The Intersectionality of Domestic and Global Accountability: UNHCR and Australian Refugee Status Determination

Abstract

The negative consequences for domestic accountability of a State that fails to respect its international law obligations or undermines international institutions has the potential to be a powerful stimulus for administrative justice in the domestic context, as well as for global accountability. An example of a contested area of global accountability is the lack of independent review available for United Nations High Commissioner’s (UNHCR) refugee status determination (RSD) procedures. Using Australia’s own RSD as a case study, this paper will argue that Australia’s refugee policies have implicitly contributed to an acceptance of UNHCR’s comparatively limited RSD procedural standards as a valid part of the international refugee system. In particular, the way that Australian policy has contributed to the significant workload of UNHCR and has helped to concretise UNHCR’s RSD standards as ‘best practice’ in certain circumstances must be of concern. A material cause of UNHCR’s lack of accountability in its own RSD procedures is States’ tendency to prioritise self-interest over international obligations. Accordingly, any ‘solution’ that addresses UNHCR’s lack of accountability must be done so on both a global and domestic level. For Australia, acknowledging the negative impacts of its refugee policies on its legal, political and fiscal accountability may just provide an impetus for the rejection of its subversion of traditional administrative decision-making in a way that denies access to administrative justice to a select few. In turn, such an acknowledgment could contribute to the development of better procedural safeguards for RSD at the global level.