Sydney Law Review, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 51-73, 2004
24 Pages Posted: 30 Jun 2009
Date Written: June, 23 2009
This article explores one aspect of the controversies that have surrounded asylum seekers and refugees in Australia: the conflict between the executive government and the courts over who should have the final say in status determinations and protection issues generally. This author argues that a combination of history, culture and geography has resulted in an extraordinary intimacy of political involvement in the business of immigration control - setting the groundwork for remarkable clashes with the judiciary. The article sketches the development of Australia's jurisprudence on refugees, exploring the impact that public controversy and direct political pressure might have had on the formation of the law. The author notes that Australia's refugee jurisprudence is recent; it is generally conservative, textual and domestic in its focus. At the same time, the author argues that the jurisprudence represents a good example of 'globalisation' in public international law as Australian courts have both come to consider the refugee jurisprudence of other countries and have themselves contributed to international jurisprudence on refugees.
Keywords: refugees, asylum seekers, immigration, executive, judiciary
JEL Classification: K10, K30, K33
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Crock, Mary Elizabeth, Judging Refugees: The Clash of Power and Institutions in the Development of Australian Refugee Law (June, 23 2009). Sydney Law Review, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 51-73, 2004; Sydney Law School Research Paper No. 09/61. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1424286