Skip Navigation


International Journal of Refugee Law Advance Access originally published online on June 25, 2008
International Journal of Refugee Law 2008 20(2):273-313; doi:10.1093/ijrl/een021
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
20/2/273    most recent
een021v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Francis, A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author (2008). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org.

Bringing Protection Home: Healing the Schism Between International Obligations and National Safeguards Created by Extraterritorial Processing

Angus Francis*

* Griffith Law School, Australia. Parts of this article are based on the author's submissions to the Australian Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee in 2002 and 2006: A. Francis, Submission No. 26, Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee, ‘Inquiry into the Migration Legislation Amendment (Further Border Protection Measures) Bill 2002’, 26 July 2002; A. Francis, Submission No. 60, Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, ‘Inquiry into the provisions of the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006’, 22 May 2006. Thanks to James Hathaway and Jane McAdam and the Journal's referees for their very helpful comments

Extraterritorial processing schemes are designed to prevent and deter access to statutory and judicial safeguards in the country responsible for the interception and transfer of asylum seekers to a third country. In line with this objective, they incorporate interdiction, transfer and processing practices and standards that are deliberately isolated from the national legal and institutional protections within either the intercepting state or the third country where processing occurs. Australia's recent disbandment of its extraterritorial processing centres in third countries highlights the fact that extraterritorial processing schemes have proven unworkable as a matter of international law, as they negate the national safeguards fundamental to the satisfaction of a state's protection obligations.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.