Writing Assignment help on : Hard Headed but not Hard Hearted
Question 1: Australia’s approach to asylum seekers has been described as ‘hard headed but not hard hearted’. Do you agree?
On 13th August 2012, the expert Panel on the asylum-seekers released its report in which it made 22 recommendations to the Australian government, which the Panel thought would help in addressing the long-term, short-term as well as medium-term challenges that Australian government has been facing. These integrated set of proposals which have been recommended are said to be ‘hard headed but not hard hearted’. This means that the policies are completely realistic and not idealistic as they are completely driven by a sense of humanity as well as fairness in every sense. According to Professor Michael L’Estrange, an adjustment is direly required by the Australian policy settings as well as the regional arrangements (Hawley, 2012). The Panel also believes that the balanced incentives and risk needs to be shifted towards regular migration pathways along with protection from established protections internationally rather than dangerous maritime migration which asylum seekers follow (Cleary, 2012).
The approach of Australian government toward the asylum seekers has been a prominent political issues specially starting from August, 2001 after the interception of 400 asylum seekers who were travelling through a vessel, by the Australian government. Although being a very debatable topic, the approach of the policy towards asylum seekers is very much consistent with the norms of international Human Rights as it preserves the rights of human sovereignty in very exclusive manner (Gelber and McDonald, 2006). Finally ‘sovereignty has been defined as ‘right to exclude’ by the government of Australia and as said by Australian Minister for Immigration too that to protect the sovereignty of the rights of Australia they have the right to determine who will be given entry into the country and it is completely a matter which needs to be decided by Australian government and their parliament (Ruddock, 2001).
Since the main argument which is related to asylum seekers policy by the Australian Government is the preservation of sovereignty which is very much consistent with the international human rights norms, there definitely exists a strong relation between human rights in International Relations (IR) and sovereignty (Bull, 1995). The relationship between IR and sovereignty can be understood in better manner by realising the fact that for the international society the focal point is the preservation of state sovereignty. This allows the realisation of individual well-being and the actions for preservation of international society on its own (Bull, 1995). Therefore instead of following Hobbesian state of nature it is suggested that norm of sovereignty has been defined as completely on-intervening and it centrally motivates the government to establish modern state system as it realises the individual well-being. This suggests that the policy might be tough on asylum seekers but it is also beneficial for maintaining the sovereignty of state (Reus-Smith, 2001).This supports the fact that instead of giving priority to human rights priority should be given to preservation of state sovereignty or non-intervention when both stand in conflict with each other (Jackson, 2000).It can also be argued that the realisation of human rights needs strong commitment towards preservation of sovereignty which is also defined as non-intervention and the reason being the states act as actors in international society which are capable of providing the reasons for the well-being of the individuals in best possible manner . This way the Australian government’s asylum-seekers policy is justified as communitarian approach towards global ethics and justifies the relationship of human rights- sovereignty which exists (Walzer, 1983).
Many policy makers have also argued that associating sovereignty with ‘right to exclude’ makes Australian Government inconsistent with the several international conventions of which it is authorised signatory (Maley, 2003). The basic humanitarian ethic clearly indicates that there is the duty of each and every individual to help those who are in distress or are suffering badly and especially the duty becomes prime when the cost associated with helping is very low, but the concept of sovereignty does not go along with this humanitarian fact (Smith, 2001) (McMaster, 2002). Thus the Australian government has laid emphasis on its humanitarian credentials and particularly stressed the cost of allowing the asylum-seekers which arrive through boats. But the cost of allowing the asylum-seekers might be less but is not comparable with the compromising with national integrity and preserving the values of Australian culture and society. Therefore the policies might seem a bit tough on the asylum seekers but they are not hard headed as said.
On the other hand the Australian approach towards asylum seekers has been described as incarceration and interception because the Australian government has had very much troubled approach towards the immigrants and the asylum-seekers (McMaster, 2001). This can be witnessed form the two incidents which occurred with the Norwegian freighter Tampa in August 2001 and a boat called Minasa Bone in November 2003. With the excision of the territories from Australian migration zones which was followed due to legislative and policy changes, the asylum-seekers found it much more difficult to file theory claims for refugee status in Australia. Due to temporary nature of visa the asylum-seekers had to reapply for another temporary visa in Australia which prevented them from settling permanently in Australia (Department of Immigration, 2003).It has also been noticed that the international laws are being contravened by the policy towards asylum-seekers which covers international laws like United Nations Convention and Protocol Relating to the status of Refugees (Fonteyne, n.d.). Australia is authorised signatory of this body and according to this law it denies humanitarian imperative of paying attention to the human suffering of the outsiders who are vulnerable as in the case of Tampa and Minasa Bone. But the Australian government has acted very defensively towards the allegations of United Nations when it criticised its domestic policies related to human rights.
Thus from the above analysis of the facts it is evident that in order to protect the border integrity and sovereignty of the state it is justified on the part of Australian policy on asylum-seekers to restrict their entry through boats which might sound a bit hard-headed but it is definitely not hard-hearted (Gelber and McDonald, 2006).
If you want Writing Assignment Help study samples to help you write professional custom essay’s and essay writing help.
Receive assured help from our talented and expert writers! Did you buy assignment and assignment writing services from our experts in a very affordable price.
To get more information, please contact us or visit www.myassignmenthelp.Com
