Relationship with international human rights treaties
Relationship of Migration Law with International Human Rights Treaties
1. Incorporation by Interpretation
Australian courts and tribunals often use international treaties as interpretative aids to ensure domestic law is consistent with international obligations, particularly in cases involving:
Refugee status determination (1951 Refugee Convention)
Non-refoulement (not returning a person to a place where they face persecution or harm)
Protection against torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment (CAT and ICCPR)
2. Non-Refoulement Principle
The cornerstone of refugee and human rights protection is the non-refoulement principle found in Article 33 of the 1951 Refugee Convention and reflected in CAT and ICCPR.
Detailed Explanation of Key Case Law on Relationship with International Human Rights Treaties
1. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Al Masri (2003) 214 CLR 1
➤ Facts:
Al Masri was an alleged member of a terrorist organization seeking a protection visa.
➤ Issue:
Whether Australia could deport him despite risks of torture or inhumane treatment overseas, in light of CAT obligations.
➤ Held:
The High Court emphasized Australia's obligation under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) to not return a person to a country where there is a substantial risk of torture.
The Court held that domestic laws must be interpreted to avoid breaching Australia’s international obligations.
➤ Significance:
Reaffirmed non-refoulement under CAT as a fundamental limitation on executive power.
Confirmed that protection against torture is non-derogable, meaning it cannot be overridden even in national security contexts.
2. Applicant A v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1997) 190 CLR 225
➤ Facts:
The applicant sought protection based on fear of persecution and the risk of being subjected to torture if returned to their home country.
➤ Issue:
How the Refugee Convention and ICCPR influence protection visa decisions.
➤ Held:
The High Court held that the Refugee Convention is a key instrument guiding the interpretation of the Migration Act.
The Court acknowledged the relevance of international human rights norms (like ICCPR) in determining what constitutes persecution.
➤ Significance:
Affirmed the use of international treaties as interpretive tools.
Underlined the Tribunal’s responsibility to consider whether applicants face serious human rights violations on return.
3. Plaintiff M61/2010E v Commonwealth (2010) 243 CLR 319 ("Bali 9 Case")
➤ Facts:
The High Court considered whether Australia breached international obligations in its "offshore processing" arrangements and detention.
➤ Issue:
Whether actions by the Australian government complied with obligations under the Refugee Convention and ICCPR.
➤ Held:
The Court underscored that Australian law must be interpreted consistently with Australia’s international obligations, especially the non-refoulement principle.
Although the Court did not directly invalidate the government’s policy, it confirmed the need to respect human rights standards.
➤ Significance:
Highlighted tensions between domestic migration enforcement and international human rights.
Confirmed courts’ role in ensuring laws and policies align with treaty obligations.
4. SZSSJ v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) 259 CLR 180
➤ Facts:
This case involved non-disclosure of adverse information in protection visa decision-making.
➤ Issue:
Whether procedural fairness obligations are informed by international human rights principles.
➤ Held:
The High Court emphasized fairness and transparency in decisions affecting human rights.
Though procedural fairness is a domestic principle, it aligns with international human rights standards like the right to a fair hearing under ICCPR.
➤ Significance:
Connected domestic procedural fairness rules to broader international human rights standards.
Reinforced that decision-makers must ensure fair processes respecting human dignity.
5. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZQRB (2013) 249 CLR 92
➤ Facts:
The applicant sought protection based on fear of persecution on religious grounds.
➤ Issue:
How the tribunal should assess the risk of persecution consistent with international law.
➤ Held:
The High Court held that decision-makers must apply the Refugee Convention’s definition of a refugee correctly.
They must consider the “well-founded fear” test and the contextual human rights situation of the applicant.
➤ Significance:
Reinforced that the Refugee Convention’s standards guide domestic protection visa decisions.
Stressed the importance of aligning domestic law with international refugee law definitions.
Summary Table of Key Legal Principles
| Principle | Case Example | Key Point |
|---|---|---|
| Non-refoulement (protection from torture) | Al Masri (2003) | Australia cannot return a person to risk of torture. |
| International treaties as interpretive aids | Applicant A (1997), SZQRB (2013) | Refugee Convention and ICCPR guide interpretation of domestic law. |
| Procedural fairness aligned with human rights | SZSSJ (2016) | Fair hearing obligations resonate with ICCPR rights. |
| Judicial oversight of government policy | Plaintiff M61 (2010) | Courts ensure government complies with international obligations. |
Conclusion
Australian migration law, as interpreted by tribunals and courts, maintains a close but complex relationship with international human rights treaties. While treaties like the Refugee Convention, ICCPR, and CAT are not directly enforceable unless implemented by legislation, they significantly influence the interpretation of domestic law, the standards applied by decision-makers, and the protection afforded to asylum seekers and refugees.
RELATED Blog
0 comments