Australia's approach to addressing the global refugee crisis has been a topic of much debate and scrutiny, with many arguing that the country's current policies do not fully uphold their international obligations under key human rights treaties and conventions. One of the key legal viewpoints in support of this argument is that Australia is signatory to various international treaties and conventions that outline the rights and protections of refugees, including the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol. These instruments place legal obligations on Australia to protect the rights of refugees, including the right to seek asylum and protection from persecution.
Furthermore, under international law, Australia has a duty to ensure that their policies and practices do not violate the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits the return of refugees to countries where they may face persecution or harm. However, Australia's offshore processing and detention policies have been criticized for failing to adequately protect refugees and asylum seekers, and for exposing them to unsafe and inhumane conditions.
Opposing viewpoints may argue that Australia has the right to control its borders and manage the flow of asylum seekers entering the country. They may argue that the country's current approach, including offshore processing and mandatory detention, is necessary for national security and to deter people from making dangerous journeys by sea.
Key stakeholders in this debate include refugees and asylum seekers themselves, who are directly impacted by Australia's policies, as well as advocacy organizations, legal experts, and the broader international community. These stakeholders play a crucial role in holding Australia accountable to its international obligations and advocating for more humane and rights-based policies towards refugees.
This is the argumentative essay but it is not to emotive To what extent does Australia’s current approach to addressing the global refugee crisis uphold their international obligations under key human rights treaties and conventions? give me some legal viewpoints either for or opposing
mentioning main stakholders
1 answer