• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文OA文献 >Does Australia\u27s treatment of non-citizens accord with its international human rights obligations? with specific reference to the treatment of on-shore refugees
【2h】

Does Australia\u27s treatment of non-citizens accord with its international human rights obligations? with specific reference to the treatment of on-shore refugees

机译：澳大利亚对非公民的待遇是否符合其国际人权义务？特别提到了在岸难民的待遇

页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The son of immigrants, I was motivated to write a paper addressing the issues of alienation and discrimination which confronts non-citizens upon arriving in Australia. Apart from descendants of Australia\u27s indigenous population, the common bond shared by all citizens and permanent residents of Australia is that they are either themselves immigrants or are descended from immigrants. In this paper I will look at whether Australia\u27s law and practice meets its international human rights treaty and convention obligations vis-a-vis non-citizens. To investigate this issue I trace the history of immigration to Australia and look at the political policies which influenced the treatment of non-citizens from 1788 to present times. In 1958 when my parents stepped upon Australian soil as displaced persons, Australia was a very different place from Australia in the 1990s. At that time Australia was still firmly under the influence of the \u27White Australia Policy\u27 which openly encouraged discrimination against non-anglo saxons. Since those times Australia has advanced to become one of the most culturally diverse nations in the world where multiculturalism is encouraged and a non-discriminatory immigration program is supported by both Australia\u27s major political parties. However, notwithstanding the great social advances made in Australia in recent decades the traditional legal sources of law, namely, judicial pronouncements, statutes and the Commonwealth Constitution have not kept pace and it is my submission that Australia\u27s body of law inadequately protects the rights of non-citizens when compared to Australia\u27s international human rights convention and treaty obligations. This paper will consider these major sources of law and will investigate how they have been used in the context of the protection of the rights of non-citizens. It will be asserted that the weaknesses exposed in the Australian legal system can be improved by the adoption of a Bill of Rights1 which encompasses Australia\u27s international human rights treaty and convention obligations. It is envisaged that a Bill of Rights would provide a framework applicable at the State, Territory and Federal levels within which issues pertaining to non-citizens could be resolved. The direction of this thesis owes much to the writings, advice and supervision of Dr. Imtiaz Omar who was always available to discuss the progress of this work. Dr. Omar is a passionate advocate of human rights and has been a tremendous inspiration to me throughout my writing. I owe a debt of thanks to the partners of Coulter Burke who with good nature ignored the sprawl of books and papers on the boardroom table, often for days at a time, thus enabling me to return to my writing from time to time as my inspirational juices ebbed and waned. Thanks also go to my typists Julie Pante, Vesna Dudas and Irene Padula who worked after hours and on weekends always without complaint, on the various versions of this thesis. My final acknowledgement goes to my wife Paula who during the years that I was working on this thesis encouraged me during my darker moments and listened to all my frustrations yet never doubted that I would one day complete the task successfully. I wish to thank her wholeheartedly for her motivation and belief in my abilities. The law relied upon in the thesis is as at the 30th June, 1998. Bill or Charter of Rights \u27are taken to be enactments which systematically declare certain fundamental rights and freedoms and require that they be respected\u27. See Evans, G. \u27Prospect and Problems for an Australian Bill of Rights\u27 (1970) 3 Australian Year Book of International Law 1 at 16. Some such notable exception is the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, contained in an ordinary statute.
机译：我是移民之子，因此我写了一篇论文，探讨非公民抵达澳大利亚后面临的疏远和歧视问题。除了澳大利亚土著居民的后裔外，澳大利亚所有公民和永久居民的共同纽带是他们本身就是移民或移民的后裔。在本文中，我将探讨澳大利亚的法律和惯例是否符合其针对非公民的国际人权条约和公约义务。为了调查这个问题，我追溯了移民到澳大利亚的历史，并研究了从1788年至今影响非公民待遇的政治政策。 1958年，当我的父母作为流离失所者踏上澳大利亚的土地时，澳大利亚与1990年代的澳大利亚截然不同。当时，澳大利亚仍然坚定地受到“白色澳大利亚政策”的影响，该政策公开鼓励歧视非盎格鲁撒克逊人。自那时以来，澳大利亚已发展成为世界上文化多样性最多的国家之一，在这里，多元文化受到鼓舞，并且澳大利亚两个主要政党都支持非歧视性移民计划。但是，尽管近几十年来澳大利亚取得了巨大的社会进步，传统的法律法律渊源，即司法宣告，成文法和英联邦宪法仍未跟上步伐，我认为澳大利亚的法律体系不足以保护权利与澳大利亚的国际人权公约和条约义务相比，非公民的比例。本文将考虑这些主要的法律渊源，并将调查如何在保护非公民权利的背景下使用它们。可以断言，通过一项包括澳大利亚的国际人权条约和公约义务的人权法案1，可以改善澳大利亚法律体系中暴露的弱点。设想《人权法案》将提供一个适用于州，地区和联邦各级的框架，在该框架内可以解决与非公民有关的问题。本文的方向很大程度上归功于Imtiaz Omar博士的著作，建议和监督，他随时可以讨论这项工作的进展。奥马尔（Omar）博士是人权的热情拥护者，并且在我的写作中一直给我带来巨大的启发。我要感谢库尔特·伯克（Coulter Burke）的合伙人，他们的天性好，而忽略了董事会桌上书籍和文件的泛滥，常常是几天一次，因此使我不时地回到自己的写作中来，这是我的鼓舞果汁退潮并下降。也要感谢我的打字员朱莉·潘特（Julie Pante），韦斯纳·杜达斯（Vesna Dudas）和艾琳·帕杜拉（Irene Padula），他们在工作数小时和周末始终无怨无悔地撰写了各种论文。我最后的感谢是我的妻子宝拉（Paula），多年来，我一直在撰写这篇论文，这在黑暗的时刻鼓舞了我，并倾听了我的所有挫败感，但从未怀疑我有一天会成功完成这项任务。我要衷心感谢她对我的能力的动力和信念。论文中所依据的法律是1998年6月30日。法案或权利宪章被视为制定成文，系统地宣布某些基本权利和自由，并要求它们得到尊重。参见Evans，G.《澳大利亚权利法案的前景与问题》（u27（1970）3澳大利亚国际法年鉴1，第16页）。一些普通法中包含的《 1990年新西兰权利法案》是一个例外。 。

著录项

  • 作者

    Kontelj, Srechko Jernej.;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 1999
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号