UNIT 4 AOS 1 REVISION Flashcards
International law relating to people movement (refugee convention 1951/67) AIMS:
The Refugee Convention defines refugees are people owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country
Aims:
- Non refoulement (article 33) – refugees cannot be sent back to a place where they might be persecuted
- Non expulsion (article 32) – refugees may not be arbitrarily expelled by a state
- Non penalization (article 31) - Refugees may sometimes need to enter a country without permission or with false documents prior to claiming asylum. States may not punish asylum seekers for entering its territory unconventionally
International law relating to people movement (refugee convention 1951/67) Power and enforcement mechanisms:
International monitoring:
- The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is the primary body responsible for overseeing the implementation of the Refugee Convention. It monitors compliance by states and provides guidance and assistance to ensure that refugees’ rights are upheld.
- The UNHCR conducts regular evaluations and produces reports on the status of refugees and the implementation of the Convention in different countries.
Diplomatic pressure:
- The UNHCR and other international organizations can exert diplomatic pressure on states to comply with the Convention. This can include formal communications, meetings, and public statements urging states to uphold their obligations
- Hungary faced significant criticism from various international human rights organizations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Diplomatic pressure from other EU member states and institutions called for Hungary to align its policies with international and EU standards
Economic sanctions:
- In extreme cases, the international community can impose economic sanctions on states that consistently violate their obligations under the Refugee Convention. While this is rare, it serves as a deterrent against non-compliance.
International law relating to people movement (refugee convention 1951/67) example of state following aims - Germany following Refugee convention aims
- Germany 2015 EU migrant crisis
- Non-Refoulement (Article 33): Germany adhered to the principle of non-refoulement by providing asylum and protection to Syrian refugees, ensuring they were not returned to Syria, where they would face persecution and danger due to the ongoing civil war
- Non-Expulsion (Article 32): Germany respected the rights of refugees from (Afghanistan, Syria and Iran) by not arbitrarily expelling them. The country provided legal avenues for asylum seekers to stay and seek protection while their claims were processed
- Non-Penalization (Article 31): Germany demonstrated adherence to non-penalization by not punishing refugees for irregular entry into the country. This included accepting those who arrived without proper documentation or through irregular means, acknowledging their need for protection and the often-dire circumstances they faced
International law relating to people movement (refugee convention 1951/67) example of state not following aims - Hungary’s breaching of Refugee convention aims
- Hungary in 2015 EU migrant crisis
- Non-Refoulement (Article 33):
Pushbacks and Border Closures: Hungary’s response included strict border control measures, such as the construction of a border fence and the use of physical force to prevent refugees from entering. Reports emerged of “pushbacks,” where refugees were forcibly returned to Serbia without proper asylum procedures, raising concerns about breaches of the non-refoulement principle - Non-Expulsion (Article 32):
- Arbitrary Detention: Hungary implemented policies that involved the detention of asylum seekers in transit zones along the border. Conditions in these detention facilities were criticized as inhumane, and the treatment of asylum seekers raised concerns about arbitrary detention and expulsion, potentially conflicting with international standards
- Non-Penalization (Article 31):
- Criminalization of Irregular Entry: Hungary’s approach to managing the refugee crisis included criminalizing irregular entry and the unlawful crossing of borders. Refugees who crossed the border irregularly faced legal penalties and were detained, which contravened the Convention’s aim of not penalizing asylum seekers for entering a country without permission in order to seek asylum.
Responses by relevant global actors (cosmopolitan) - Germany’s response to EU migrant crisis
Germany’s response to the EU migrant crisis (cosmopolitanism):
Details:
- “Germany is a country that puts the dignity of every single human being at the centre of things” – Angela Merkel (chancellor of regime)
- Merkel’s famous statement, “Wir schaffen das” (“We can do this”), signified Germany’s commitment to providing refuge to those fleeing conflict and persecution
- “Open door policy” – unrestricted number of asylum applications received by the state
- Over 800 000 asylum applications accepted with 60 percent of those claims being accepted
- Over 20 billion euros invested in support for these refugees – housing, education, employment, protection, security
- The Skilled Workers Immigration Act, which came into effect in March 2020, facilitated the entry of qualified professionals from non-EU countries, addressing labour shortages in various sectors such as healthcare and engineering.
Effectiveness:
- Cost of entire program and support cost 20 million euros
- Public support of the refugees fell by below 46% according to poll in 2016
- However, by 2016/17, anger among German voters surged over the influx of refugees, especially following extensive media coverage of crimes committed by asylum seekers. Notably, in 2016, a jihadist failed asylum seeker carried out an attack at the Berlin Christmas market. This event contributed to a rise in right-wing political presence and an increase in racial and political hate crimes, with refugees being targeted and left-wing politicians facing attacks.
Can be used for:
- Germany’s response (cosmopolitanism):
- An example of cosmopolitan response by global actor to the ethical issue
- An example of following international law (successful enforcement of both Refugee convention and Dublin Regulation)
- An example of obligation to strangers versus national interests, including border security (obligation to refugees)
- An example of differing approaches regarding refugee resettlement (cosmopolitanism)
- Rights of refugees versus economic migrants (cosmopolitanism)
Responses by relevant global actors (realist) - Hungary response to EU migrant crisis
Hungary’s response to the EU migrant crisis (realist):
Details:
- The mandatory resettlement quota challenged the state sovereignty of Hungary as it infringed the state’s right to border control and immigration policy
- “Muslim invaders” – President Victor Orban
- 106 million USD to erect 4m high, 110-mile-long anti-immigration border fencing along the southern regions of Hungary that meet Serbia and Croatia to hinder crossing
- Hungary averaged 2 refugees that found asylum within its nation per day during the crisis
- Challenged state security, economic stability, and caused cultural and religious clashing – fear of Muslims negatively impacting the predominant Christian demographic
- 98 percent of public votes in favour of obstructing refugee acceptance
Effectiveness:
- Despite significantly fewer refugees being accepted, the murder rates in Hungary continued to rise, from 2.26 per 100 000 to over 2.5 in 2017
- Despite doing all this to prevent the exacerbation of economic strife and increased terror, the economic stability and security indeed continued to deteriorate showing the ineffectiveness of their response
- The border walls built as a part of the initiative against asylum seekers cost an approximate 106 million USD
Can be used for:
- Hungary’s response (realist)
- An example of realist response by global actor to the ethical issue
- An example of not following international law (unsuccessful enforcement of both Refugee Convention and Dublin Regulation)
- An example of obligation to strangers versus national interest, including border security (national interests including border security)
- An example of differing approaches regarding refugee resettlement (realist)
Ethical debate (Obligations to asylum seekers and other refugees versus national interests including border security) (both realism and cosmopolitanism) - Australia’s refugee and economic migrant issue
Obligations to asylum seekers and other refugees versus national interests including border security – Australia’s Greens party and Liberal party
Details:
- Cosmopolitanism argues that Australia has moral and legal obligations to provide protection for refugees and asylum seekers based on our shared humanity, suggesting that resettlement aligns with national interests. This perspective emphasizes that resettling refugees can enhance Australia’s international standing and contribute positively to the economy after 5-10 years, supported by research from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. The Greens advocate for closing detention centres and increasing Australia’s refugee intake to 50,000 per year.
- Conversely, realism prioritizes national interests, asserting that ‘border protection’ is more critical than resettlement for asylum seekers arriving by boat. Realists view uncontrolled boat arrivals as a threat to security, a stance primarily represented by the Liberal Party, with the ALP’s policies closely aligned.
Can be used for:
- Obligations to asylum seekers and other refugees versus national interests including border security (realism and cosmopolitanism)
Ethical debate (rights of refugees vs economic migrants) (realism) - Australia’s Operation Sovereign Borders (OSB)
Operation Sovereign Borders (OSB) Australian Migration Policy – (2013 – Present) (realist):
Details:
- In 2013, the Abbott government campaigned on a ‘Stop the Boats’ platform, leading to the implementation of Operation Sovereign Borders (OSB) in September 2013. This initiative enforced a zero-tolerance policy for unauthorized boat arrivals, stating that anyone attempting to reach Australia by boat would be turned back, sent to their home country, or transferred to a third country for processing. The Australian Customs Service was renamed the ‘Australian Border Force’ to emphasize a militarized approach to border protection.
- The Border Force Act made it a criminal offense, punishable by up to two years in prison, to disclose information about offshore detention centres in Nauru and Papua New Guinea (PNG). Additionally, a 2016 amendment to the Migration Act prevented asylum seekers arriving by boat from ever obtaining a visa to enter Australia, regardless of whether they found asylum elsewhere.
- While there were 20,587 boat arrivals in 2013, there were none from 2014 to 2023. Under Australian law, entering without authorization to seek asylum is not a crime, and Article 31 of the Refugee Convention states that refugees should not be penalized for arriving without travel documents. However, a March 2015 UN report found that Australia’s treatment of asylum seekers violated the UN Convention Against Torture due to indefinite detention on Manus Island and Nauru, harsh conditions in detention centres, frequent violence, and a failure to protect vulnerable individuals.
Economic migrants:
- Emphasizing the entry of economic migrants based on the nation’s needs. The government implements a points-based immigration system that assesses economic migrants on criteria such as skills, work experience, and language proficiency. This system aims to attract individuals who can contribute economically to the country
Refugees:
- Australia’s approach to refugees includes strict border protection measures, such as the offshore processing of asylum seekers. Refugees arriving by boat are often sent to detention centres on Nauru and Manus Island, regardless of their skills or qualifications or deported completely
Can be used for:
- Rights of refugees versus economic migrant (realist primarily)
International law relating to arms control (1968 Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT))
AIMS:
Aims of NPT
- Non-proliferation (article I and II): Prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology – states are divided into nuclear weapon states (NWS) and non-nuclear weapon states (NNWS) and this aim seeks to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons from NWS to NNWS. Conversely, the aim also works to prevent NNWS from agreeing to receive, manufacture, or acquire nuclear weapons
- Peaceful use of nuclear energy (article IV): Promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy
- Disarmament (article VI): Further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament
International law relating to arms control (1968 Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT))
Enforcement mechanisms:
Force and enforcement mechanisms:
International monitoring and verification:
- The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) plays a crucial role in monitoring and verifying compliance with the NPT. It conducts inspections and audits of nuclear facilities in non-nuclear-weapon states (NNWS) to ensure that nuclear materials are not diverted to weapon programs.
- The IAEA uses safeguards agreements, which require states to declare their nuclear activities and materials and permits the agency to inspect and verify the accuracy of these declarations.
Safeguard agreement and protocols:
- Under the NPT, NNWS are required to conclude Comprehensive Safeguard Agreements (CSA) with the IAEA. These agreements allow the IAEA to monitor nuclear activities and ensure that nuclear materials are used only for peaceful purposes.
Diplomatic and political pressure:
- NPT Review Conferences, held every five years, provide a platform for states to assess the implementation of the treaty, address compliance issues, and discuss steps to strengthen the NPT regime. These conferences exert diplomatic pressure on states to comply with their obligations.
Sanctions and penalties:
- States that violate the NPT or fail to comply with IAEA safeguards can face economic and diplomatic sanctions. These sanctions can be imposed unilaterally by states or multilaterally through the UNSC, targeting the offending state’s economy, leadership, and specific sectors. (Iran’s breaching of nuclear regulations leading to sanctions that tanked the nations GDP by 7.6 % in 2019)
Effectiveness:
- The high compliance rate with the NPT underscores the effectiveness of arms control measures when backed by strong verification mechanisms and international support. States adhere to the NPT because it aligns with their national interests as avoiding the proliferation of nuclear weapons enhances national security and reduces the risk of these weapons being used against them. The implementation of the NPT can also be seen as a way for powerful states to maintain control over nuclear weapons and prevent weaker states from developing them, thus preserving the status quo in international power relations
Successful achievement of NPT aim
Successes
1. Non-Proliferation: The NPT has successfully prevented the widespread proliferation of nuclear weapons. Since its inception in 1970, the number of nuclear-armed states has remained relatively low, with only a few countries joining the nuclear club outside the five recognized nuclear-weapon states (NWS) – the U.S., Russia, China, France, and the UK.
- Verification and Compliance: The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) plays a crucial role in monitoring compliance through inspections and safeguards. This has enhanced transparency and confidence among states, contributing to international security.
- Disarmament Efforts: Although progress has been slow, the NPT has provided a framework for disarmament dialogues and treaties, such as the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) between the U.S. and Russia. These agreements have led to significant reductions in the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads.
Unsuccessful achievement of NPT aims
Challenges
1. Inequity Between NWS and NNWS: One of the primary criticisms of the NPT is the perceived inequality between nuclear-weapon states (NWS) and non-nuclear-weapon states (NNWS). While NNWS are prohibited from acquiring nuclear weapons, NWS are only obligated to pursue disarmament in good faith. This has led to frustration among NNWS, who see a lack of concrete disarmament steps by NWS.
- Non-Compliance and Enforcement Issues: Cases like North Korea, which withdrew from the NPT in 2003 and developed nuclear weapons, highlight enforcement challenges. Iran’s controversial nuclear program has also tested the treaty’s robustness, despite the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreement in 2015 aimed at ensuring its peaceful nature.
- Limited Scope of Disarmament: While the NPT calls for disarmament, progress has been limited and uneven. The treaty does not provide a specific timeline or enforcement mechanism for disarmament, relying on voluntary compliance and political will, which has often been lacking.
Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) 2015
Can be used for:
- Successful enforcement of NPT
- Ethical debate of international security versus state security (cosmopolitan response) (international security)
- Ethical debate of arms control versus disarmament (cosmopolitan response) (disarmament)
Details:
- Iran nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) established in 2015 between Iran and the P5+1 (permanent members of the UN security council plus Germany, along with the EU)
- This deal aimed to ensure that Iran’s nuclear program would be exclusively peaceful in exchange for lifting economic sanctions
- Non- proliferation: Iran agreed to limit its nuclear activities, including reducing the stockpile of enriched uranium, further allowing extensive monitoring and inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). These measures effectively prevented Iran from developing and distributing nuclear weapons and aligned with the aims and objectives of the NPT. This increased transparency and helped build international confidence in the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program
- The response displays the cosmopolitan side of the debate where international security and peace is prioritised with global actors working in cooperation to generate common goals and outcomes to meet the challenges presented to the international community
North Korea’s nuclear program (2010-)
Can be used for:
unsuccessful enforcement of NPT
Details:
- North Korea initially joined the NPT in 1985 but withdrew in 2003. Since then, it has conducted multiple nuclear tests and developed its nuclear weapons capabilities, despite international sanctions and diplomatic efforts to curb its program
- Proliferation: the withdrawal of North Korea from the NPT revealed a key weakness of the NPT, which included member states being able to legally exit the treaty, undermining the non-proliferation regime
- Despite being a former member of the NPT, North Korea’s continued nuclear tests and development of nuclear weapons pose a significant proliferation challenge, demonstrating the limits of the NPT’s ability to prevent nuclear weapons development by determined states who are persistent in achieving its aims, even if it means going against international agreements or facing consequences like sanctions
