Browsing by Author "Sawyer, Caroline"
Now showing 1 - 16 of 16
- Results Per Page
- Sort Options
Item Restricted Australia's guestworkers? A discussion of the rights of New Zealand citizens to enter, reside and work in Australia(Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington, 2014-01-01) Oldfield, Yvonne; Sawyer, CarolineNew Zealanders and Australians have enjoyed free movement across the Tasman since early European settlement of both countries. They have been able to live and work in either country for indeterminate periods, and up until recently, enjoyed many of the same benefits as permanents residents of their respective countries. However from 2001 the Australian government has cut back the entitlements of New Zealanders in Australia to welfare and other benefits. This paper explores the legal position of New Zealanders in Australia and the reasons behind the Australian government’s moves. It will argue that New Zealanders who do not meet the usual permanent residence criteria are effectively being used as temporary migrant labour in Australia. Even where they make Australia their long-term home they have no access to an alternative path to residence and citizenship. Excluded from the franchise, they are in a position of “civic marginalization” in which they have no direct influence over policies such as the 2001 changes to social welfare. The paper will conclude by considering briefly whether a human rights approach could provide a mechanism for these “Ozkiwis” to address differential treatment that has arisen as a result of their civic marginalisation.Item Restricted Comparing European Union and Dutch asylum law procedures: Balancing efficiency and substantive examination in asylum applications(Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington, 2014-01-01) Griemink, Marleen; Sawyer, CarolineUnder international law refugee status is granted to those who fall within the definition of a refugee under the Refugee Convention 1951.¹ The Convention, however, does not implement any mechanisms which directly implement its principles. It is therefore up to the State to ensure that refugee rights are implemented directly. James Hathaway suggests two mechanisms to implement the Convention, namely solution-oriented temporary protection and shared responsibility among states, in order to safeguard practical access to meaningful asylum, but acknowledging that any system must take into account the self-interests of states and so must establish effective control systems and to minimize risks.² Although discussion on such proposals is beyond the ambit of this work, it is important as it shows that in the absence of any implementing or remedial mechanisms under the Convention, it is important to have a system which effectively balances the access to asylum with the interests of the State in keeping the risks and numbers of asylum seekers low.Item Restricted LAWS301: Law: Property Law(Victoria University of Wellington, 2011) Sawyer, CarolineItem Restricted LAWS301: Law: Property Law(Victoria University of Wellington, 2014) Sawyer, CarolineItem Restricted LAWS301: Law: Property Law(Victoria University of Wellington, 2013) Sawyer, CarolineItem Restricted LAWS301: Law: Property Law(Victoria University of Wellington, 2012) Sawyer, CarolineItem Restricted LAWS334: Law: Ethics and the Law(Victoria University of Wellington, 2011) Sawyer, CarolineItem Restricted LAWS334: Law: Ethics and the Law(Victoria University of Wellington, 2011) Sawyer, CarolineItem Restricted LAWS334: Law: Ethics and the Law(Victoria University of Wellington, 2013) Sawyer, Caroline; Forrester, GaryItem Restricted LAWS339: Law: Nationality, Immigration and Asylum(Victoria University of Wellington, 2013) Sawyer, CarolineItem Restricted LAWS362: Law: Insolvency Law(Victoria University of Wellington, 2014) Sawyer, CarolineItem Restricted LAWS362: Law: Insolvency Law(Victoria University of Wellington, 2013) Sawyer, CarolineItem Restricted LAWS397: Law: Special Topic: Immigration and Asylum(Victoria University of Wellington, 2010) Sawyer, CarolineItem Restricted LAWS397: Law: Special Topic: Immigration and Asylum(Victoria University of Wellington, 2011) Sawyer, CarolineItem Restricted LAWS397: Law: ST: Immigration and Asylum(Victoria University of Wellington, 2012) Sawyer, CarolineItem Restricted Non-refoulement and national security: A comparative study of UK, Canada and New Zealand(Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington, 2014-01-01) Li, Hanxiao; Sawyer, Caroline“International law generally rejects deportation to torture, even where national security interests are at stake.” ¹ There had been a fierce debate when Hassan Ahmed Shaqlane, a Somalian refugee who was sentenced to an 8-year prison term for rape and kidnapping, won his appeal against deportation, upheld by the Deportation Review Tribunal.² Controversy arose again when Al Baiiaty, an Iraqi resettlement refugee was convicted of sexual violation by rape for the fourth time. With the Court of Appeal’s noting that Mr Al Baiiaty poses a serious risk to the community³, the then Minister of Immigration called for a report on the deportation issues raised by the case.⁴ Deportation to torture may deprive a refugee of the right to liberty, security and perhaps life⁵, which is against many states’ domestic laws and international instruments such as the International Conant on Civil and Political Rights⁶ and the Convention against Torture⁷. It has been said that even if Article 33 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees does not categorically reject deportation to torture on its face, it should not be used to deny rights that other legal interments make available to everyone.⁸ It is highly questionable, however, under this broad obligation, if a refugee poses a significant threat to the protecting country’s national security, what action can a state take to protect its own national security and its own people. Are provision in the Refugee Convention, the ICCPR and the CAT absolute, binding and non derogable? If so, can a state derogate from its international obligation to refoule a refugee to potential torture to protect its national security? On what grounds then, can a state derogate from it? This paper will consider these questions. By doing so, this paper will first outline the international obligations, provided by the Refugee Convention, the ICCPR and the CAT, what is an international norm and states’ derogation rights in these provisions. The paper then looks at the courts in Canada, the United Kingdom and New Zealand’s approach in Suresh, EN⁹ and Zaoui¹⁰ when deporting a person who poses threat to national security can lead to torture and arbitrarily deprivation of life and the deportation potentially violates an international obligation or a state’s constitution. The paper will explain their approaches in relation to the different positions of their international obligations. The paper submits its concerns for some specific provisions in the Refugee Convention and the issues in exercising the absolute rights provided by the ICCPR and the CAT, as well as the ECHR. The paper finally submits its preferable approach after observing states’ practice and comparative study of the three approaches.
