Australian and Israeli Agreements for the Permanent Transfer of Refugees: Stretching Further the (Il)legality and (Im)morality of Western Externalization Policies
Australian and Israeli Agreements for the Permanent Transfer of Refugees: Stretching Further the (Il)legality and (Im)morality of Western Externalization Policies
复制标题
澳大利亚和以色列关于难民永久转移的协议：进一步扩大西方外化政策的（非法）合法性和（不道德）道德
DOI：
10.1093/ijrl/eey042
复制
发表时间：
2018
影响因子：
1.2
通讯作者：
Bar-Tuvia
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bar-Tuvia
这篇文章探讨了澳大利亚和以色列最近针对难民实施的一项前所未有的新政策，即将难民永久转移到欠发达和不太稳定的国家，以换取向这些接受国支付某种形式的款项。它认为，这些政策应该被视为完全西方化趋势的一部分，包括西方国家在过去20年里实施的各种政策，目的是减少一国领土上寻求庇护者的人数。澳大利亚和以色列的转移支付不仅分享了之前外部化政策的这一目标，还分享了它们的一些方法。尽管有这些相似之处，文章探讨了澳大利亚和以色列的转移与外部化先例的不同之处，特别是与安全的第三国转移的区别。讨论了两个主要区别。首先，这些不是为确定难民身份而进行的转移，而是对显然需要国际保护的人的永久转移。其次，接受国不是人们过境的‘过境国’。这两个不同意味着澳大利亚和以色列的政策延伸了之前外部化政策本已存在的合法性和道德性。有人争辩说，从法律上讲，即使移交不构成直接驱回，它们也构成了“建设性”驱回，显然使以色列违反了1951年《难民公约》第32条(禁止驱逐)，两国都违反了第3条(禁止歧视)，可能还违反了其他条款。还有人认为，由于几个重要的非法律原因，转移是不合情理的：它们影响弱势群体的福祉，它们没有正当理由(除了威慑)，它们是保密的，而且代价极其高昂，它们构成了将负担任意转移到较贫穷和不太稳定的国家的新水平。只要它们被视为既定的全西方外部化趋势的延续，它们的不合情理就应该促使人们从整体上审视这一趋势。
This article examines a new and unprecedented policy that has been recently implemented by Australia and Israel against refugees, namely their permanent transfer to less developed and less stable countries in return for some form of payment to these receiving countries. It argues that these policies should be seen as part of an all-Western ‘externalization’ trend, encompassing various policies that were implemented by Western countries over the past two decades with the goal of reducing the number of asylum seekers on a country’s territory. The Australian and Israeli transfers share not only this goal of previous externalization policies, but also some of their methods. Notwithstanding these similarities, the article explores how the Australian and Israeli transfers differ from the externalization precedents, and particularly from ‘Safe Third Country’ transfers. Two main distinctions are discussed. First, these are not transfers for the purpose of Refugee Status Determination, but rather permanent transfers of people with a clear need for international protection. Secondly, the receiving countries are not ‘transit’ countries through which people have crossed. These two differences mean that the Australian and Israeli policies stretch the already questionable legality and morality of previous externalization policies. It is argued that, legally, even if the transfers do not amount to direct refoulement, they constitute ‘constructive’ refoulement, clearly putting Israel in violation of article 32 of the 1951 Refugee Convention (prohibition on expulsion), and both countries in violation of article 3 (prohibition on discrimination), and potentially additional articles. It is further argued that the transfers are unconscionable for several important non-legal reasons: they affect the well-being of vulnerable people, they have no justification (apart from deterrence), they are confidential and extremely expensive, and they constitute a new level of arbitrary burden shifting to poorer and less stable countries. As long as they are seen as a continuation of an established all-Western externalization trend, their unconscionability should prompt scrutiny of the trend as a whole.