The outsourcing of refugee protection obligations is reshaping state relations in the Asia Pacific and Southeast Asian region and has underscored a progressively punitive approach to ‘irregular’ refugee movement. Such a shift can be partially but importantly traced to the deterrent foundations of Australia's dual-track processing system, introduced as an outcome of the 1989 Comprehensive Plan of Action on Indochinese Refugees (CPA). Although the CPA was a multilateral attempt to improve access to refugee protection through a coordinated regional response, in many respects it undermined the potential for refugee protection. By examining the history and motivations of regional responses, we can trace their impact as an exercise in either affirming or disavowing regional responsibility for refugee protection, while enabling some states to retain and even increase their capacity for control in the region. Given the call by the Global Compact on Refugees for coordinated regionally responsive approaches based on humanitarian principles, the crafting of regional and global plans, their motives and their governing logic, require ongoing and careful attention to ascertain the forms of responsibility or irresponsibility for refugee protection which they might sustain over time.
Asia Pacific Refugee Rights Network (2017) Annex to the Submission of the Asia Pacific Refugee Rights Network to the tenth annual High Commissioner's Dialogue on Protection Challenges on the theme, ‘Towards a global compact on refugees.’ 12 and 13 December. Available at: https://www.unhcr.org/asylum-seekers.html.
Australian Human Rights Commission (1998) For Those Who've Come Across the Seas: Detention of unauthorised arrivals, Sydney: AHRC.
6.
Australian Human Rights Commission (2004) A Last Resort: Report of the National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention in Australia, Sydney: AHRC.
7.
Australian Human Rights Commission (2014) The Forgotten Children: National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention, Sydney: AHRC.
8.
Bowen C (2011) Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill, Second Reading Speech. 21 September. Canberra: Australian Parliament House.
9.
BronéeS (1993) The history of the Comprehensive Plan of Action. International Journal of Refugee Law5(4): 534–543.
CrockM (1995) The peril of the boat people: Assessing Australia's responses to the phenomenon of border asylum-seekers. In: SelbyH (ed.) Tomorrow's Law, Sydney: Federation Press, pp. 28–51.
12.
DauvergneC (2005) Humanitarianism Identity and Nation: Migration Laws of Australia and Canada, British Columbia: UBC Press.
13.
DaviesS (2008a) Realistic yet humanitarian? The Comprehensive Plan of Action and refugee policy in Southeast Asia. International Relations of the Asia Pacific8(2): 191–217.
14.
DaviesS (2008b) Legitimising Rejection: International Refugee Law in Southeast Asia, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
15.
De BonoD (2013) ‘Less than human’: The detention of irregular immigrants in Malta. Race and Class55(2): 60–81.
16.
DevetakRA (2004) In fear of refugees: The politics of border protection in Australia. The International Journal of Human Rights8(1): 101–109.
FaillaM (2015) Outsourcing obligations to developing nations: Australia's Refugee Resettlement Agreement with Cambodia. Monash University Law Review42(3): 638–684.
19.
FosterM (2012) The implications of the failed ‘Malaysia solution’: The Australian High Court and refugee responsibility sharing at international law. Melbourne Journal of International Law13(1): 395–423.
20.
GiannacopoulosM (2013) Offshore hospitality: Law, asylum and colonisation. Law Text Culture17(1): 163–183.
21.
Global Detention Project (2012) Italy Detention Profile. The Graduate Institute, Geneva. Graduate Institute of International Development Studies. Available at: https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/545b31704.pdf.
22.
Goodwin-GillG (2011) The right to seek asylum: Interception at sea and the principle of. non-refoulement. International Journal of Refugee Law23(3): 444–445.
23.
Goodwin-GillGMcAdamJ (2007) The Refugee in International Law, 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
GrewcockM (2008) Contemporary comment: ‘Systems of exclusion: The Rudd government and the “end” of the Pacific Solution.’. Current Issues in Criminal Justice20(3): 363–368.
26.
GrewcockM (2013) Australia's ongoing border wars. Race and Class54(3): 10–32.
27.
GrewcockM (2017) ‘Our lives is in danger’: Manus Island and the end of asylum. Race and Class59(2): 70–89.
HathawayJ (1993) Labelling the ‘boat people’: The failure of the human rights mandate of the Comprehensive Plan of Action for Indochinese Refugees. Human Rights Quarterly15(4): 686–702.
30.
HeltonAC (1993) Refugee determination under the Comprehensive Plan of Action: Overview and assessment. International Journal of Refugee Law5(4): 554–558.
31.
HirschA (2017) The borders beyond the border: Australia's extraterritorial migration controls. Refugee Survey Quarterly36(3): 48–80.
NetheryA (2012) Separate and invisible: A carceral history of Australian islands. Shima6(2): 85–98.
45.
Nethery A (2014) Australia, ASEAN, and forced migration in Asia. In: Wood S, He S and Liefer M (eds) The Australia–ASEAN Dialogue: Tracing 40 Years of Partnership. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 107–124.
46.
NetheryAGordynC (2014) Australia–Indonesian cooperation on asylum-seekers: A case of incentivized policy transfer. Australian Journal of International Affairs68(2): 177–193.
47.
PickeringSLambertC (2002) Deterrence: Australia's refugee policy. Current Issues in Criminal Justice14(1): 65–86.
RobinsonWC (2004) The Comprehensive Plan of Action for IndoChinese Refugees, 1989–1997: Sharing the burden and passing the buck. Journal of Refugee Studies17(3): 319–333.
SchloenhardtACraigC (2015) Turning back the boats': Australia's interdiction of irregular migrants at sea. International Journal of Refugee Law27(4): 536–572.
TowleR (2006) Processes and critiques of the Indo-Chinese Comprehensive Plan of Action: An instrument of international burden-sharing. International Journal of Refugee Law18(3–4): 537–570.
United Nations General Assembly (1989) International Conference on Indo-Chinese Refugees: Resolution adopted by the General Assembly. 15 December. Available at http://www.refworld.org/docid/3b00efe960.html.
61.
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) (1951) International Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. 28 July 1951, 189 U.N.T.S. 150, 176 (entered into force 22 April 1954). Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html.
62.
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) (1992) Handbook on procedures and criteria for determining refugee status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees. Geneva: UNHCR. Available at: https://www.unhcr.org/4d93528a9.pdf.
63.
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) (1996) Executive committee update on regional developments in Asia and Oceania. EC/46/SC/CRP.44. Available at: https://www.unhcr.org/3ae68cf94.pdf.
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) (2018a) Global Trends: Forced displacement in 2017. Geneva: UNHCR. Available at: https://www.unhcr.org/globaltrends2017/.
Vo N (2006) The Vietnamese Boat People, 1954 and 1975–1992. London: McFarland and Co.
71.
WallP (2017) A new link in the chain: Could a framework convention for refugee responsibility sharing fulfil the promise of the 1967 protocol?. International Journal of Refugee Law29(20): 2011–2237.
72.
WeberLBowlingB (2008) Valiant beggars and global vagabonds: Select, eject, immobilize. Theoretical Criminology12(3): 355–375.
73.
Wilsher D (2011) Modern immigration detention and the permanent bureaucratic enterprise. In: Wilsher D (ed.) Immigration Detention: Law, History, Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 57–118.
High Court of Australia (2011) Plaintiff M70/2011 vs Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Anor and Plaintiff M106 of 2011 by his Litigation Guardian. Available at: http://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases/case-m70/2011.
