When it comes to a violation of human rights, there is a number or legal and non-legal measures that can assist both individuals and groups in achieving justice. In terms of refugee treatment in Australia, the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cwlth) and The Universal Declaration of Human Rights are both large legal powers that can assist in the battle for justice for refugees. Large organisations such as Amnesty International and the general media provide a large backing power that relies on the influences of the general public and the power of protest against government decisions to invoke its recommendations and views.
In accordance to the treatment of refugees within Australia parameters the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cwlth) is an important measure in the protection of the dignity and livelihoods of these people. This act allowed those who felt they had been mistreated or neglected because of the colour of their skin, race, and national and ethnic origins as many refugees were, (inside and outside of detention centers) to seek justice and fairness from the events they had suffered.
Due to this act victims were able to submit complaints of instances of abuse to The Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission where their case would be investigated and some form of mediation would be applied. The HREOC cannot enforce any decisions made onto the party responsible for the abuse however, they could only give recommendations or make the two come to an agreement, e.g for instance, the Bryant v. Queensland Newspapers case (1997). This majorly affected the act’s effectiveness of bringing justice to the victim. Thought this being the case, if a decision were not agreed upon by both parties the complaint could be forwarded onto the Federal Court where the decision could be enforced and compensation would be paid to the winning party.
All in all the Racial Discrimination Act is largely effective in terms of bringing minor disputes to resolution but due to the fact that if a dispute is not solved quickly and must be brought before a court there could be a matter of terms and methods being lost in translation towards refugees and the fact that most would not be able to afford the cost for legal representation and fees.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides an all round guideline that applies to all cases of human rights, although in the matter of the treatment of refugees it proves as vital as a stance on what each and every person is entitled to, regardless of differing characteristics, in order to live a fair and comfortable life. Refugees who feel they have been mistreated in any way that goes against any of the articles in the former may seek compensation or for the group/individual responsible to offer a resolution to the matter.
In the case of A v. Australia a refugee had felt mistreated and neglected after he had been locked away in numerous detention camps for almost four years. Because of this he complained to the United Nations Human Rights Committee who had in turn found that his lengthy detention was a breach of human rights set by this declaration. Even with that being the case Australia had refused to remand its domestic law to intertwine with the UNHRC’s findings. This is an example of how even the international laws effectiveness had been decreased by Australia’s right to state sovereignty. Therefore when all comes to an end, no matter what decisions may be made by international measures depending on the treatment of their immigrants, the sovereign state will have the final choice whether or not to transfer these recommendations into their domestic law, which nullifies the overall effectiveness of such legal measures.
Such non-legal measures such as Amnesty International and the general media can have great power on the changing of laws and procedures when it comes to human rights. It does this by creating detailed reports about abuses of human rights and making them readily available to the public. This then can lead to protests by that general public which can create great stress on a government to change to its decisions. For example, in Amnesty International’s report ‘Australia Refugee Determination Process’ (Australia’s refugee determination process, Refugees' Human Rights, Amnesty International Australia - Working to Protect Human Rights , Posted 12th June 2007) the process that refugees must go through in order to be granted a visa to be accepted into the country and identifies the possible flaws with this process. Such for example, how the Australian government can turn away a refugee without the need to give reasoning why or can refuse to hear an appeal.
This report creates great stress onto the government along with the public’s backing power to alter its laws and procedures towards these issues of abuse of human rights.
But like other legal measures mentioned Amnesty International does not have enforceable power and that seriously limits its effectiveness of the assistance of human rights. So in turn the only power that Amnesty International holds is that of protest, which if warranted, could be completely overlooked by the government.
In terms of the media having powers towards these issues, it can, as a widely appreciated and known medium, influences the opinions of both the general public and that of the governments. In the article ‘Australia’s Treatment of Asylum Seekers: The View from Outside’ (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/17/1058035124325.html/ , Posted 8th June 2003) the treatment of Australia’s refugees in detention camps is outlined and the horrors that those people face are made clear through the story of one family in particular. The effect of pin pointing one family in general for the article gives it a more down to earth feel and invoke feelings towards the reader and lets them know about the tragedy and atrocities happening within our very own country. This article forces a strong opinion towards any reader and influences their opinion against the decisions of the government. This being a strong force however, is again limited by the fact that it is the government’s decision in the end in what will happen or if any change will be made at all.
In conclusion, each of these legal and non-legal measures, both internationally and domestically, can only assist in the changing of laws that violate human rights to a certain extent due to the fact that in the end of it all, it is the sovereign state that has the ultimate choice in the matter. That being so a higher power should be created that has the power to enforce a change of laws upon sovereign states that are seen to have committed a mass violation of human rights and can therefore act as a larger body towards corruption.
---------
Im pretty sure I've started blabbering. If you see any signs of this please let me know =]
In accordance to the treatment of refugees within Australia parameters the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cwlth) is an important measure in the protection of the dignity and livelihoods of these people. This act allowed those who felt they had been mistreated or neglected because of the colour of their skin, race, and national and ethnic origins as many refugees were, (inside and outside of detention centers) to seek justice and fairness from the events they had suffered.
Due to this act victims were able to submit complaints of instances of abuse to The Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission where their case would be investigated and some form of mediation would be applied. The HREOC cannot enforce any decisions made onto the party responsible for the abuse however, they could only give recommendations or make the two come to an agreement, e.g for instance, the Bryant v. Queensland Newspapers case (1997). This majorly affected the act’s effectiveness of bringing justice to the victim. Thought this being the case, if a decision were not agreed upon by both parties the complaint could be forwarded onto the Federal Court where the decision could be enforced and compensation would be paid to the winning party.
All in all the Racial Discrimination Act is largely effective in terms of bringing minor disputes to resolution but due to the fact that if a dispute is not solved quickly and must be brought before a court there could be a matter of terms and methods being lost in translation towards refugees and the fact that most would not be able to afford the cost for legal representation and fees.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides an all round guideline that applies to all cases of human rights, although in the matter of the treatment of refugees it proves as vital as a stance on what each and every person is entitled to, regardless of differing characteristics, in order to live a fair and comfortable life. Refugees who feel they have been mistreated in any way that goes against any of the articles in the former may seek compensation or for the group/individual responsible to offer a resolution to the matter.
In the case of A v. Australia a refugee had felt mistreated and neglected after he had been locked away in numerous detention camps for almost four years. Because of this he complained to the United Nations Human Rights Committee who had in turn found that his lengthy detention was a breach of human rights set by this declaration. Even with that being the case Australia had refused to remand its domestic law to intertwine with the UNHRC’s findings. This is an example of how even the international laws effectiveness had been decreased by Australia’s right to state sovereignty. Therefore when all comes to an end, no matter what decisions may be made by international measures depending on the treatment of their immigrants, the sovereign state will have the final choice whether or not to transfer these recommendations into their domestic law, which nullifies the overall effectiveness of such legal measures.
Such non-legal measures such as Amnesty International and the general media can have great power on the changing of laws and procedures when it comes to human rights. It does this by creating detailed reports about abuses of human rights and making them readily available to the public. This then can lead to protests by that general public which can create great stress on a government to change to its decisions. For example, in Amnesty International’s report ‘Australia Refugee Determination Process’ (Australia’s refugee determination process, Refugees' Human Rights, Amnesty International Australia - Working to Protect Human Rights , Posted 12th June 2007) the process that refugees must go through in order to be granted a visa to be accepted into the country and identifies the possible flaws with this process. Such for example, how the Australian government can turn away a refugee without the need to give reasoning why or can refuse to hear an appeal.
This report creates great stress onto the government along with the public’s backing power to alter its laws and procedures towards these issues of abuse of human rights.
But like other legal measures mentioned Amnesty International does not have enforceable power and that seriously limits its effectiveness of the assistance of human rights. So in turn the only power that Amnesty International holds is that of protest, which if warranted, could be completely overlooked by the government.
In terms of the media having powers towards these issues, it can, as a widely appreciated and known medium, influences the opinions of both the general public and that of the governments. In the article ‘Australia’s Treatment of Asylum Seekers: The View from Outside’ (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/17/1058035124325.html/ , Posted 8th June 2003) the treatment of Australia’s refugees in detention camps is outlined and the horrors that those people face are made clear through the story of one family in particular. The effect of pin pointing one family in general for the article gives it a more down to earth feel and invoke feelings towards the reader and lets them know about the tragedy and atrocities happening within our very own country. This article forces a strong opinion towards any reader and influences their opinion against the decisions of the government. This being a strong force however, is again limited by the fact that it is the government’s decision in the end in what will happen or if any change will be made at all.
In conclusion, each of these legal and non-legal measures, both internationally and domestically, can only assist in the changing of laws that violate human rights to a certain extent due to the fact that in the end of it all, it is the sovereign state that has the ultimate choice in the matter. That being so a higher power should be created that has the power to enforce a change of laws upon sovereign states that are seen to have committed a mass violation of human rights and can therefore act as a larger body towards corruption.
---------
Im pretty sure I've started blabbering. If you see any signs of this please let me know =]