general patterns of treaty ratification of each receiving state, prior to its entering into offshore processing arrangements. After the general patterns of treaty ratifications of each state are established, the article goes on to investigate whether offshore processing arrangements had any effect on these patterns. This is based on the analysis of the contents of the agreements, together with an examination of the timing of the refugee and human rights treaty ratifications of the receiving state, at the time of the arrangements. The article finds that the effect, although minimal, is quite nuanced.
Highlights
Wealthy developed states are engaging in international deterrence policies to stem the inflow of asylum seekers
In looking back at the research question, it appears that the effect of refugee offshore processing arrangements on the refugee and human rights treaty ratification of a country receiving asylum seekers for processing and/or settlement, while minimal, can be identified under certain conditions and is nuanced
The general conclusion to be drawn from the above analysis of the four case studies—US Safe Havens, 2001 Pacific Solution, 2012 Pacific Solution and EU–Turkey deal—is that offshore processing arrangements do not affect the asylum systems of the receiving states as they relate to the ratification of the core human rights treaties
Summary
Wealthy developed states are engaging in international deterrence policies to stem the inflow of asylum seekers. Research that focuses on the effect of offshore processing arrangements on the rights of refugees does look at the asylum systems of the receiving states (see, for example, Koh 1994; Francis 2008; Gleeson 2016; Van Liempt et al 2017).. The research question of this article is : How do refugee offshore processing arrangements effect the refugee and human rights treaty ratifications of a country receiving asylum seekers for processing and/or settlement?. In analysing the case studies, the article first examines the contents of the offshore processing agreements (where they are publicly available) This analysis investigates what international, refugee and human rights requirements were incorporated in the agreements for the receiving countries to adhere to (Section 2). The article briefly looks at the ratification by receiving states of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (Organized Crime Convention) (UNGA 2000c) and its three supplementing Protocols (UNGA 2000d; UNGA 2000e; UNGA 2001), and in particular, the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air (Smuggling Protocol) (UNGA 2000e)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
