International Advocate Volume 2 Issue 4

INTERNATIONALADVOCATE November 2013 Volume 2 Issue 4

Double Feature:

What’s So Special About Chemical Weapons?

by Hitoshi Nasu &

Women, Peace and Security

by Hilary Charlesworth and Susan Rimmer

The International Advocate is published by the ANU International Law Society with the proud support of the International Law Students’ Association Publications Director Nishadee Perera Editing Team Sherwood Du, Emily Graham, Cheng Ho, Rui Lam, Rebecca WIlliams, Nina Yap, Jessica Zhang The opinions expressed in the articles are those of the contributors and do not necessarily reflect those of the ANU International Law Society, its partners or the Australian National University.

ANU International Law Society Student Facilities Building 17a Australian National University Canberra ACT 0200 Australia President Andrew Swanson Vice President Claire Wilson Finance Director Varun Sundar Careers Director Rebecca Williams Competitions Director Kamilya Nelson Education Director Parissa Tosif Events Director Nikita Singh Publications Director Nishadee Perera Committee members Kayjal Dasan, Tristian Delroy, Scott Dillon, Nick Horton, David Purvis, Amy Sinclair Cover Photo by Gunnery Sgt. Scott Dunn Submissions

from

academics,

legal

practitioners, and students are always welcome. Please submit essays, photos and ideas to anu.international.advocate@gmail.com

4 9

What’s So Special About Chemical Weapons?

Hitoshi Nasu

Women, Peace and Security: the Theme of Australia’s Security Council Presidency

Hilary Charlesworth and Susan Harris Rimmer

13

How the ‘No Advantage’ Principle Violates International Law

21

Grappling with my Thesis: the Use of Torture in the War on Terror

Sam Osborne

Cynthia Banham

24

Neutrality: How Red Cross Workers Protect Themselves in the Most Dangerous Areas on the Planet

27

Summer Intern Profile: Attorney-General’s Department

Heath McCallum

Maia Cairns

President’s Welcome Welcome to Issue 4, the final issue of the International Advocate in 2013 and also the last under the trusty guardianship of Nishadee Perera, our Publications Director.

It has been such a pleasure for me to see each new issue of the Advocate this year. What began as a scrawled idea for a title in an email chain, over the Christmas break at the end of 2011, has been propelled by the hard work and volunteer efforts of many. Thanks to you all, and to our readers as well. If you are even curious about contributing in the new year, I hope you take up what is a great opportunity!

Happy reading, Andrew Swanson

WHAT’S SO SPECIAL ABOUT CHEMICAL WEAPONS?

By Hitoshi Nasu

The alleged use of nerve agents by Syrian

100,000 and many more are fleeing the

regime forces on 21 August 2013 has

country. Earlier in the conflict, there were

sparked the debate for military action

talks and moves towards military action

by Western states. This chemical attack

backed by the UN Security Council, but

reportedly resulted in the death of some

no action has been taken due to Russia

hundreds. US President Obama even

and China’s veto to any such resolution.

indicated at one point the possibility of targeted military strikes even without Security Council backing as a response to the alleged use of chemical weapons

by Assad regime forces. But why is it now,

Who is responsible for the recent chemical attacks is yet to be determined and the UN Inspector’s forthcoming report is unlikely to reveal the culprit. Despite this

not before?

uncertainty, the tension rapidly mounted

The death toll in the Syrian conflict, which

military action against the use of chemical

began in March 2011, has already reached

weapons. But what is so special about

between major powers over ‘punitive’

(Photo credit: Ted Van Pelt)

4 | INTERNATIONAL ADVOCATE

chemical

weapons

killing

hundreds

Syria, of course, is prohibited under

of people, compared to attacks with

the general law of armed conflict to

conventional weapons resulting, so far, in

mount an attack in an indiscriminate

the death of 100,000 people?

or

To start with, is Syria legally prohibited from using chemical weapons? Syria is not a party to the Chemical Weapons Convention, which entered into force only in 1997,1 and therefore is not legally obliged to abolish chemical weapons in their armoury.

On the other hand, Syria is a party to the 1925 Geneva Protocol,2 which bans the use of poisonous gases during wars. It arguably bans the use of nerve agents such as the one reportedly used in Syria on 21 August 2013, but there is a good argument to be made that this ban does not apply to non-international armed conflicts like the Syrian conflict.3 This Protocol was meant to govern only international armed conflicts as between states that are party to it.4 1 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction, 13 September 1992, 1974 UNTS 45 (entered into force 29 April 1997).

2 Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, 17 June 1925, 94 LNTS 65 (entered into force 8 February 1928). See also, Hague Declaration (II) on the Use of Projectiles the Object of Which is the Diffusion of Asphyxiating or Deleterious Gases, 29 July 1899, 187 CTS 453 (entered into force 4 September 1900).

3 For classification of armed conflicts, see especially, Sylvain Vité, ‘Typology of Armed Conflicts in International Humanitarian Law: Legal Concepts and Actual Situations’ (2009) 91 International Review of the Red Cross 69.

4 William H Boothby, Weapons and the Law of

disproportionate

manner

excessive civilian casualties.5

causing These

breaches are recognised as war crimes under international humanitarian law both in

international

and

non-international

armed conflicts.6 However, Syrian forces have been arguably committing such crimes even before the alleged use of chemical weapons became a thorny issue.7 British Prime Minister David Cameron stated on 29 August to the British media, ‘It’s about chemical weapons; their use is wrong and the world shouldn’t stand idly by’.8

Former Australian Prime Minister

Kevin Rudd also suggested that the chemical attack ‘is an offence against Armed Conflict (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 124.

5 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977, 1125 UNTS 3 (entered into force 7 December 1978), arts 48, 51 and 57; Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise DoswaldBeck, Customary International Humanitarian Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), Vol 1, Rules 1 and 14.

6 See, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 17 July 1998, 2187 UNTS 90 (entered into force 1 July 2002), arts 8(2)(b) and 8(2)(c).

7 See, eg, Stephanie Nebehay, ‘Time to Refer Syrian War Crimes to ICC: U.N. Inquiry’, The Reuters, 18 February 2013, available at: http:// www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/18/us-syriacrisis-warcrimes-idUSBRE91H06920130218 (last accessed 31 August 2013).

8 Eg, Nicholas Watt, Julian Borger, Nick Hopkins and Paul Lewis, ‘Syria Crisis: UK and US Finalise Plans for Military Strikes’, The Guardian, 28 August 2013, available at: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/27/uk-us-strikes-syrianregime (last accessed 31 August 2013).

INTERNATIONAL ADVOCATE | 5

humanity and arguably is a crime against

this point which side was responsible for

humanity’.

the attacks.

So, it is about the use of chemical

Second, Western allies may be trying

weapons; no matter how small the casualty

to win the ‘moral cause’ for military

could have been and even if it may not

action against the heinous act of using

have been illegal to use them. Then, what

chemical weapons. Chemical weapons

explains the significance of chemical

are often described as ‘weapons of

weapons such that their use prompts the

mass

debate for military action even without

inaccurately given the scale of chemical

Security Council authorisation?

attacks can be no greater than some

9

First, it may simply be a political message against Russia and China, signalling an unacceptable line beyond which they cannot block military action. Indeed, in August last year, US President Obama set this ‘red-line’ against the use of chemical weapons and warned the Assad regime with a threat of US military intervention.10 Neither Russia nor China appears to have been disputing the seriousness of using chemical weapons. Rather, disagreement has been about which side has used chemical weapons. There is evidence that suggests chemical weapons have been used in Syria from the beginning of

destruction’,

although

rather

of the conventional weapons such as incendiary and thermobaric explosives.12 Indeed, when the legality of using poison as a method of warfare was discussed in the 1899 Hague Conference, the overwhelmingly strong view in favour of a ban on use of such weapons was their barbaric and unnecessarily cruel, inhumane character.13

A more recent

example is the international public dismay with the use of anaesthetic gas by Russian forces to resolve the hostage crisis at the Moscow Theatre in 2002, which resulted in the death of 129 hostages as well as 33 hostage takers.

the year,11 but it was not made clear up to

Third, we might be witnessing the

9 Mary Gearin and Matt Brown, ‘Rudd Says Australia Condemns Syrian Regime’s Chemical Weapons Attack in Damascus’, ABC News, 29 August 2013, available at: http://www.abc.net.au/ news/2013-08-29/us-concludes-syrian-regimebehind-chemical-attack/4920332 (last accessed 31 August 2013).

10 James Ball, ‘Obama Issues Syria a “Red Line” Warning on Chemical Weapons’, The Washington Post, 21 August 2012, available at: http://www. washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/ obama-issues-syria-red-line-warning-on-chemicalweapons/2012/08/20/ba5d26ec-eaf7-11e1-b81109036bcb182b_story.html (last accessed 31 August 2013).

11 Emily Benammar, ‘Chemical Weapons in Syria:

crystallising moment towards the formation

6 | INTERNATIONAL ADVOCATE

of customary international law prohibiting What Are They, What Do They Do and What Evidence of Their Use Exists?’, ABC News, 29 August 2013, available at: http://www.abc.net.au/ news/2013-04-27/allegations-of-the-use-of-chemical-weapons-in-syria/4655160 (last accessed 31 August 2013).

12 See, Josh Levs, ‘Syria “Red Line” Debate: Are Chemical Weapons in Syria Worse Than Conventional Attacks?’, CNN, 28 August 2013, available at: http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/27/world/meast/ syria-chemical-weapons-red-line/ (last accessed 31 August 2013).

13 Boothby, above n 4, 122.

the use of chemical weapons as a method

Chemical Weapons Convention),15

of violence in any type of armed conflict.

be seen as consistent with this overall

The move emerged in 2010, when states

trend.

agreed to extend the elements of war crimes to the use of poisonous and other gases even in non-international armed conflict, as part of the review of the Rome Statute that established the International Criminal Court.

14

The Western threat of

military action against the use of chemical weapons, and the subsequent deal reached between the US and Russia on the elimination of chemical weapons in Syria under the supervision of inspectors from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (notwithstanding the fact that Syria is not a party to the 14 Amendment to Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 10 June 2010, RC/Res.5 (entered into force 26 September 2012).

can

Syria remains one of the few states that are not party to the Chemical Weapons Convention. But many more countries are suspected of possessing or developing chemical weapons in violation of the Convention

obligations.

Meanwhile,

the legality of the use of ‘non-lethal’ or ‘less-lethal’ chemical agents such as incapacitating agents has still been debated,16 and it will remain unclear 15 ‘US, Russia Agree on Syria’s Chemical Weapons’, The Australian, 15 September 2013, available at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/ us-russia-agree-on-syrias-chemical-weapons/ story-e6frg6n6-1226719256051 (last accessed 16 September 2013).

16 ‘Expert Meeting: Incapacitating Chemical Agents: Implications for International Law’, Mentreux, Switzerland, 24-26 March 2010, available

(Photo credit: Zachary Baumgartner)

INTERNATIONAL ADVOCATE | 7

(Photo credit: Green Cross Switzerland, jenspie3

whether the purported rule of customary international law prohibiting the use of chemical weapons in any type of armed conflict would extend to alleged ‘non-lethal’

or

‘less

lethal’

chemical

agents. Nevertheless, the event that has unfolded in Syria may serve as a testament to the undeniable consensus the world is reaching that brings serious consequences to any future use of chemical agents as a method of violence.

at: http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/publications/icrc-002-4051.pdf (last accessed 31 August 2013).

8 | INTERNATIONAL ADVOCATE

Dr Hitoshi Nasu is Acting Co-Director of the Centre for Military and Security Law, ANU College of Law. He is also is a senior lecturer in law at the Australian National University, teaching international law, international security law, international humanitarian law, military operations law, and migration law. This article was written on 16 September 2013.

WOMEN PEACE AND SECURITY: THE THEME OF AUSTRALIA’S PRESIDENCY IN THE SECURITY COUNCIL

By Hilary Charlesworth and Susan Harris Rimmer A

Australian

under the UN Charter. It also offers the

speeches and statements to the United

priority

mentioned

in

opportunity to frame an agenda that

Nations this year – Women, Peace and

carries forward the broader themes of the

Security (WPS) – is likely to feature as the

Security Council, which includes the WPS

key “theme” of Australia’s presidency of

agenda since 2000.

the Security Council.

About the WPS Agenda

But what is the WPS agenda? What progress has been made so far, and – given our support has been stronger in rhetoric than practice – what can Australia

The Women, Peace and Security agenda appears in a cluster of UN Security Council Resolutions. The groundbreaking

do better?

Resolution 13252 was adopted in 2000

Just before the election was called, former

that women and girls experience conflict

foreign minister Bob Carr confirmed that:

differently from men and boys. It affirmed

with an agenda framed on the premise

…[a] key priority for Australia on the council — particularly during our presidency in September — will be to highlight the important leadership role women can play in ensuring long-lasting peace in fragile post conflict societies.1

holding

the

crisis

conflict prevention, peace building and post-conflict

reconstruction

and

that

governments are required to ensure women are represented in all levels of decision-making.

Later resolutions reaffirmed the first. The

The presidency carries great responsibility for

that women have an essential role in

management

powers of the Security Council bestowed 1 Senator Bob Carr, ‘Australia’s Foreign Policy Directions’ (Reference Paper of Speech presented at National Press Club, 26 June 2013) <http://foreignminister.gov.au/speeches/2013/ bc_sp_130626-reference-paper.html>.

most recent is Resolution 2106,3 adopted in June this year, which focused on prevention of sexual violence in conflict and increasing the participation of more 2 SC Res 1325, UNSCOR, 55th sess, 4213th mtg, UN Doc S/RES/1325 (31 October 2000).

3 SC Res 2106, UNSCOR, 68th sess, 6984th mtg, UN Doc S/RES/2106 (24 June 2013).

INTERNATIONAL ADVOCATE | 9

women in the UN’s own “good offices”

focus on sexual violence during election

roles in mediating conflict and negotiating

turmoil. But there is some evidence that

peace.

WPS issues are being considered more

The UN Secretary-General has also appointed

a

Special

routinely in debates.

What will Australia do?

Representative

on Sexual Violence in Conflict,4 whose mandate includes empowering women to seek redress, ending impunity for conflictrelated sexual violence and increasing

Australia will host a “side event” on September

6

focused

on

women’s

leadership in peace-building. The event

recognition of rape.

is intended to be an interactive meeting

One key action in terms of WPS is for

and peace-building and gender experts

states to design and implement National

of Security Council delegations, with

Action

a

an Asia-Pacific focus. Australia will also

National Action Plan in 2012. So far, only

launch a publication by London-based

around 40 countries have implemented

NGO

National Action Plans. However, few are

Women building peace.

funded, and there is little or no baseline

essays from women in strife-torn places

data for many of the actions. It seems that

such Somalia, West Africa, Aceh and

institutional commitment to WPS is more

Cambodia.

Plans.

between civil society, field practitioners

Australia

launched 5

6

rhetorical than real.

Conciliation

Resources 8

entitled

There are

As chair of the Peacebuilding Commission

In some cases, even the rhetoric has

(PBC), Croatia, together with UN Women,

proven controversial. In the last two years,

will hold a high-level meeting on women’s

debates on the thematic agendas have

economic empowerment in post-conflict

been criticised as extending beyond the

peace-building during leaders’ week in

Security Council’s mandate, such as the

late September.

7

4 Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, Office of the SRSG on Sexual Violence in Conflict, PeaceWomen <http://www.peacewomen.org/peacewomen_and_the_un/un-implementation/un-gender-officesmandate/entity/74/office-ofthe-srsg-on-sexual-violence-in-conflict>.

5 See: Australian Government Office for Women, ‘Australian National Action Plan: Women, Peace and Security 2012-2018’ (Plan, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, 8 March 2012).

6 Aisling Swaine, ‘National implementation of the UN Security Council’s women, peace and security resolutions’ (Policy Brief, Norwegian Peacebuilding Resource Centre, March 2013) 1.

7 See: Security Council Report: Cross Cutting 10 | INTERNATIONAL ADVOCATE

Australia is working closely with Croatia on planning for this event to highlight the close links between the work of the PBC and the UNSC on women’s leadership in post-conflict peace-building.

There are a number of other opportunities Report, ‘Women, Peace and Security’ (April 2013).

8 See: Conciliation Resources, Accord Insight: Women building peace <http://www.c-r.org/ accord-project/women-and-peacebuilding>.

(Photo credit: Jessica Spengler)

for Australia to focus on WPS in September.

silos. So too is presenting the evidence

For example, the UK is planning a high-

for why these issues deserve to be at

level event on its Champions Initiative

the centre of the agenda and not at the

as part of its program to prevent sexual

margins.

violence.9 What more should Australia do?

A positive aspect of the government’s

To do this using the direct voice of women involved – such as Sister Lorraine in Papua New Guinea – is crucial.10

current plans is a clear focus on the

Another positive aspect of Australia’s

participation of women, which is at

plans is to strengthen some of the

the heart of the WPS agenda. This

Security Council architecture such as

differentiates Australia’s focus from the

the Peacebuilding Commission11 and

theme so far this year on the protection

the Peacebuilding Support Office.12 It is

of women against sexual violence during

also important to bring an Asia-Pacific

conflict.

perspective to the debates of the Security

Bringing peace-building experts to talk to gender experts is important, as these experts are often operating within UN 9 See: Government Digital Service, Preventing conflict in fragile states, GOV.UK, <https://www. gov.uk/government/policies/preventing-conflictin-fragile-states--2/supporting-pages/preventingsexual-violence-initiative>.

10 See: Australia Civil Military Centre, Bonita Maywald and Sr Lorraine Garasu - Bogainville Peace Process (6 January 2013) YouTube, <http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQIAmeVEwy4&nore direct=1>.

11 See: United Nations Peacebuilding Commission, The Peacebuilding Commission <http://www. un.org/en/peacebuilding/>.

12 See: United Nations Peacebuilding Support Office, Peacebuilding Support Office <http://www. un.org/en/peacebuilding/pbso/>.

INTERNATIONAL ADVOCATE | 11

(Photo credit: CWGL)

Council, which is often heavily focused

draw attention to the evidence that the

on Africa. There has been significant civil

major cause of flight for Syrian refugees

society consultation, both here and in

was sexual violence.13

New York, and civil society actors from the field will be involved.

The timing of the election has clearly cast

However, there are also disappointing

Let’s hope that Australia starts planning

aspects of the current plans. For example,

now for a more impressive presidency

why is Australia planning simply side

stint next November.

a pall over Australia’s first presidency.

events on WPS? There is an array of other mechanisms within the Security Council processes,

including

a

presidential

statement and open debate that are recorded in the official proceedings.

Of course, Australia has the opportunity to raise WPS during the business of the Security Council as it plays out in crisis mode. This could be in the sanctions committees and the drafting of mandates, country-based

debates

and

budget

decisions – not just in September but for our whole term on the council. Civil society should keep on Australia’s case about this. For example, Australia could 12 | INTERNATIONAL ADVOCATE

Professor Hilary Charlesworth is Professor and Director of the Centre for International Governance and Justice in the Regulatory Institutions Network at the Australian National University and is an Australian Research Council Laureate Fellow.

Dr Susan Harris Rimmer is Director of Studies at the Asia-Pacific College of Diplomacy at the Australian National University. She is also a Research Associate at the Development Policy Centre in the Crawford School This piece was originally published on ‘The Conversation’, <https://theconversation.com/womenpeace-and-security-the-theme-of-australias-securitycouncil-presidency-17490>

13 See: International Rescue Committee, Syria: A Regional Crisis, (Report, IRC Commission on Syrian Refugees January 2012).

HOW THE ‘NO ADVANTAGE’ PRINCIPLE VIOLATES INTERNATIONAL LAW

By Sam Osborne

According to the Report of the Expert

of ‘no advantage’ should shape Australian

Panel on Asylum Seekers (‘the Report’)

policymaking on asylum seeker issues,

released on 13 August 2012,1 the single

so as to ‘ensure that no benefit is gained

most important priority for the Australian

through circumventing regular migration

Government (the Government) is to

arrangements’.4 This principle translated

‘recalibrate’ policy settings relating to

into several disincentives recommended

asylum seekers to be informed by the

by the Panel, the primary one of which

so-called ‘no advantage’ principle. This

was to delay resettlement of UMAs

principle seeks to guide the formation

from

of policy by the Government whereby

so that

asylum seekers who arrive ‘irregularly’ by

refugee status and resettlement would

boat will not be advantaged over those

not be advantaged over what it would

who pursue regular mechanisms.3

have been had they availed themselves

2

This

article

application

examines of

the

the

‘no

practical

advantage’

principle in two key areas, namely the delaying of resettlement for ‘Unauthorised Maritime Arrivals’ (‘UMAs’) from offshore processing countries, as well as the denial of work rights to UMAs granted bridging visas (class E). It will be argued that the application of the ‘no advantage’ principle in these two areas contravenes Australia’s international legal obligations.

The ‘No Advantage’ Principle In the Report, the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers recommended that the principle 1 Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers, Parliament of Australia, Report of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers (2012).

2 Ibid 11 [v].

3 Ibid 12 [xv].

offshore

processing

countries,

‘[t]heir position in relation to

of assessment by UNHCR within the regional processing arrangement.’5 In essence, resettlement for such UMAs will only ‘be provided at a time comparable to what would have been made available had their claims been assessed through regional processing arrangements.’6 It is quite clear, then, that these practices were recommended for an overall purpose of deterrence.

There is, however, a distinct lack of clarity and ambiguity surrounding the principle.

In its application to the delay of resettling UMAs, there is no evidence to indicate the standard that the Government is using to determine the period an asylum seeker 4 Above n 1, 141.

5 Ibid 48 [3.50]..

6 Ibid 49 [3.53].

INTERNATIONAL ADVOCATE | 13

could expect to wait for resettlement

Government contemplates a time frame

elsewhere

regional

[for resettlement] that is assessed against

processing arrangement. As the Jesuit

in

the

UNHCR

and consistent with the period a refugee

Refugee Service has commented, ‘[t]here

might face had s/he been assessed “by

is no standard or average waiting time for

UNHCR within the regional processing

asylum seekers and refugees anywhere in

arrangement.”’11 Since the inclusion of s

our region or in the world.’

The United

5AA into the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) in

Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

May 2013,12 any and all UMAs, regardless

has also suggested that the ‘practical

of where they arrive, ‘will not … be issued

implications’ of the ‘no advantage’ policy

with a permanent Protection visa if found

are ‘not fully clear’.8 He advised that ‘[t]he

to be a refugee, until such time that they

time it takes for resettlement referrals by

would have been resettled in Australia

UNHCR in South-East Asia or elsewhere

after being processed in our region’.13

7

may not be a suitable comparator for the period that a Convention State, whose protection

obligations

are

engaged,

would need’. Moreover, he indicated that 9

‘it will be difficult to identify such a period with any accuracy, given there is no “average” time for resettlement’.10 As will be shown below, this lack of clarity and a gravely uncertain waiting time leads to a blatant violation of Australia’s international legal obligations.

the

United

achieve a deterrence purpose under the ‘no advantage’ policy is likely to violate Australia’s obligations under international human rights instruments. Article 9(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (‘ICCPR’)14 prohibits arbitrary

Nations

High

Commissioner for Refugees suggests, ‘the “no-advantage” test endorsed by the 7 Jesuit Refugee Service, ‘ “No Advantage” Policy Cruel, Inhumane, and Immoral’ (Media Release, 22 November 2012) <http://www.jrs.org.au/newsclips/latest-news/246-no-advantage-policy-cruelinhumane-and-immoral>.

8 Letter from Antonio Guterres, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, to Chris Bowen, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship of Australia, 9 October 2012 <http://unhcr.org.au/ unhcr/ images/121009%20response%20to%20 minister%20on%20png.pdf>.

9 Ibid.

10 Ibid.

14 | INTERNATIONAL ADVOCATE

detention,

which

applies

to detention in cases of immigration control.15 The Human Rights Committee (‘the

Delaying Resettlement of UMAs As

First, the delay in resettling UMAs to

Committee’)

has

stressed

that

‘arbitrariness’ is not to be equated with ‘against the law’ and must be interpreted more of

broadly

‘to

include

inappropriateness,

elements

injustice

and

11 Above n 8.

12 See Migration Amendment (Unauthorised Maritime Arrivals and Other Measures) Act 2013 (Cth).

13 Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, ‘No Advantage Onshore for Boat Arrivals’ (Media Release, 21 November 2012) <http://www.minister. immi.gov.au/media/cb/ 2012/cb191883.htm>.

14 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature 16 December 1966, 999 UNTS 171 (entered into force 23 March 1976).

15 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No 8: Right to Liberty and Security of Persons (Art 9), 16th sess, UN Doc CCPR/C/GC/8 (30 June 1982) [1].

(Photo credit: Takver)

lack of predictability’.16

Arguably, the

If art 31(2) of the Convention Relating

unnecessary and seemingly indefinite

to the Status of Refugees (‘Refugees

extension of detention of asylum seekers

Convention’)19 is cross-referenced here,

who arrive by boat, for reasons of

the

deterrence would be ‘inappropriate’ and

cease when the asylum seeker’s ‘status

lacks any predictability.

in the country is regularized’ or when

The Committee has also stated that any detention should not continue ‘beyond the period for which the State can provide appropriate justification’, lest it be considered arbitrary for the purposes of art 9(1) ICCPR.17 Further, the detention must be ‘necessary in all the circumstances …

‘they

justification

obtain

country.’20

for

detention

admission

Therefore,

into

based

would

another on

this

reasoning, detaining UMAs, who have been recognised as refugees for a longer, undefined period in order to adhere to the ‘no advantage’ policy, can be considered arbitrary detention under art 9(1) ICCPR.

and proportionate to the ends sought’.18

In fact, the Executive Committee of

16 Human Rights Committee, Views: Communication No 305/1988, UN Doc CCPR/C/39/D/305/1988 (23 July 1990) [5.8] (‘Van Alphen v The Netherlands’).

17 Human Rights Committee, Views: Communication No 560/1993, UN Doc CCPR/C/59/D/560/1993 (30 April 1997) [9.4] (‘A v Australia’). See also Human Rights Committee, Draft General Comment No 35: Article 9: Liberty and Security of the Person, 107th sess, UN Doc CCPR/C/107/R.3 (28 January 2013) [13].

18 Human Rights Committee, Views: Communication No 1324/2004, UN Doc CCPR/C/88/ D/1324/2004 (13 November 2006) [7.2] (‘Shafiq v

UNHCR has suggested that detention can only be ‘resorted to’ to verify an individual’s identity, to determine the truthfulness of an asylum seeker’s statements relating to refugee status determination, to deal with Australia’).

19 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, opened for signature 28 July 1951, 189 UNTS 137 (entered into force 22 April 1954).

20 Ibid art 31(2).

INTERNATIONAL ADVOCATE | 15

cases involving destroyed or fraudulent

‘acts that cause mental suffering to the

identity documents, or to protect national

victim.’24

security or public order.

For this reason,

seekers who arrive by boat for an

the Committee found, in the case of

extraneous period, even after they are

Bakhtiyari v Australia, that ‘[w]hatever

recognised as legitimate refugees, for

justification there may have been for

the purposes of ensuring they gain ‘no

an initial detention for the purposes of

advantage’ over those who utilise regular

ascertaining identity and other issues,

mechanisms, is likely to cause significant

[Australia] has not … demonstrated that

mental and emotional suffering.

21

… detention was justified for such an extended period.’22 The ‘no advantage’ policy’s

commitment

to

continued

detention and delays purely for a deterrent purpose would, again, lose any and all justification after a refugee had been recognised as such by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. As UNHCR insists, ‘[d]etention that is imposed in order to deter future asylum-seekers … is inconsistent with international norms’.23 It is clear, then, that continued and indefinite detention as a result of delaying resettlement under the ‘no advantage’ policy constitutes a violation of art 9(1)

Arguably, detaining asylum

The Committee in the case of C v Australia determined that ‘the continued detention of the [asylum seeker] when [Australia] was aware of [his] mental condition and fail[ing] to take steps necessary to ameliorate [his] mental deterioration constituted a violation of his rights under article 7 of the [ICCPR].’25 In that instance the asylum seeker was detained under Australia’s standard mandatory detention protocols. Therefore, in the case of those UMAs that were detained for extended periods

under

the

‘no

advantage’

principle, the Committee would be even

ICCPR.

more likely to find a breach of Australia’s

Further, the Committee has recognised

unnecessary and indeterminate nature of

that the prohibition on torture or ‘cruel,

that detention.

inhuman

obligations under art 7 ICCPR, due to the

or

degrading

treatment

or

punishment’ in art 7 ICCPR extends to 21 Executive Committee of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Conclusion No 44: Detention of Refugees and Asylum-Seekers, 37th sess, UN Doc A/41/12/Add.1 (13 October 1986) 44 [b].

22 Human Rights Committee, Views: Communication No 1069/2002, UN Doc CCPR/C/79 D/1069/2002 (6 November 2003) [9.3] (‘Bakhtiyari v Australia’).

23 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Detention Guidelines (2012) [32] <http:// www.unhcr.org/505b10ee9.html>.

16 | INTERNATIONAL ADVOCATE

Further, in adhering strictly to this principle laid down in the Report, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship has arguably failed to ‘take into account the needs of 24 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No 20: Replaces General Comment 7 Concerning Prohibition of Torture and Cruel Treatment or Punishment (Art 7), 44th sess, UN Doc CCPR/C/ GC/20 (10 March 1992) [5].

25 Human Rights Committee, Views: Communication No 900/1999, UN Doc CCPR/C/76/D/900/1999 (13 November 2002) [8.4] (‘C v Australia’).

children and the mental health condition

In light of the High Court’s reasoning,

of those detained’,

which, again,

detaining refugees after their status has

suggests a clear violation of art 7 ICCPR,

been determined and recognised in order

as well as art 37(a) of the Convention on

to deter others would be considered

the Rights of the Child.27

punitive and would therefore contravene

26

Moreover, the delays in resettlement of refugees under the ‘no advantage’ principle likely constitute penalisation for the purposes of art 31(1) of the Refugee Convention. As McHugh J noted in the case of Chu Kheng Lim v Minister for Immigration,

Local

Government

art 31(1) of the Refugees Convention.

Hathaway further suggests that art 31(2) of the Refugees Convention ‘cannot be relied upon to justify punitive detention designed to deter the arrival of other refugees’.31

and

The principle, in its application to the

‘if imprisonment goes

delaying of resettling UMAs, thus quite

beyond what is reasonably necessary

clearly breaches several international

to achieve the non-punitive object, it will

legal

be regarded as punitive in character.’29

practically indefinite detention for UMAs.

Ethnic Affairs,

28

In that case, McHugh J stressed that detention of asylum seekers would be non-punitive ‘until their claims for refugee status or entry are determined’.30

26 Human Rights Committee, Draft General Comment No 35: Article 9: Liberty and Security of the Person, 107th sess, UN Doc CCPR/C/107/R.3 (28 January 2013) [18].

27 Convention on the Rights of the Child, opened for signature 20 November 1989, 1577 UNTS 3 (entered into force 2 September 1990).

28 (1992) 110 ALR 97.

29 Ibid 149 (McHugh J).

30 Ibid.

norms

in

its

continuation

of

Denial of Work Rights to UMAs Another disincentive to deter ‘irregular’ maritime arrivals is the denial of work rights

to

those

visas (class E).

32

UMAs

on

bridging

The Department of

Immigration and Citizenship has stated 31 James Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees under International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2005) 422.

32 See Migration Act 1958 (Cth) sub-div AF.

(Photo credit: European Commission DG ECHO) INTERNATIONAL ADVOCATE | 17

unequivocally that the fact that UMAs

Further, the denial of work rights under the

on bridging visas are not permitted to

banner of the ‘no advantage’ policy fails

work is a direct implementation of the ‘no

to meet even CESCR’s ‘core obligations’

advantage’ policy.

under the ICESCR. These obligations

33

This denial of work rights contravenes the right to work provided by art 6(1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (‘ICESCR’).34 The right to work is recognised by the Committee on Economic, Social

stipulate that Australia must ‘ensure the right of access to employment, especially for

disadvantaged

and

marginalized

individuals and groups’ and must ‘avoid any measure that results in discrimination and unequal treatment’.37

and Cultural Rights (‘CESCR’) as a

There is no doubt that refugees already

‘fundamental right’, and one that is

form a marginalised group within wider

‘essential

Australian society,38 and denying work

for

realizing

other

human

rights’.

rights to such a disadvantaged group

35

Most

importantly,

the

obligation

on

Australia as a State party to the ICESCR is to ‘ensure the progressive realization of the exercise of the right to work’, which entails a ‘strong presumption’ that retrogressive measures taken in relation to the right to work are ‘not permissible’.36

Arguably,

instituting a scheme to deny work rights to

only exacerbates that marginalisation.

Further, not only is Australia failing to meet their ‘core obligation’ to ensure the right of access to employment for such individuals, but in removing those rights they are taking positive measures that result in discrimination and unequal treatment.

UMAs on bridging visas, who previously

CESCR has stressed that the principle

held such rights, is a ‘retrogressive step’

of non-discrimination in art 2(2) ICESCR

for these purposes and would therefore

applies to the right to work under art

be impermissible under art 6(1) ICESCR.

6 and is an obligation of immediate effect, as opposed to one that should

33 Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Fact Sheet 65 – Onshore Processing Arrangements: Bridging Visas for Irregular Maritime Arrivals (Fact Sheet, Department of Immigration and Citizenship, May 2013).

34 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, opened for signature 16 December 1966, 993 UNTS 3 (entered into force 3 January 1976).

35 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No 18: The Right to Work, 35th sess, UN Doc E/C.12/GC/18 (6 February 2006) [1].

36 Ibid [19], [34].

18 | INTERNATIONAL ADVOCATE

be ‘progressively realized’.39 The denial of work rights under the ‘no advantage’ policy applies only to UMAs, and only to those UMAs who arrived in Australia after 13 August 2012. This not only 37 Above n 35, [31].

38 Refugee Council of Australia, Submission to the New South Wales Government Green Paper, Cultural Harmony: The Next Decade 2002-2012, July 2002, 11.

39 Above n 35, [19].

seems arbitrary, but also clearly rests on

threatened.’42 This, again, highlights the

discriminatory grounds, as a particular

significance of the decision to deny work

group of people (UMAs) with a particular

rights under the ‘no advantage’ policy, as

characteristic (arrival post-13 August

well as its potentially sinister ramifications

2012) are denied the right to work, while

for the wellbeing of those asylum seekers

others on the same class E bridging visa

affected by it.

are granted those rights. This then forms a violation of art 6(1) ICESCR as it is a policy that contravenes the standard laid down in art 6(1) ‘with the aim of impairing the equal enjoyment or exercise’ of the

Ultimately, the denial of work rights to those UMAs on bridging visas who arrived after the inception of the ‘no advantage’ principle is a retrogressive

right.40

step without any reasonable justification

Apart from the right to work granted

prohibited as a contravention of the right

under art 6(1) ICESCR, arts 17, 18 and 19

to work under art 6(1) ICESCR. Further, as

within ch III of the Refugees Convention

the ASRC recognises, ‘[m]oving asylum

provide rights to ‘gainful employment’

seekers out of detention and into the

for refugees. While these provisions

community without adequate access to

do concentrate more heavily on status

rights and entitlements serves only to

considerations than the right provided

foster destitution.’43

under art 6(1) ICESCR, they underline the importance of the right to work in the context of international refugee law.

In fact, Edwards suggests that denying the provision of basic socio-economic rights, such as the right to work, to asylum seekers could constitute ‘constructive refoulement’ for the purposes of art 33 of the Refugees Convention.41 She stresses that the denial of work rights ‘may act as a push factor in which refugees and/ or asylum-seekers, out of pure economic necessity, are forced to return to a country in which their life or freedom could be 40 Above n 35, [33].

41 Alice Edwards, ‘Human Rights, Refugees, and The Right ‘To Enjoy’ Asylum’ (2005) 17 International Journal of Refugee Law 293, 322.

other than deterrence, and so would be

Conclusion As has been shown, the aim of deterrence and the continued detention of UMAs even after they have been recognised as refugees under the ‘no advantage’ principle renders that detention arbitrary for the purposes of art 9(1) ICCPR and therefore in violation of international law. In addition, it is a penalty without justification for the purposes of art 31(1) of the Refugees Convention. Such unnecessary and unreasonable extensions of detention also have severe consequences for the 42 Above n 41, 322.

43 Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, ‘Asylum Seekers and the Right to Work’ (Policy Position Paper, Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, March 2013) 3.

INTERNATIONAL ADVOCATE | 19

mental and emotional wellbeing of the

an outcast in the international legal sphere

affected asylum seekers, and so the

as an alleged rights-respecting nation.

scheme likely contravenes the prohibition

Accordingly, as a so-called ‘guiding

on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment

principle’ for Australian policymaking, it

or punishment under art 7 ICCPR. These

is gravely flawed, and flies in the face of

negative consequences are compounded

recognised standards of international law.

by the denial of work rights to UMAs on bridging visas under the ‘no advantage’ policy, which clearly violates Australia’s international obligations under art 6(1) ICESCR. Removing the right to access gainful employment also defies ch III of the Refugees Convention.

Sam Osborne is a 6th year student in his final semester of a combined Laws/Asian Studies (Specialist) degree at the Australian National University. He is currently writing his honours thesis on the legality of US drone strikes under art 51 of the UN Charter.

While the ‘no advantage’ policy was targeted at asylum seekers, it has no advantage for Australia itself. It serves only to worsen the plight of individuals seeking Australia’s protection, has severe and negative consequences for Australian society more widely, and renders Australia

(Photo credit: Takver) 20 | INTERNATIONAL ADVOCATE

GRAPPLING WITH MY THESIS: THE USE OF TORTURE IN THE WAR ON TERROR

By Cynthia Banham

The aspiring academic who opened my

torture and its virtues slipped into public

mind to doing a PhD, once told me:

debate after September 11.

“I’ve long thought that the essence of

The prohibition against torture, entrenched

a liberal society is the courage it takes

in the UN Convention Against Torture,

to guarantee individuals their basic

ratified by 153 states, is a sacrosanct

liberties, even though this means

principle.

allowing spaces that the state does not

the 21st Century, to canvass its utility so

control.”

freely? How did it become okay to not be

How did it become okay in

horrified by the spectre of its return as a That

person

was

Professor

Chris

weapon to be used by the state in fighting

Reus-Smit, who used to head the ANU

crime and war? I have had some pretty

International Relations Department (and

strange reactions to my PhD topic from

is now at the University of Queensland). I

Australian officials. I am paraphrasing,

interpret the courage of which Chris spoke

but here are some of them:

as including the state’s commitment to apply the same legal principles to all

But we didn’t torture - a senior

individuals, even those perceived to

Australian Defence Force member

threaten the state. Liberal democracies were tested after September 11, and

It will be a pretty short thesis – a

many emerged from that period seriously

political staffer

lacking in moral fortitude.

You mean how we turned a blind eye This is the subject that I am grappling

– an MP

with in my thesis: the responses of certain states, including Australia, to

Collectively, the comments neatly point to

the use of torture in the war on terror –

why I am doing this thesis.

in particular, against their own citizens.

Like many others with a deep interest in

My interest in this topic came from

human rights, I have been dismayed and

having reported on national security

perplexed by how seemingly easy talk of

and then foreign affairs and defence in INTERNATIONAL ADVOCATE | 21

(Photo credit: Ashleigh Nushawg

the National Press Gallery. I arrived in

almost every day. Following the terrorist

Canberra in May 2001. I had not been

attacks on the US, any article with the word

a journalist for very long, having started

“terrorism” in it was a potential page one

my career as a lawyer. That lasted three

story. And a significant component of the

years:

government’s counter-terrorism response

my

idealistic

thoughts

about

practising law, nurtured by volunteer work

emanated from the AG’s portfolio.

for Redfern Legal Centre throughout my undergraduate years, were not realised

Later, as I contemplated embarking on

in the plush offices of big law firms in

a PhD, one thought had remained with

Sydney.

me from those heady post-September 11 days. That was how little concern

However, one belief I held dearly was

the Australian polity had shown towards

that no matter what a person may be

allegations of torture regarding its own

accused of, they deserved to be treated

citizens – especially Mamdouh Habib.

according to rule of law principles that

Habib, as you may recall was Australia’s

liberal democracies stand for.

sole victim of extraordinary rendition, and was sent in late 2001 to Egypt to be

So it was as a reporter for The Sydney

tortured.

Morning Herald, working the traditionally quiet legal round covering the Attorney-

I embarked on the project nearly four

General’s Department, that I suddenly

years ago. In that time it has turned

found myself writing front page news

into a comparative study looking at how Australia, Canada and the UK

22 | INTERNATIONAL ADVOCATE

each responded to the torture of their

between states, but within them as well?

own citizens. I am now working under

The answer, I argue in my thesis, lies

the supervision of another inspirational

in the power of civil society to hold

academic, Professor Hilary Charlesworth.

governments accountable for arbitrary

Outwardly, my three case study states

exercises of state power. Those actors

appear to be very similar, sharing common

include lawyers, human rights NGOs, and

political cultures and traditions. Yet on this

also the media.

question of the realisation in practice of a deeply entrenched international human

It is a role that I believe many civil

rights principle – the prohibition against

society actors, especially in this country,

torture - they behaved quite differently.

underestimate.

The UK for instance was the only one not to allow its citizens to be tried by US military commission at Guantánamo Bay, a trial process whose initial rules allowed for the use of evidence obtained by torture.

Canada was the only one to hold a major independent public inquiry into

Cynthia Banham is a journalist, lawyer, and PhD candidate a t t h e A N U ’s R e g u l a t o r y Institutions Network (Regnet), in the Centre for International Governance and Justice. Her thesis examines the responses of liberal democracies to the torture of their own citizens after September 11. She is a former foreign affairs and defence correspondent for the Sydney Morning Herald, and spent almost a decade working in the Canberra Press Gallery.

the extraordinary rendition and torture in Syria of one of its citizens, and afterwards publicly apologised to him and paid substantial compensation. Yet in relation to another of its citizens detained in the war on terror, Canada - the supposed moral super power of the Americas1

-

refused for more than 10 years to take responsibility. This citizen was a child when captured at 15. He was tried by military commission at Guantánamo Bay, and his lawyers argued that incriminating statements

used

against

him

were

obtained under torture. Why such different responses to the torture issue, not only 1 A term I borrow from Alison Brysk, Global Good Samaritans (Oxford University Press, 2009).

INTERNATIONAL ADVOCATE | 23

NEUTRALITY: How Red Cross Workers Protect

Themselves in the Most Dangerous Areas on the Planet

By Heath McCallum

150 years ago, Red Cross was born out

This strict neutrality allows for trust and

of the need for a neutral body to provide

consistency when dealing with Red Cross

impartial relief in times of armed conflict.

workers across the world. Whether it is

This neutrality continues to underpin

a meeting with a non-state actor in the

everything the Red Cross and the Red

Central African Republic or a meeting

Crescent Movement (the Movement) does

with

today. Then, as now, it was thought that

the process remains the same. This

strict neutrality allowed for greater access

trust allows for unparalleled access for

and protection in volatile situations but

Movement workers.

Australian

government

officials,

what does this mean for the Movement’s work today?

Access to detention facilities or to particular places in humanitarian need is

Neutrality is one of the Movement’s seven

provided by authorities only because they

‘Fundamental Principles’ designed to not

understand and trust the way that Red

only guide how work is done, but what is

Cross workers operate. Naturally, access

done. In order to enjoy the confidence

to these facilities or areas gives significant

of all, the Movement may not take sides

amounts of intelligence to the organisation

in hostilities and may not take part in

but any concerns will be raised privately

controversies of a political, racial, religious

with the authorities and not released

or ideological nature.

publically.

If

such

information

was

released, this would jeopardise access to This does not mean that the parts of the

the facilities and this would ultimately be

Movement do not have opinions on the

to the detriment of those inside.

actions of governments or other groups, but it does mean that changes will be

The Movement operates without armed

advocated for privately, not publicly.

guards and escorts and instead relies

In

all

on its neutrality to afford it protection. In

other means have been exhausted and

times of armed conflict, the ICRC has a

concern for vulnerable people remains,

unique mandate under the 1949 Geneva

a public statement may be made but this

Conventions and and will reach out to all

has happened very rarely in Red Cross’

actors in order to educate them about the

history.

humanitarian mandate of the organisation.

specific

circumstances,

24 | INTERNATIONAL ADVOCATE

when

(Photo credit: Christian Frei Switzerland)

critical importance of neutrality is Red In

Afghanistan,

this

means

regular

Cross work in Somalia. ICRC has been

meetings with both the Coalition forces

present since 1977 and again, continues

and the Taliban. The ICRC has been

to work with all sides to help some of

in Afghanistan since 1987 and has

the most vulnerable people in the world.

continued to build a relationship with the

The ICRC works closely with the Somali

Taliban over this period, ensuring that its

Red Crescent Society to deliver aid in

mandate and intentions are clear. With

face of the decades of internal violence

this acceptance, the ICRC is able to carry

and

out its work in every province across the

humanitarian organisations have been

country.

forced to leave the country out of fear

natural

disasters.

While

many

of their workers’ safety, the Movement’s On May 29 of this year, a suicide bombing

neutrality has allowed it to weather the

attack on the ICRC office in Jalalabad in

volatility in regional powers.

eastern Afghanistan killed Abdul Bashir Khan, a staff member since 2002. This

“One of the strengths of the Somali

was the first direct attack on the Movement

Red Crescent is that they are the only

in Afghanistan and was condemned my

national structure left. They know how

many, including the Taliban.

to manage the stakes... They never

Another context that demonstrates the

took sides…knew how to just be INTERNATIONAL ADVOCATE | 25

present, be there, neutral. Whereas

but for Red Cross access to the world’s

[others] are seen as taking sides.”

most vulnerable people is paramount

1

and requires the upmost respect for this In the clan driven structure that makes up

principle. The trust given to the Movement

modern Somalia, the Somali Red Crescent

allows

Society has ensured its operations and

restricted facilities and areas usually too

governance structure reflect the different

volatile for humanitarian organisations.

for

unparalleled

access

into

make ups of the country. Each region’s branch comprises of local clan members but the strong and diverse national arm of the organisation ensures neutrality can be enforced as needed. With cultural legitimacy from all groups and a strong history of providing help impartially, the organisation

maintains

its

relevance

Heath McCallum is the International Humanitarian Law Officer (ACT) for Australian Red Cross. He is a recent graduate in Law and Inter national Studies from Flinders University and is pursuing a career in international law.

across the country.

Neutrality is of course a double edged sword and a decision not to speak publicly about a situation can be misunderstood 1 ‘Principles in action in Somalia’ (Report, British Red Cross and Somali Red Crescent Society, 2013) 18.

(Photo credit: Joshua Nuzzo) 26 | INTERNATIONAL ADVOCATE

SUMMER INTERN PROFILE: ATTORNEYGENERAL’S DEPARTMENT

By Maia Cairns I

targeted

the

Attorney-General’s

Department for an internship as its portfolio is one of the broadest, covering both policy and legal opportunities in areas such as national security, international litigation, Asia-Pacific engagement, crime, native title, federal courts, constitutional law,

international

human

rights

and

with brilliant legal minds and be privy to their analysis.

My supervisor was also intent on building my knowledge capabilities so I was sent to the Attorney-General’s Department International Law Colloquium and the 30th

Anniversary

of

United

Nations

emergency management.

Conference on the Law of the Sea

On starting the program I was placed

up legal analysis on issues like the uses

with the team pursuing the whaling case

of nano-science, space law, the rule of

against Japan in the International Court of

law and the evolution of UNCLOS from

Justice, led by Bill Campbell QC. The team

names such as Ivan Shearer and Hilary

was warm and welcoming and provided

Charlesworth.

(UNCLOS) Symposium. There, I soaked

me with a huge range of experiences.

The work you partake in at the Attorney-

My first task was to read the memorial

General’s Department is of national and

and counter-memorials Following tasks

international significance. While following

included: assisting in drafting ministerial

the news of how the whaling case was

briefs,

Question

progressing in The Hague, I couldn’t be

Time responses, helping with advice to

Federal

Parliament’s

more grateful that I started my career in

counsel and the Solicitor-General and

this way.

completing research briefs on specific areas of international law. I was also expected to contribute in team meetings; it is quite the feeling to see Bill Campbell across the table from you, asking what you thought on the wording of a document

Maia Cairns currently works in the Civil Justice & Legal Services Group at the Attorney-General’s Department.

She studied a double degree of International Relations and Law, majoring in Government and Politics.

after the feelings of pure shock and panic subsided. What set this experience apart was the opportunity to work so closely INTERNATIONAL ADVOCATE | 27

ABOUT THE

ANU INTERNATIONAL LAW SOCIETY The ANU International Law Society (ILS) is a student run orgnisation located at the Australian National University in Canberra. The society is dedicated to promoting interest in and the study of international law. Its activities include publishing the International Advocate featuing contributions from students, academics and practitioners, as well as providing insightful events and valuble academic support to students.

For more information on the societyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s activities, upcoming events and how you can get involved please visit www.anuils.com