Suchergebnisse

Introduction -- Political and historical background -- Authority for the exercise of jurisdiction under the United States' municipal law and the international law of the sea -- United States' obligations under international human rights and refugee law -- Status determinations in international waters and in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba -- Detention and related issues in Guantánamo Bay -- Conclusion.

Abstract
Austria and Italy have recently proposed that processing the protection claims of asylum seekers attempting to cross the Mediterranean should take place aboard government vessels at sea. Shipboard processing of asylum claims is not a novel idea. The policy has been used for many years by the governments of the United States and Australia. This article examines the relevant international law, as well as State practice and domestic jurisprudence in the United States and Australia, to explore whether shipboard processing complies with international refugee and human rights law. It concludes that, while it may be theoretically possible for shipboard processing to comply with international law, there are significant practical impediments to carrying out shipboard processing in a manner that is compliant with the international obligations of States. Current practices in the United States and Australia fall short of what is required. Nor is there any indication that the Austrian/Italian proposal would contain the required safeguards. It is argued that this is by design. The appeal of shipboard processing for governments is that it allows them to dispense with the safeguards that asylum seekers would be entitled to if processed on land. Best practice is for all persons interdicted or rescued at sea to be transferred to a location on land where they have access to effective status determination procedures and are protected from refoulement and unlawful detention.

Abstract
This article provides an analysis of cooperative non-entrée policies in Australia and Italy. Through their funding, training and interception activities, Australia and Italy have aided and assisted Indonesia and Libya, respectively, in the commission of a number of internationally wrongful acts against refugees and migrants. These wrongful acts include refoulement; arbitrary detention; violations of the right to life; cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment; and violations of the right to leave. These human rights violations benefit Australia and Italy by preventing refugees and migrants from entering Australian and Italian territory. They are extensively reported and widely known. Neither Australia nor Italy can claim ignorance of the circumstances of these acts. In the light of this analysis, it is argued that, under Article 16 of the Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Australia and Italy are therefore responsible for their complicity in human rights violations in Indonesia and Libya, respectively.