Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

• Mahin Sobhani ¹
• Amirmasoud Pourmousa ²

¹ Assistant Professor, Faculty of Humanities & Literature, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran

² M.A Student of Criminal law & Criminology, Faculty of Literature & Humanities, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran.

Abstract

Derived from the first paragraph of Article 33 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, State Parties are strictly prohibited, by any means, from returning refugees to territories where their life or freedom would be threatened on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The use of the term “refugees” in this provision has given rise to two main interpretive approaches: a restrictive view that limits its application to individuals whose refugee status has been formally recognized, and a broader approach that extends the scope to include both asylum seekers and recognized refugees. In this context, Australia has sought to avoid its obligations under the non-refoulement principle by outsourcing asylum seekers to third countries that do not provide adequate safety and protection. This study, through a descriptive-analytical method, addresses whether the non-refoulement obligation also covers asylum seekers. It further evaluates whether Australia’s outsourcing policy constitutes a breach of this principle. The findings indicate that the principle applies to both asylum seekers and refugees, and that transferring asylum seekers to a third country where safety is uncertain constitutes a violation of the principle of secondary non-refoulement.

Keywords

• Asylum, Asylum Seekers, Non-refoulement, Australia'
• s Offshore Detention, The 1951 Refugee Convention

Main Subjects

• International Law