Global Law

It has been assessed that many refugees have been entered in Australia illegally, but the Australian government has not been responding to their immigration policies. According to the 1951 Refugee Convention, the refugees should not be forced to other nations, where they have faced serious threats and problems. Therefore, it has become an international law for all countries so that all countries can support the refugees for protecting the refugees for their reimbursement. However, the Australian government has reduced the implementation and obligation of this international law for protecting the refugees. The overall discussion of this study has been stated the reason behind the negligence of this law by Australian states. Along with this, it has been stated the reason behind their self-interest and moral factors.

The refugee convention has been taken place during 28 July 1951 with the support of United Nations for protecting the European refugees, who have been suffered from World War II. This international law has become liable and binding for all nations for protecting the European refugees. As a result, the number of refugees has been an increase in huge number and several Australia has been faced economic problem for protecting the refugees. Along with this, the Article 33 has stated that the refugees should not be sent to their nation, where they have been faced threats and problems. In this case, the national government is liable to help them for making them migrant for that nation (Refugeecouncil.org.au, 2016).

In the words of Phillips and Spinks (2013, p.79), the public international law has been cleared the nationalised government should take care of their civilians and should mitigate all issues for their risk-free lives. In this case, all possibilities will need to be provided to the civilians for their better lives. In opposed to that Fozdar and Hartley (2013, p.161), commented and cleared that due to changing issues during post world war II, the nations have been faced several economic problems. However, due to international law obligation, the nations were able to maintain the law. In this case, the Australian government has been started to protect the refugees and helped them for their refurbishment, but that was for short-term only. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has been served their protocol to all nations for co-operating with them for saving and protecting the refugees for their lives' reimbursement.

From the viewpoint of Vrachnas et al. (2011, p.110), the illegal refuge interference in Australia has been increased and that has been reduced the economic development and GDP improvement. That is the reason in the context of when the Australian government has been taken the step in opposite to the international law of 1951 Refugee Convention.  On the other hand, the Public International Law has stated for helping the national level civilians and fulfils their needs. Therefore, necessary development activities will need to be taken place by national level governments. However, the post stage of Second World War has been fragile the lives of many Europeans.

Therefore, the United Nations has been passed the Refugee Convention. Along with this, the Refugee Convention of 1951 has stated few rights for the refugees and their lives. For example: freedom of religion, right to work for survival, right to education, right to have equal medical treatment etcetera. That means all legal rights for the civilians of a nation have been allocated for the refugees also for supporting towards the refurbishment of their lives. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has also been contributed their efforts for refugee convention (Refugeecouncil.org.au, 2016).

However, it has become an issue towards the development of national economic development and scarcity of commodity and supply. Moreover, it has increased the national level demand, because the refugees were not able to work or contribute their effort for work or education of national economic development of their hostage nations. Therefore, for a time instance, the national government would need to take care of them for their regain and need to provide monetary support also so that they can start their earning activities (Nethery et al. 2013, p.103). However, Correa-Velez et al. (2012, p.114) stated that the refugee convention law of 1951 has become a serious issue for economic development and national infrastructure development for Australia. Therefore, the Australian government has been stopped the immigration process for the refugees as the population of refugees has largely increased. 

All the discussed scenarios have been taken place by the Australian government for refugee convention and due to changing the economic background of the nation, the government has been changed their policies to stop immigration for the refugees. Along with this, the Australian government is not authorised to take out the refugees from the country. Therefore, they are liable to keep them, but no immigration policy has been authorised for their permanent residence. According to Nethery and Gordyn (2014, p.189), in some cases, it has been evaluated that the incomer refugees have been involved in illegal activities like smuggling etcetera. In Asian countries, such kind of activities has been measured and many of the activists have been sentenced to imprisonment for years for doing such kind of illegal activities. Therefore, few nations have been banned the immigration policy for a foreigner or staying without any legal permission.

All of the relevant issues of refugee convention have been discussed with proper justification. That means it has been cleared that the 1951 refugee convention law has become profitable for homeless refugees and has been raised problems for the nations. Therefore, the Australian government has been denied for running the global law of refugee convention. Several reports have been stated that the global law of refugee convention and cooperation of United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has been mitigated the issue of shelter for the victim of World War II. The step of refugee convention was necessary at the beginning because it was necessary to rebuild the economic infrastructure of a European nation and place the Europeans in other nations. Nevertheless, this policy will need to be kept on hold after refurbishment.

As per the statement of Newman et al. (2013, p.317), the Australian government has been signed-in the refugee convention on 22 January of 1954. Therefore, the country has become bound to give shelter the refugees and provide necessary commodities for their survival. Along with this, the Australian government has been provided with all public rights of the refugees. In the contrary, Fox (2010, p.391) has stated that for settlement of post-World War II contribution from all nations was necessary. In this context, where several nations have been signed the global policy for refugee convention, there was not a serious region for Australian government for not signing-in. Therefore, this issue has been aroused. However, this policy would need to be on hold, when all issues have been mitigated but that has not been done by UN and United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). 

On the other hand, several jeopardise situations have been taken place in Australia due to the refugee convention law. Australian governmental justice has been sentenced several foreigner refugees for imprisonment for their illegal activities within the Australian nation. That has become a serious issue for the Australian government, which has laid down Australian policies for maintaining social values within the nation. That was not just the problem for Australia; it has been faced by several nations. Therefore, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has been decided to stop more than 700,000 asylum applications in 2012 worldwide. On the other hand, the Australian government has been faced scarcity issues due to increased of refugees, which has been increased the population. Along with this, a new national budget has been framed for refurbishment and World Bank has also supported for providing financial supports for their survival. That means debt issues also has been aroused for Australian government (Lowyinstitute.org, 2016).

Those were the reasons behind the stopping the refugee convention by the Australian government. All the national issues and self-interest issues have been incorporated by the Australian government. In this regard, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has been supported to stop the illegal interference and migration of refugees worldwide.

Throughout the study, several issues have been considered in the context of which has been taken place in Australia. A common issue, which has aroused is about illegal interference and illegal activities within hostage nations. The increasing crime level in nations also affects the local civilians. Therefore, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has been passed the order to stop migration for around 700,000 refugees worldwide. This study has been incorporating the reason behind failure of refugee convention in Australia and it has been justified that the reasons are valid for stopping the policy by the Australian government. All of the relevant issues of refugee convention have been discussed with proper justification.

That means it has been cleared that the 1951 refugee convention law has become profitable for homeless refugees and has been raised problems for the nations. Therefore, the Australian government has been denied for running the global law of refugee convention.

Aph.gov.au(2016),www.aph.gov.au,Available from: https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp0001/01RP05 [Accessed on 22 Aug 2016]

Betts, A. and Loescher, G., (2011). Refugees in international relations. Oxford University Press.

Correa-Velez, I., Spaaij, R. and Upham, S., (2012). ‘We are not here to claim better services than any other’: social exclusion among men from refugee backgrounds in urban and regional Australia. Journal of Refugee Studies, pp. 89-128

Fox, P.D., (2010). International Asylum and Boat People: The Tampa Affair and Australia's Pacific Solution. Md. J. Int'l L., 25, p.356-481

Fozdar, F. and Hartley, L., (2013). Refugee resettlement in Australia: What we know and need to know. Refugee Survey Quarterly, pp. 118-182

Lowyinstitute.org (2016), www.lowyinstitute.org, Available from: https://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/australia-and-1951-refugee-convention [Accessed on 22 Aug 2016]

Nethery, A. and Gordyn, C., (2014). Australia–Indonesia cooperation on asylum-seekers: a case of ‘incentivised policy transfer’. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 68(2), pp.177-193.

Nethery, A., Rafferty-Brown, B. and Taylor, S., (2013). Exporting detention: Australia-funded immigration detention in Indonesia. Journal of Refugee Studies, 26(1), pp.88-109.

Newman, L., Proctor, N. and Dudley, M., (2013). Seeking asylum in Australia: immigration detention, human rights and mental health care. Australasian Psychiatry, 21(4), pp.315-320.

Pastore, A., (2012). Why Judges Should Not Make Refugee Law: Australia's Malaysia Solution and the Refugee Convention. Chi. J. Int'l L., 13, pp.615-712

Phillips, J. and Spinks, H., (2013). Boat arrivals in Australia since 1976. Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Parliamentary Library: Australian Government.

Refugeecouncil.org.au (2016), www.refugeecouncil.org.au, Available from: https://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/getfacts/international/internationalsystem/the-refugee-convention/ [Accessed on 22 Aug 2016]

Robinson, K., (2013). Voices from the front line: Social work with refugees and asylum seekers in Australia and the UK. British Journal of Social Work, pp.40-88

Unhcr.org (2016), www.unhcr.org, Available from: https://www.unhcr.org/uk/1951-refugee-convention.html [Accessed on 22 Aug 2016]

Vrachnas, J., Bagaric, M., Dimopoulos, P. and Pathinayake, A., (2011). Migration and refugee law: Principles and practice in Australia. Cambridge University Press.