Dear writer, please read before bid:
1. An abstract should be provided at the first week.
2. Please use AGLC-4 citation, especially note how to cite case and treaties.
3. Please leave enough time for revision.
Readings:
DAY 1 ALLOCATION OF READINGS DAY 1
SESSION 1: The evolution of the international protection regime
1. The Evolution of the International Protection Regime
Hathaway and Foster, pp 1-13
1. International Refugee Law in the Early Years, Guy S Goodwin-Gill
JC Hathaway, The Law of Refugee Status (1996) chapter 1, pp 1-28
2. The Global Context – A System in Crisis
Daniel Ghezelbash, Refuge Lost: Asylum Law in an Interdependent World (2018), Ch 2: ‘Managing
Asylum-Seeker Flows in the 21st Century’
3. Australia’s Experience
Robert Manne, ‘Australia’s Uniquely Harsh Asylum Seeker Policy – How Did It Come to This?’ ABC
Religion and Ethics (November 2017)
SESSION 2: Legal frameworks for protection – Non-refoulement
1. Refugee Convention
9. The Architecture of the UN Refugee Convention and Protocol, James C Hathaway
1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees, Articles 1A(2), 33 http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html;
2. Statelessness Convention
Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons (1954)
OUP Handbook Chapter 44. Stateless Refugees, Hlne Lambert
3. The Human Rights Treaty Framework
OUP Handbook Chapter 11: Moving Towards an Integrated Approach of Refugee Law and
Human Rights Law, Vincent Chetail
J.H.A. v. Spain, CAT/C/41/D/323/2007, UN Committee Against Torture (CAT), 21 November 2008,
available online.
Aoife Duffy, Expulsion to Face Torture: Non-refoulement in International Law 92008) 20 IJRL 373.
Extracts from Sir Elihu Lauterpacht and Daniel Bethlehem, The Scope and Content of the Principle of
Non-Refoulement: Opinion in E Feller, V Trk, and F Nicholson (eds) Refugee Protection in
International Law: UNHCRs Global Consultations on International Protection (CUP Cambridge 2003)
89-92; 128-34; 149-64
SESSION 3: Institutional frameworks – UNHCR
This session provides an introduction to the institutional structures of the UNs refugee protection
regime. The UN High Commission of Refugees is established under a separate statute. Here we
examine the role of UNHCR and how it has expanded over the years
OUP Handbook Ch 10: The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, James
Milner and Jay Ramasubramanyam
Statute of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, UNGA,
A/RES/428, 14 Dec 1950
Corinne Lewis, UNHCRs Contribution to the Development of International Refugee
Law: Its Foundations and Evolution (2005) 17 International Journal of Refugee Law 67.
Alexander Betts, U.N. Refugee Agency Must Change Course or Risk Obsolescence,
Refugees Deeply (6 April 2017)
Michael Kagan, The Beleaguered Gatekeeper: Protection Challenges Posed by UNHCR
Refugee Status Determination (2006) 18 International Journal of Refugee Law 1
SESSION 4: Intersections: Refugees and Human Rights A case study
In this topic, we will examine how UNHCR responds to mandate refugees, internally displaced
persons and other persons of concern living with disabilities. The case study invites consideration of
the extent to which refugee law has been influenced and shaped by modern human rights
instruments such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities.
OUP Handbook Ch 43: Protecting Refugees with Disabilities, Mary Crock
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Article 11.
Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 37.
OUP Handbook Ch 15: Regional Refugee Regimes: Africa, Marina Sharpe
Zachary Lomo, Angela Naggaga and Lucy Hovil, The phenomenon of forced migration in
Uganda: An overview of policy and practice in an historical context (Refugee Law Project
Working Paper No 1, June 2001).
UNHCR, Executive Committee, Conclusion on refugees with disabilities and other persons
with disabilities protected and assisted by UNHCR EXCOM Conclusion No 110, 12 October
2010 (available online)
L Smith-Khan, M Crock, B Saul and R McCallum, To “Promote, Protect and Ensure”:
Overcoming Obstacles to Identifying Disability in Forced Migration (2014) 27 Journal of
Refugee Studies 38-68.
DAY 2
SESSION 5: Alienage: The Right to Seek Asylum, Interdiction & Deflection
1 A right to seek asylum?
Hathaway and Foster, pp 23-49
OUP Handbook Ch 48: The Right to Asylum, Maria-Teresa Gil-Bazo and Elspeth Guild
OUP Handbook Ch 26: Protection at Sea and the Denial of Asylum, Violeta Moreno-Lax
OUP Handbook Ch 27: Extraterritorial Migration Control and Deterrence, Thomas GammeltoftHansen and Nikolas Feith Tan
Refugee Convention, article 31: http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html;
UDHR, articles 13-14: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml;
Declaration on Territorial Asylum: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3b00f05a2c.html
2 Implementation of International Law in Domestic Australian Law
Sophie Capicchiano Young, Australias disengagement from international refugee law: The principle of
non-refoulement and the doctrine of jurisdiction (April 2018)
Plaintiff M61/2010E v Commonwealth of Australia; Plaintiff M69 of 2010 v Commonwealth of
Australia (2010) 243 CLR 319 at 339 [27]:
3 States attempts to obstruct asylum: excision, interception and push-backs
Compare:
Case of Hirsi Jamaa and Others v Italy, European Court of Human Rights, Application no
27765/09, 23 February 2012 at [9]-[17], [70]-[82], and [113]-[158]; and
CPCF v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] HCA 1; (2015) 89 ALJR 207
(CPCF).
SESSION 6: Refugee Status Determination
UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951
Convention and the 1967 Protocol: www.unhcr.org/publ/PUBL/3d58e13b4.pdf
OUP Handbook Ch 31:Refugee Status Determination, Bruce Burson
OUP Handbook Ch 32:Asylum Procedures, lvaro Botero and Jens Vedsted-Hansen
Offshore processing in Australia
Plaintiff M61/2010E v Commonwealth of Australia; Plaintiff M69 of 2010 v Commonwealth of
Australia [2010] HCA 41
Michelle Foster and Pobjoy Jason, ‘A Failed Case of Legal Exceptionalism? Refugee Status
Determination in Australias Excised Territory’ (2011) 23(4) International Journal of Refugee Law
583
Mary Crock, Shadow Plays, Shifting Sands and International Refugee Law: Convergence in the
Asia-Pacific (2013) 63 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 247 280.
SESSION 7: Well-Founded Fear
To meet the Convention definition of refugee, a person must be able to demonstrate a well-founded fear of
persecution. In practice, it is said that a refugees fear has both objective and subjective facets.
Hathaway and Foster pp 91-181
Crock & Berg, pp 366-375
*Chan Yee Kin v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379*
MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559
OUP Handbook Ch 33:Credibility, Reliability, and Evidential Assessment, Gregor Noll
SESSION 8: Persecution
Hathaway and Foster pp 91-181
Crock & Berg, pp 378-388
Migration Act, s 5J
*Applicant A v MIMA (1997) 190 CLR 225
S395/2002 v MIMA (2003) 216 CLR 473
Failure of state protection
Hathaway and Foster, pp 288-331.
Crock & Berg, pp 387-388
Ibrahim v MIMIA (2000) 204 CLR 1
Compare MIMA v Khawar (2002) 210 CLR 1 (non-state actors)
Gender and persecution
UNHCR Guidelines on International Protection: Gender-related Persecution within the context of
Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention and/or its 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees,
HCR/GIP/02/01 (7 May 2002): http://www.unhcr.org/3d58ddef4.html
MIMA v Khawar (2002) 210 CLR 1
DAY 3
SESSION 9: The nexus requirement: The Convention grounds
The Refugee Convention requires that persecution be by reason of one of the following: race; religion;
nationality; membership of a particular social group; or political opinion.
By reason of:
Hathaway and Foster at 362-389.
Migration Act, s 91R(1)(a)
Crock and Berg 388-390
The five Convention grounds
Hathaway and Foster, 390-461
Race:
Crock and Berg, pp 390-391
Calado v MIMA (1997) 81 FCR 450
Nationality:
Crock and Berg, p 392
Religion:
Crock and Berg, pp 392-394
NABD/2002 v MIMIA [2005] HCA 29 (2005) 79 ALJR 1142
Membership of a particular social group:
Crock & Berg, pp 395-402
UNHCR Guidelines on International Protection: Membership of a particular social group within
the context of Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention and/or its 1967 Protocol relating to the Status
of Refugees, HCR/GIP/02/02 (7 May 2002)
*Applicant A v MIMA (1997) 190 CLR 225
*Chen Shi Hai v MIMA (2000) 201 CLR 293
*Applicant S v MIMIA [2004] HCA 25 (2004) 217 CLR 387
MIMA v Khawar (2002) 210 CLR 1
S395/2002 v MIMA (2003) 216 CLR 473
Migration Act, s 91S
Political opinion:
Crock and Berg, pp 403-405
Chan Yee Kin v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379
Applicant A v MIMA (1997) 190 CLR 225
SESSION 10: Protection elsewhere: Relocation and Safe Third Countries
OUP Handbook Ch 28:The Evolution of Safe Third Country Law and Practice, Feline Freier, Eleni
Karageorgiou, and Kate Ogg
Internal relocation
Hathaway and Foster, at 332-361
38:The Internal Protection Alternative, Brd N Ghrinne
SZATV v MIAC [2007] HCA 40, (2007) 233 CLR 18
MZANX v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 307
Safe third countries
Refugee Convention art 1E
Migration Act s 36(3)-(5)
NAGV and NAGW of 2002 v MIMIA (2005) 222 CLR 161
Migration Act ss 91M-91Q
Declarations of safe countries of origin
Migration Act ss 91A-91G
Migration Regulations, reg 2.12A
SESSION 11: Exclusion Unworthy refugees
In this session we consider who is excluded from the protection under the refugee definition (exclusion
clauses in article 1F). Current issues such as the exclusion of terrorists are explored, as well as the
relationship of the exclusion clauses to expulsion (art 32) and non-refoulement (art 33).
Crock & Berg, ch 14, parts 2 and 3
1 Exclusion
Hathaway and Foster, 524-598
Crock & Berg, Ch 14, part 3 (pp 419-422)
OUP Handbook Ch 39:Exclusion, Geoff Gilbert and Anna Magdalena Bentajou
Refugee Convention, arts 1D, 1E, 1F:; and Migration Act, s 91T
Refugee Convention, art 33(2): and Migration Act, s 91U
Ben Saul, Protecting Refugees in the Global War on Terror (2008) Sydney Centre for
International Law Working Paper No. 3
SESSION 12: Cessation of Refugee Status
The Refugee Convention provides that, in certain circumstances, individuals will cease to be refugees.
Hathaway and Foster 476-493
Crock & Berg, Ch 14, part 2 (pp 419-422)
Refugee Convention, art 1C:
OUP Handbook Ch 57:Cessation, Georgia Cole
UNHCR Expert Roundtable, Summary Conclusions: Cessation of Refugee Status (3-4 May 2001):
(compare to QAAH)
MIMIA v QAAH of 2004 [2006] HCA 53 (2006) 231 CLR 1
DAY 4
SESSION 13: Complementary Protection
Protection under other UN Conventions
OUP Handbook Ch 11:Moving Towards an Integrated Approach of Refugee Law and Human
Rights Law, Vincent Chetail
OUP Handbook Ch 13:Customary Refugee Law, Hlne Lambert
Other Relevant UN Conventions
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm
Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Aiming at the
Abolition of the Death Penalty: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr-death.htm
Convention on the Rights of the Child: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, arts 9, 14:
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml
Complaint Mechanisms
Crock & Berg, ch 4, part 4 (pp. 105-108)
First Optional Protocol to the International Convention of Civil and Political Rights:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b3bf0.html
Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/catone.htm
UN Human Rights Committee, A v Australia: Views of the UN Human Rights Committee dated 30
April 1997 Communication No. 560/1993
Nicholas Poynder, A (name deleted) v Australia: A milestone for asylum seekers, (1997) 4(1)
Australian Journal of Human Rights 167
Complementary (or subsidiary) protection
Crock and Berg, ch 14, part 4 (pp 428-431)
Jane McAdam, Australian Complementary Protection: A step-by-step approach (2011) 33
Sydney Law Review 686
OUP Handbook Ch 46: Displacement in the context of Climate Change and Disasters, Jane
McAdam
OUP Handbook Ch 47: Internal Displacement, Walter Klin
SESSION 14: The Rights of Refugees
In this session we examine the rights afforded to asylum seekers, refugees and others in need of
protection (such as beneficiaries of temporary protection) under international, regional and national law.
James Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees under International Law (Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 2005), Epilogue: Challenges to the Viability of Refugee Rights 991-1002
OUP Handbook Ch 51:Non-penalization and non-criminalization, Cathryn Costello and Yulia Ioffe
Refugee Convention, arts 3-34
UNHCR, An Introduction to Legal Protection (2005), pp. 121-23
Comparative practice
o EU Qualification Directive, arts 20-34
o EU Temporary Protection Directive, arts 8-19
o EU Reception Conditions Directive, arts 5-20
o R v Secty of State for the Home Dept, ex p Adam [2005] UKHL 66 [2006] 1 AC 396
OUP Handbook See section on regional regimes (Part III)
Case study the Detention of Asylum Seekers
Migration Act ss 188-197AB (see also Migration Act ss 176-187)
James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees under International Law, CUP, 2005, 154- 156 [PM]
OUP Handbook Ch 52:The Right to Liberty, Eve Lester
Refugee Convention Arts 26, 31, 33(2), and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
Art 9
Crock & Berg, pp 474-494
Al-Kateb v Godwin [2004] HCA 37 (2004) 219 CLR 562
Ruddock v Vadarlis [2001] FCA 1329 (2001) 110 FCR 491 (see also Chu Kheng Lim (1992) 176
CLR 1)
CPCF v MIBP [2015] HCA 1 (2015) 255 CLR 514
Detention on Australias offshore territories, and offshore processing
Plaintiff M68 of 2015 v MIBP [2016] HCA 1 (2016) 257 CLR 42 (French CJ, Kiefel and
Nettle JJ; Gordon J (dissenting)
Namah v Pato [2016] PGSC (Papua New Guinea Supreme Court)
SESSION 15 Cooperation and responsibility sharing
Multimedia Content: Interview with Alex Aleinikoff, discussing his new book The Arc of Protection:
Toward a New International Refugee Regime
1. What is refugee responsibility-sharing?
Tristan Harley, ‘We Must Answer 3 Key Questions on Refugee ResponsibilitySharing’, Refugees Deeply (25 April 2018).1.
2. Global Compacts
Global Compact on Refugees
Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration
Jane McAdam, ‘The Global Compacts on Refugees and Migration: A New Era for Refugee Protection?’
(2018) 30 International Journal of Refugee Law 571
3. Regional Initiatives
Refuge Lost, Ch 2, p 22-8
Claire Loughnan, ‘Regional deterrence and ‘non-genuine’ refugees: The punitive legacy of the
1989 Comprehensive Plan of Action’ (2019) 28 Asian Pacific Migration Journal 155.
4. Proposals for further enhancing cooperation
Tristan Harley, Innovations in Responsibility Sharing for Refugees, World Research Council
Research Paper (28 May 2019)
James Hathaway and Daniel Ghezelbash, ‘Theres a workable alternative to Australias asylum
policy’ The Guardian (June 2018
