Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Refugees - we’d like to help, but …

By Guy Goodwin-Gill - posted Friday, 3 February 2006


Australia’s high refugee intake was sustainable because it secured the labour essential for the development of the nation’s resources, basic industries and services, and reduced the pressure that would otherwise have affected metropolitan areas.

The refugee migrant, in turn, also benefited. The government undertook to find work, ensured paid labour from day one, prevented exploitation, and provided an opportunity for familiarisation and assimilation.

Many of Australia’s concerns at the 1951 Conference of Plenipotentiaries, and many of its 10 or so formally proposed amendments, reflected its concern that these programs, including directed labour schemes, might fall foul of the Convention’s non-discrimination provisions.

Advertisement

From the start of the Conference, Australia emphasised that, as a country of immigration, its approach to the refugee problem differed from that of other states.

Though it might not be of direct interest to Australia - since it did not confer any benefits on refugee migrants that were not already provided by Australian legislation - the government nevertheless supported the idea of a convention designed to secure clear rights for refugees and a proper definition of their status in the new country.

It was essential, however, that Australia’s policy and practice on resettlement and directed employment should be recognised, lest they be considered incompatible with the Convention.

Just as in 1933, it was not long before someone mentioned how different and difficult it was for those countries which had no choice but to admit refugees without prior examination.

Even Canada, which operated a similar scheme to Australia’s, did not want the particular concerns of an immigration country to water down the Convention. Others pointed out that discrimination in favour of refugees was precisely what the Convention was about.

The fact is the other participating states were singularly unconcerned with the issue of principle, and none of Australia’s proposed amendments were accepted, notwithstanding dire warnings of non-ratification.

Advertisement

As the Conference wound its way to a close, Australia’s representative recalled that the purpose of the Convention was not so much to prescribe mutual obligations between states as to accord certain rights to refugees.

Hence, the goal should be to ensure that as many states as possible were able to implement its provisions; and indeed, it was with Australia’s ratification in April 1954 that the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees entered into force.

These two moments in history are revealing, for they show a common understanding of just who the refugee is, and of the inherently international character of the refugee phenomenon.

They reveal recognition of the constancy of refugee movements, rather than their temporariness. They disclose acceptance of the need for refugees to be protected, and eventual acceptance of the necessity for international obligations - most readily in regard to standards of treatment, but also in the matter of basic principles, such as non-return.

Above all, these two moments confirm the continuous impact of “sovereign self-interest” in international negotiations, but also how it may and must be moderated in the mutual relations of states - by their recognition of the need to cooperate in facing up to forced displacement and related humanitarian problems.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. All

Article edited by Allan Sharp.
If you'd like to be a volunteer editor too, click here.

This article is an edited and abridged version of the first of three lectures on international refugee protection given by Dr Goodwin-Gill in Australia in 2005 for the Kenneth Rivett Orations.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

33 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Dr Guy S. Goodwin-Gill is currently a Senior Research Fellow at All Souls College at the University of Oxford. He was previously the Professor of International Refugee Law at Oxford, the Professor of Asylum Law at the University of Amsterdam, and worked for over a decade for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Guy Goodwin-Gill
Related Links
Refugee Council of Australia

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Guy Goodwin-Gill
Article Tools
Comment 33 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy