Abstract
ABSTRACT This article finds application of the well-established principle known generally as the presumption of consistency, which provides that, as far as its language permits, legislation should be interpreted and applied consistently with the comity of nations or with established rules of international law, fundamentally shifted after Justice Kiefel was appointed Chief Justice in 2017. As this article demonstrates, the ‘domestic contextual approach’ propounded by the Kiefel Court to construe complementary protection provisions engaging Australia's non-refoulement obligations under various international human rights instruments derogates from the orthodox approach for construing Australia's protection obligations and perpetuates an unedifying legacy of exceptionalism and isolation from human rights jurisprudence.
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 callSimilar Papers
Disclaimer: 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.
