Australian Policy on Detention in Manus and Nauru Islands

Advocacy brief; Australian policy regarding the detention in Manus and Nauru islands
Student Name
Student Number
Professor’s Name
University Name
Date of Submission

Introduction
The right to liberty is a common right that exist in the instruments which are promoting human
rights and therefore protecting every person from arbitrary arrest and detention. In essence, for
one to be denied liberty, it will require a strong justification for such an action to be taken.
Contrary to this in practice it’s a routine in Europe when it comes to immigration detention1.
The detention concerns immigration law detention enforcement related to refusals of admission
or deportation and therefore reflecting vagaries of migration control and migration status.
In regards to Manus and Nauru islands they form part of the detention centre used by Papua New
Guinea and Australia before the detainees are allowed in either country2. The island was first
used as Australia’s offshore immigration centre’s in the year 2001 then after, the prime minister
launched the Pacific solution and were later reopened in 2012 as one of the way to bar asylum
seekers using boats to be resettled in Australia. Following this, one migration agent Liz
Thompson had this to say: “Manus Island is an experiment in the ultimate logic of deterrence
designed to frustrate the hell out of people and terrify them so that they go home.” This is so
because the offshore detention is made to be brutal and therefore despair the asylum seekers to
decide to go back to whatever homes they are fleeing. In addition, dumping them in such remote
areas denies them the required legal support, medical services and communication with the
Australian public3.
Irregular Migration Policy
1 Cochrane, B., 2018. Harms at the Crossroads of Carework and Irregular Migration. Journal of
Refugee Studies.
2 Gilbert, G. (2017). The Human Rights of Migrants and Refugees in European Law. International Journal
of Refugee Law, 29(1), 193-195.
3 McAuliffe, M., 2018. The nexus between forced and irregular migration: Insights from
demography. In Demography of Refugee and Forced Migration (pp. 217-232). Springer, Cham.

Different laws have been laid down to the issue of movement confinement, for example the
universal human rights law though the security is flimsier contrasted with different types of
detainment since states are given more prominent relocation powers different from correctional
ones. Likewise cases testing migration detainment have inspired pressure when conveyed under
the watchful eye of court as with respect to striking a harmony between the privilege to freedom
and movement confinement4. Laws, for example, the European tradition on human rights give
definite arrangements on refuge searchers detainment likewise the Dublin III Regulation gives
such arrangements and in this manner center ought to be attracted to admissibility of
confinement and not detainment conditions. Likewise the worldwide Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights arrangement are feeble to add to valuable migration confinement rules5.
In this regard, various laws have addressed the issue of immigration detention for instance the
international human rights law thou the protection is weaker compared to other forms of
detention since states are given greater migration powers unlike penal ones. Also cases
challenging immigration detention have elicited tension when brought before court as it regards
to striking a balance between the right to liberty and immigration detention6. Laws such as the
European convention on human rights provide detailed provisions on asylum seekers detention
also the Dublin III Regulation provides such provisions and therefore focus should be drawn to
permissibility of detention and not detention conditions. Also the international Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights provision are weak to contribute to constructive immigration detention rules.
On the other hand, the UN human rights committee (HRC) has developed a better jurisprudence
regarding detention where it requires the detention to be lawful and non-arbitrary as it brings up
ingredients that consist inappropriate injustice, lack of predictability and reasonable necessity in
circumstances for certain purposes. This on comparison with article 9 of the ICCPR is that, it
fails to expressly limit legal purpose of detention unlike article 5 of the ECHR which clarifies
that detention must be in relation to a specific purpose and that for immigration detention illegal
4 Triandafyllidou, A, 2019. Governing Irregular and Return Migration in the 2020s: European
Challenges and Asian Pacific Perspectives.
5 Cuttitta, P. (2014). 'Borderizing'the Island Setting and Narratives of the Lampedusa'Border Play'. ACME:
An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 13(2).
6 Triandafyllidou, A., 2018. Handbook of migration and globalisation. Edward Elgar Publishing.