The Spaces In Between

American and Australian Interdiction Policies and Their Implications for the Refugee Protection Regime

Bibliographic Data

ID11404195
AuthorsJessica C Morris (corresponding author)
Year2003
Pages51-62
Publication date2003-12-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueRefuge Canada s Journal on Refuge (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0229-5113 • E-ISSN: 1920-7336
PublisherYork University Libraries (PUBLISHER • CA)
DOI10.25071/1920-7336.21308
OpenAlexW1545959703
LanguageEN
Citations received6
References cited7

Interdiction policies by countries such as the U.S. and Australia are embedded in these states’ perception of their obligations to asylum seekers as strictly territorially bound. With the aim of limiting asylum seekers access to protection mechanisms, these policies are carried out in an arena firmly within the reach of executive-driven actions yet beyond the purview of constitutional or judicial safeguards. In the case of the U.S., the long-standing Haitian interdiction policy illustrates the manipulation of this protection gap, and, in Australia, the administration’s reaction to the Tampa incident in 2001 and the subsequent policy developments provide further illustration. The autonomy with which states carry out such policies poses a significant threat to the refugee protection regime, especially the international norm of non-refoulement

Autonomy · Comprehensive Plan of Action · Diplomacy · Interdiction · Law and economics · Limiting · Norm (philosophy · Political economy · Political science · Politics · Refugee · Sociology · Engineering · European Criminal Justice and Data Protection · Law · Migration, Health and Trauma · Migration, Refugees, and Integration · Public Administration

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access