Sovereignty, Protection and the Limits to Regional Refugee Status Determination Arrangements

• Author: Sara Dehm
• Position: PhD Candidate at the Institute for International Law and the Humanities, Melbourne Law School; BA, LL.B. (honours), University of Melbourne
• Pages: 53-60

Sovereignty, Protection and the Limits to Regional Refugee Status

Determination Arrangements

Plainti M70/2011 v Minister of Immigration and Citizenship [2011] HCA 32; Plainti M106 of 2011 by his

litigation Guardian, Plainti M70/2011 v Minister of Immigration and Citizenship [2011] HCA 32

Sara Dehm

53

Merkourios 2012 – Volume 28/Issue 75, Case Note, pp. 53-60.

URN:NBN:NL:UI: 10-1-112857

ISSN: 0927-460X

URL: www.merkourios.org

Publisher: Igitur, Utrecht Publishing & Archiving Services

Copyright: this work has been licensed by the Creative Commons Attribution License (3.0)

Keywords

Refugee Law, Safe ird Country, Regional Processing, Sovereignty, Australian High Court, Malaysia Solution, Hierarchy

of Mobility

Abstract

is case note explores the recent Australian High Court decision of Plainti M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and

Citizenship, which declared a proposed regional refugee status determination arrangement between Australia and Malaysia

to be unlawful under Australian law. While the decision was determined by the specic statutory construction of Australian’s

migration legislation, it nonetheless draws attention to the legal character of what constitutes ‘protection’ under international

refugee law and suggests the necessary legal and factual conditions that must exist in a ‘third country’ in order for any transfer

of refugee processing and recognition procedures to be seen to satisfy Convention obligations. It thus represents a signicant

judicial challenge to the contemporary trend pursued by wealthy industrialised nations in the Global North towards erecting

barriers for accessing domestic asylum regimes and adopting policies that in eect outsource and extraterritorialise asylum

processing under the guise of ‘burden sharing’ or regional ‘harmonisation’. is case note reads the decision as a particular

re-articulation of sovereign authority, borders, belonging and place-making.

Author Aliations

PhD Candidate at the Institute for International Law and the Humanities, Melbourne Law School; BA, LL.B. (honours),

University of Melbourne.

Case Note

Case Note

Merkourios - International and European Migration Law - Vol. 28/75