Australia Navy entered Indonesia waters six times

[Mighty Caty]

You keep conflating two different concepts, which would explain your confusion.

-- A refugee applicant, once in detention or granted, must comply with the laws of a country. but the initial arrival will often be illegal.

The 1951 convention only works for refugee, not the person who seeking the refugee. So, as i said, the Article 31 is after the fact that the person cannot be punished for the illegal entry after his successful claim of the refugee status.

There are no articel in 1951 convention and 1967 protocol stating any right on people claiming refugee status.

-- Most of your points directly reinforce the view that an applicant must be given time to make his/her case rather than peremptory deportation.

This is because there are no provision to people who seek refugee status, can you show me which part of 1951 convention, 1967 protocol and any precedent and case ruling, judgment that expressly forbit any country turning refugee seeker around?

[/quote]
-- A signatory to the Convention can NOT deport a person to a country where their rights would be threatened due to illegal entry. Australia pushing them into Indonesia constitutes as "illegal entry" into Indonesia.
[/quote]

This is doublely wrong. Even for a refugee who gain refugee status, a signatory coutnry can remove, expel him if a due process is given, covered by the article 32 and 33.

And those people, once again, are not refugee, they are seeking refugee.

And i again call for any article written in 1951 Convention, 1967 protocol and case ruling and precedent if you have to say it is otherwise.

-- Regarding indirect arrival in Sweden,
Sweden must take its share of the responsibility for the international protection of refugees. An important part of this responsibility is to provide protection - through resettlement in Sweden - for people fleeing in a third country who do not have access to any other permanent solution.

That was a mission statement,

What is a third country means??

Any other EU member? (Which is actually implied on the paragraph, if you care to read them throught)
Any other country?

The sentense said, if a refugee come fomr the land of threat and to a second country, and if that country cannot provide a permanent solution (Whis is what it said by the bolded part), then sweden would take the responsibility.

That can mean any number of things, as each country have a quote for refugee intake (UNHCR set the quota to 5%) so, if a refugee is housed in say Finland, but Finland's quota for that year is used up, then it would be sweden responsibility to take that refugee if Swedish own quota was still not filled, you can read it from the same statement

All EU Member States must share the responsibility for offering protection to refugees. If Sweden has to shoulder a disproportionate share of the responsibility for refugee situations around the world in relation to comparable countries, this will eventually raise questions about the sustainability of our asylum system.

The problem is, this is what they say they will do, but this does not actually mean anything.

What I wrote above.

Their reintroduction into Indonesian territory is illegal, since Australian Navy has no way to know if they have a valid Indonesian visa. In fact, the Australian Navy is breaking Indonesian border laws, as well as the UNHCR Convention's rules regarding sending people to countries where their rights might be in jeopardy due to their illegal status.

[/quote]
Please do show me which part make the Australian Reintroduction those refugee seeker to Indonesia illegal

Are there any convention written, case ruling and precedent to support your word?

I have quote all the article and common law to support my argument, i think you should do the same

I think the UN has already provided interpretation of the word "directly" in the convention to clear any ambiguation~

Transiting through Indonesia is still considered "coming directly" per UN interpretation, even more, there are no time limit for how long the period of transiting is still count as"direct" and each must be judged based on merits.

"The expression "coming directly" in Article 31(1), covers the situation of a person who enters the country in which asylum is sought directly from the country of origin, or from another country where his protection, safety and security could not be assured. It is understood that this term also covers a person who transits an intermediate country for a short period of time without having applied for, or received, asylum there. No strict time limit can be applied to the concept "coming directly" and each case must be judged on its merits. Similarly, given the special situation of asylum-seekers, in particular the effects of trauma, language problems, lack of information, previous experiences which often result in a suspicion of those in authority, feelings of insecurity, and the fact that these and other circumstances may vary enormously from one asylum seeker to another, there is no time limit which can be mechanically applied or associated with the expression "without delay". The expression " good cause", requires a consideration of the circumstances under which the asylum-seeker fled. The term "asylum-seeker" in these guidelines applies to those whose claims are being considered under an admissibility or pre-screening procedure as well as those who are being considered under refugee status determination procedures. It also includes those exercising their right to seek judicial and/or administrative review of their asylum request."

Then i want to ask you, how do you determine if the Asylum seeker is not just transiting Australia and coming to another country??

The problem is, you need to be judged case by case on its own merit. You cannot just say, "I want to go to Australia and apply for asylum there" and say ok, then you are just transiiting throught Indonesia. That is because Indonesian Government cannot guarantee that once those people arrive in Australia, they won't say "I am just going to New Zealand and i am just transiting thru Australia"

The key issue is judge by its own merit, and that is not the Australian authority job when the asylum seeker claiming they want to go to Australia when they are in indonesia. To pursance to this clause, Indonesian government would need to judge each case by its own merit, to see if they are indeed only transit thru indonesia to Austrlaia

An act which Indonesian Government did not do

 

[Maxtini]

Then i want to ask you, how do you determine if the Asylum seeker is not just transiting Australia and coming to another country??

The problem is, you need to be judged case by case on its own merit. You cannot just say, "I want to go to Australia and apply for asylum there" and say ok, then you are just transiiting throught Indonesia. That is because Indonesian Government cannot guarantee that once those people arrive in Australia, they won't say "I am just going to New Zealand and i am just transiting thru Australia"

The key issue is judge by its own merit, and that is not the Australian authority job when the asylum seeker claiming they want to go to Australia when they are in indonesia. To pursance to this clause, Indonesian government would need to judge each case by its own merit, to see if they are indeed only transit thru indonesia to Austrlaia
An act which Indonesian Government did not do

I can't understand your logic here~

When the asylum seeker present itself to the authority, he or she is declaring he seek asylums to the countries in which he present himself. It is crystal clear that those refugees do not present themselves to Indonesia, nor claiming they seek asylum to Indonesian government. It is also the case that most of them seek UNHCR assistance and made it clear they're goring to Australia. In other words, they're just transiting, and Indonesian government must honor non-refoulement policy not to turn them back with some exception.

When they have set foot in Australia, either legally or illegally, they declared their intent to seek asylum, and it is Australian Authority ot judge by their own merits whether it is genuine or not. They could also declared that they're transiting to New Zealand~ but I doubt most of them will.

Those judgement are made after they present themselves to the countries they seek refuge, not before~

 

[Developereo]

This is because there are no provision to people who seek refugee status, can you show me which part of 1951 convention, 1967 protocol and any precedent and case ruling, judgment that expressly forbit any country turning refugee seeker around?

UNHCR - Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees

Article 33, Principle of Expulsion or Return ("Refoulement")

Furthermore, http://www.unhcr.org/4ec262df9.pdf

"A refugee seeking protection must not be prevented from entering a country as this would amount to refoulement."

Even for a refugee who gain refugee status, a signatory coutnry can remove, expel him if a due process is given, covered by the article 32 and 33.

We are talking here about people applying for refugee status, not criminals or law-breakers. Once someone breaks the law, or their refugee application is denied, they can be deported. no issues there.

What is a third country means??

Any other EU member? (Which is actually implied on the paragraph, if you care to read them throught)
Any other country?

Third country which cannot provide permanent settlement. Any EU country, by definition, would be signatory to EU Human Rights Convention and would provide due process to asylum applicants.

In practice, "third country" would usually apply to non-signatory, non-EU, countries.

That can mean any number of things

What it means is that your claim that Sweden only accept direct asylum seekers is incorrect. In this particular context, if an applicant arrived from Indonesia, Sweden would NOT deport them preemptively.

Please do show me which part make the Australian Reintroduction those refugee seeker to Indonesia illegal

Australian Navy is not qualified to judge the validity of a person's visa to enter Indonesia. They are forcibly sending someone to a country where their status may be illegal.

I have quote all the article and common law to support my argument,

You have done nothing of the sort. Your quoted parts of the UNHCR actually support my contention, not yours.
You mistakenly interpret it by conflating the concept of refugee applicant and granted refugee.

Then i want to ask you, how do you determine if the Asylum seeker is not just transiting Australia and coming to another country??

When they say to an Australian border guard, "I wish to apply for asylum".

An act which Indonesian Government did not do

Most of these people don't have proper documents and are illegal in Indonesia to begin with. The Indonesian govt. has no involvement in the matter.

Even for those who arrive legally, it is not the Indonesian govt. responsibility to process their chances for asylum (in any country), since they haven't applied for asylum. How on earth can the Indonesian govt. decide what an Australian migration court's verdict would be in the future?

 

[Mighty Caty]

I can't understand your logic here~

When the asylum seeker present itself to the authority, he or she is declaring he seek asylums to the countries in which he present himself. It is crystal clear that those refugees do not present themselves to Indonesia, nor claiming they seek asylum to Indonesian government. It is also the case that most of them seek UNHCR assistance and made it clear they're goring to Australia. In other words, they're just transiting, and Indonesian government must honor non-refoulement policy not to turn them back with some exception.

When they have set foot in Australia, either legally or illegally, they declared their intent to seek asylum, and it is Australian Authority ot judge by their own merits whether it is genuine or not. They could also declared that they're transiting to New Zealand~ but I doubt most of them will.

Those judgement are made after they present themselves to the countries they seek refuge, not before~

The question is what does it mean by transit is not based on the term transits, that's basically what is amount to the word transit?

Now let's take a look of how an refugee can apply for a refugee visa to Australia? There are only 2 ways. You either apply in person in any of the Australian embassy, or you apply in person in any DIAC outlet in Australia, last time I check, you cannot apply refugee thru the internet.

So what does that have to do with transiting?

For a person go from A to B and transiting thru C, it is said the person have no intention to stay at C, either the Craft or ship have to stop at C to continue on with the journey, likely take on fuel and food and water

However, since a person can only apply for an asylum visa with from an Australian Embassy or in person in Australia, when the person alight in Indonesia and continue on the journey to Australia, he forfeited the option to apply in person in Australian embassy, that would contribute to a clause that the person is intended to go to Indonesia in order to go to Australia, that intention would void the purpose of transit

If you go to Indonesia for the express purpose of change ship and head to Australia, you are not transiting thru, but rather intentionally getting in Indonesia for a purpose

And this can only be judged by Indonesian authority as this does not happen in Australia, what you are saying is, since Indonesia government does not know those refugee seeker landed in Indonesia, so as far as Indonesia concern, they are just transiting.

If Indonesian government did not judge when those people were thee for whatever business, how do you suppose Australian to find out after the fact?

 

[Mighty Caty]

UNHCR - Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees

Article 33, Principle of Expulsion or Return ("Refoulement")

Furthermore, http://www.unhcr.org/4ec262df9.pdf

"A refugee seeking protection must not be prevented from entering a country as this would amount to refoulement."

Mate, a REFUGEE seeking protection is NOT THE SAME as a person seeking refugee status (eg Asylum seeker)

If a person cannot even determined to be a refugee, then where is the purposed threat for him, thus where is the refoulment?

A person is seeking to apply for refugee status is not A refugee yet, as far as I know, you do not become a refugee automatically when you apply for one

So you still confused the concept between refugee and refugee seeker.

We are talking here about people applying for refugee status, not criminals or law-breakers. Once someone breaks the law, or their refugee application is denied, they can be deported. no issues there.

The problem is, there are no rules and law regarding turning away those refugee seeker, and even for a refugee they can be removed under due process, and not just under national security clause, but also public order clause

Third country which cannot provide permanent settlement. Any EU country, by definition, would be signatory to EU Human Rights Convention and would provide due process to asylum applicants.

In practice, "third country" would usually apply to non-signatory, non-EU, countries.

Saids who?

If you read carefully my post explaining the confusion, the measurement under UNHCR convention is not permanent

Hence, every country can be a nation that cannot provide a
Permanent settlement.

Do you have any law and writing to back you you case? Or it's simply what you say or what you think?

What it means is that your claim that Sweden only accept direct asylum seekers is incorrect. In this particular context, if an applicant arrived from Indonesia, Sweden would NOT deport them preemptively.

Again, where is your source?

Because I have this

http://m(dot)thelocal(dot)se//20131...-swedish-police-iran-migration-refugee-asylum

( replace (dot) with . As I cannot quote link yet)

Haj Ali came to Sweden eleven years ago. He has admitted he said he was from Iraq at first, because he thought it would increase his chance of being granted asylum. In truth, he hailed from southern Iran, where he was among the Arab minority among the Persians. While Sweden's Migration Board (Migrationsverket) quickly discovered the incorrect information he supplied, the police would in the end deport him to Iraq.

Sweden will deport anyone, even for a refugee, if they turn out to be not who they claim they were.

If Indonesia is where they claim they are form but instead they are coming from Sri Lanka instead, he will be deported.

Australian Navy is not qualified to judge the validity of a person's visa to enter Indonesia. They are forcibly sending someone to a country where their status may be illegal.

You are focus on the wrong question, instead of whether the Australian Navy have the power to judge, the question is actually did the Australian Navy need to judge

Australian Navy is not a legal entity, rather in this case, they act as a law enforcement agency

Australian Navy, followed the UNCLOS and Australian territories power to board, search and turn away any vessel that violated the Australian law under 24 Nmi within Australian contiguous zone

There are only 2 possible way for anyone to apply for Asylum In Australia, either you apply in person with any Australian embassy overseas, or you apply in person in any DIAC office in Australia.

Now since there are NO provision any law enforcement agency cannot turn away boat, the course of application does not interfere with the border enforcement.

Thus this is legal for Australian Navy to turn back boat if it is safe to do so

This is an ABC program fact check about the whole legal issue regarding turning back boat, the panel is made up by the best legal mind this country have to offer, I suggested that you take a look at it

http://mobile(dot)abc(dot)net(dot)au/news/2013-09-26/government-turn-back-boat-policy/4979898

The verdict
Mr Yahya was correct when he said that turning around boats in international waters is illegal, but there is more to the story. If the Government replicates the Howard-era policy, it will not be turning boats back in international waters.

The Government can legally turn back asylum seeker boats provided it is safe to do so and they are intercepted within 24 nautical miles of the Australian coastline. It is clear that Australia cannot steer the boats into Indonesian waters, but exactly how close they can legally get to Indonesia is up for debate.

You have done nothing of the sort. Your quoted parts of the UNHCR actually support my contention, not yours.

You mistakenly interpret it by conflating the concept of refugee applicant and granted refugee.

Heh, you are the one whom confused the term, suggested that you read the convention more carefully

The only thing you quote is article 33, which you interpreted wrongly, I see a lot of your point, but did not see any evidence to back it up

When they say to an Australian border guard, "I wish to apply for asylum".



Most of these people don't have proper documents and are illegal in Indonesia to begin with. The Indonesian govt. has no involvement in the matter.

Even for those who arrive legally, it is not the Indonesian govt. responsibility to process their chances for asylum (in any country), since they haven't applied for asylum. How on earth can the Indonesian govt. decide what an Australian migration court's verdict would be in the future?

No, you misunderstood what I said, you cannot judge a person intention after the fact? It's not like Australia can send those people back to Indonesia (to within their country) even if they had found out the refugee seeker is not transiting

And there are no effect for a refugee to say to an Australian Naval sailor or officer that he wanted to apply for asylum. They are not an officer of the law or a government appointed person, basically they are the same as you and me

If you travel to 12 nmi inside Australian water to fishing trip, and if an asylum seeker boat show up and tell you they want to apply for asylum status in Australia, you cannot accept their application for them...as you are not an officer of the court or government appointed official

The same with any Australian Navy Sailor, the person whom enforcing the law cannot be the same person whom administering the law. They just enforce it, they don't make it

 

[Developereo]

Mate, a REFUGEE seeking protection is NOT THE SAME as a person seeking refugee status (eg Asylum seeker)

Nope. You are confused yet again.

The phraseology of the UNHCR document specifically says "person seeking protection". I suggest you read it and understand what it means.

This is straightforward English -- a person "seeking" something (protection) does not have it yet.

That statement specifically refers to people seeking protection as refugees under the UNHCR rules, not those who have already been granted protection as refugees.

I will copy the section title here (bottom of page 5, http://www.unhcr.org/4ec262df9.pdf ).

"Can a country that has not signed the 1951 Convention refuse to admit a person seeking protection"

Note the word "person" -- it is crystal clear what the intended meaning is -- although I will admit it would have been better if they had used the word "person" again in the body of the section (as they did in the title).

If a person cannot even determined to be a refugee, then where is the purposed threat for him, thus where is the refoulment?

That's precisely the point!

Border personnel and Australian Navy are not qualified to make that determination and must forward the case to proper authorities.

The problem is, there are no rules and law regarding turning away those refugee seeker,

There certainly are. I showed you the UNHCR document which, once again, explicitly mentions the specific words "person seeking protection".

Person seeking protection = asylum applicant.

Saids who?

Says the Swedish government's official website. Quite explicitly and plainly, I might add.

Because I have this

You just shifted the goal post because you realized your original claim was wrong.

We are not debating the outcome of a refugee hearing; we are debating the right to a refugee hearing. If a claimant's case is denied, of course they would be deported.

What you claimed was that Sweden would not even consider a person's application unless they came directly to Sweden, and that is simply not the case.

There are only 2 possible way for anyone to apply for Asylum In Australia, either you apply in person with any Australian embassy overseas, or you apply in person in any DIAC office in Australia.

Once you go to a border guard, at an airport or at sea, and request asylum, it then becomes their responsibility to escort you to a location from where you can file your claim. Says the UNHCR.

The fact of where an application is formally lodged is NOT the same as where you can surrender yourself to an Australian official for asylum.

This is an ABC program fact check about the whole legal issue regarding turning back boat, the panel is made up by the best legal mind this country have to offer, I suggested that you take a look at it

I have seen other analyses which conclude the opposite. Given the govt. policy of no information on details, it's hard to make definitive statement on each case.

No, you misunderstood what I said, you cannot judge a person intention after the fact?

You said the Indonesian govt. should stop people beforehand. They have no reason to do so, since the matter is purely between the asylum seeker and Australia.

It is purely your assertion that they must apply for asylum at the Australian embassy in Indonesia. There is no requirement to do so.

 

[Developereo]

@Mighty Caty

Please see this document also: UNHCR - Conclusion on Protection Safeguards in Interception Measures

It deals with precisely the situation similar to Australian interception of boats. (cf. Item (a), bullet point 4)

Interception measures should not result in asylum-seekers and refugees being denied access to international protection,

 

[Mighty Caty]

Nope. You are confused yet again.

The phraseology of the UNHCR document specifically says "person seeking protection". I suggest you read it and understand what it means.

This is straightforward English -- a person "seeking" something (protection) does not have it yet.

That statement specifically refers to people seeking protection as refugees under the UNHCR rules, not those who have already been granted protection as refugees.

I will copy the section title here (bottom of page 5, http://www.unhcr.org/4ec262df9.pdf ).

"Can a country that has not signed the 1951 Convention refuse to admit a person seeking protection"

Note the word "person" -- it is crystal clear what the intended meaning is -- although I will admit it would have been better if they had used the word "person" again in the body of the section (as they did in the title).

No, the conundrums is, a person cannot seek protections, a refugee can.

You have to be established to be a refugee, that is defined with article 1 of the convention

And your explanation of the last paragraph does not fly, as if you indeed read closely, you will see the answer are answered with the term Refugee instead of persons

That's precisely the point!

Border personnel and Australian Navy are not qualified to make that determination and must forward the case to proper authorities.

Again, the question is not can they, but do they need to judge, by simply acting on behalf of the government of Australia

There certainly are. I showed you the UNHCR document which, once again, explicitly mentions the specific words "person seeking protection".

Person seeking protection = asylum applicant.

and I reply to you your interpretation is wrong

A refugee is a person, the word "person" on that paragraph is clearly a pronoun, otherwise the question will not be answered with refugee instead of with persons

Anyone can apply for refugee status, thus any persons can potentially become refugee, the problem is, as I can see, claiming refugee and claiming asylum is two desperate and different things which you fail to see

While claiming refugee status is done prior to claiming asylum to a country, if a basic refugee status cannot be established, that person cannot claim asylum under any law. As there are no point being in the application

However, even if one was granted a refugee status, then it would become UNHCR mission to make sure they were granted asylum to a third country

As said in the UNHCR mission statement in page 8

Ensure that refugee were granted asylum and are not for force able return to the country the country they had fled

If a person is not yet a refugee, ie still seeking or processing or not even started the refugee application, they are NOT refugee, thus are not covered by the convention

Says the Swedish government's official website. Quite explicitly and plainly, I might add.

Again where?

The passage you quote only said they are require to help for a third nation that cannot have a permanent, it does not explicitly say country from non-signatory country

Either you are that person who wrote the statement, or you are looking at something I did not see, as the article did not say anything explicitly

You just shifted the goal post because you realized your original claim was wrong.

We are not debating the outcome of a refugee hearing; we are debating the right to a refugee hearing. If a claimant's case is denied, of course they would be deported.

What you claimed was that Sweden would not even consider a person's application unless they came directly to Sweden, and that is simply not the case.

If you look at the case clearly, you would know the Iranian case is ongoing,he is now still in Sweden being process, his case was not "judged" yet as Swedish government did not do "do-overs"

He was deported to wait for the final outcome, since the deportation, he has been back in Sweden for the last leg of the process, if his case was rejected, he would not be back to Sweden...

Infact I think his refugee status is rego nixed by the Swedish government, otherwise why they allow him back?

He is now back in Sweden - missing several teeth, having developed diabetes, and suffering from depression.

To kill your point once and for all,

http://www(dot)asylumineurope.org/r...rvening-each-stage-procedure-including-dublin

It says no application at border

Kindly move to country, then select Sweden, then select intervening body.

You can compare it to other country, Poland have application at border, not the swede

Once you go to a border guard, at an airport or at sea, and request asylum, it then becomes their responsibility to escort you to a location from where you can file your claim. Says the UNHCR.

The fact of where an application is formally lodged is NOT the same as where you can surrender yourself to an Australian official for asylum.

Different country can have a different set of rules regarding the duty of their border guard.

Sweden did not require to do anything, as there are no border application, while Poland require only for them to clarify the application procedure to the applicant

Swedish application can only made in selected MB office and there are no directive to divert any applicant to those office for application

However, in the case of Austria, they are fully assisted.

So your situation is not an universal solution for any country to follow, some do, some don't, in the Australian case, they dont

I have seen other analyses which conclude the opposite. Given the govt. policy of no information on details, it's hard to make definitive statement on each case.

Can you kindly post them up here so I can see? I wanted legal source, nor just some random activist saying stuff that they hardly know about

You said the Indonesian govt. should stop people beforehand. They have no reason to do so, since the matter is purely between the asylum seeker and Australia.

It is purely your assertion that they must apply for asylum at the Australian embassy in Indonesia. There is no requirement to do so.

Why?

As with my answer with another member, the key is to proof that they are indeed transiting, if their express purpose to stop over in Indonesia is to go to Australia, then they are not merely transiting Indonesia

To satisfy article 32, they must directly came from a location that they we're threaten without delay.

Can you say going to a third country, stay for a couple of days, then change ship is coming to Australia without delay? You be the judge about that

 

[Mighty Caty]

@Mighty Caty

Please see this document also: UNHCR - Conclusion on Protection Safeguards in Interception Measures

It deals with precisely the situation similar to Australian interception of boats. (cf. Item (a), bullet point 4)

Interception measures should not result in asylum-seekers and refugees being denied access to international protection,

Explain to me how Australian Navy interception of asylum seeker boat and brought them back to Indonesia as a way to "Denial" them access to international protection? Did they silent them? Lock them away? Or simply just kill them?

Or are you saying Indonesia is not a country in the international standard? Or Indonesia is not a country of adequate protection?

So, sending them to Indonesia, which is where they came from would resulting a refoulment of life or freedom threaten base on the race, nationality, religion or membership of social groups?

So, they cannot, at any circumstance, seek international protection in Indonesia?

 

[Mighty Caty]

@developrero

You clearly mixed up, what's moral standard required all of us to do with what the Law require us to do

Yes, turning the boat before they start hitting our border is immoral, but can you provide any physical evidence that, if the Navy act within the guild line, which law says that they are illegal?

I looked at UNCLOS and almost all humanitarian law I can find and it did not show any

It is under UNCLOS jurisdiction to turn around any people that is breaking the law of Australia

There are no law in place to instruct the navy to bring them ashore and have them apply Asylum in Australia.

The Navy also provided enough food and fuel and even sea worthy hull for them to return to where their journey begin. As per distress code

The fact that the asylum seeker do not wish to or do not need to apply their asylum does not alter the responsibility of Australian government and the navy

If they forfeit a safer way to get asylum and try to get it with a riskier way, that would be their own gamble, you can feel guilty and try to do something, but the law does not require our government to do anything else.

 

[Developereo]

No, the conundrums is, a person cannot seek protections, a refugee can.

"person seeking protection" = "person seeking protection as a refugee" = "asylum seeker".

The use of the phrase "person seeking" here specifically broadens the meaning to include asylum seekers. The UNHCR EXCom Conclusion corroborates this interpretation of the Convention.

Again where?

The passage you quote only said they are require to help for a third nation that cannot have a permanent, it does not explicitly say country from non-signatory country

Either you are that person who wrote the statement, or you are looking at something I did not see, as the article did not say anything explicitly

It says, quite explicitly, that, if the third country can not provide permanent settlement (regardless of any signatory status which is not mentioned, thus irrelevant), then Sweden will consider their application.

http://www(dot)asylumineurope.org/r...rvening-each-stage-procedure-including-dublin

It says no application at border

Again, you can conflating two concepts: surrendering to a border guard and requesting asylum is not the same as filing a formal application. All it is saying is that you cannot file your application at the border.

Can you kindly post them up here so I can see? I wanted legal source, nor just some random activist saying stuff that they hardly know about

Post # 87, which I will address your concerns below.

To satisfy article 32, they must directly came from a location that they we're threaten without delay.

Can you say going to a third country, stay for a couple of days, then change ship is coming to Australia without delay? You be the judge about that

http://www.unhcr.org.au/pdfs/detentionguidelines.pdf

4. The expression "coming directly" in Article 31(1), covers the situation of a person who enters the country in which asylum is sought directly from the country of origin, or from another country where his protection, safety and security could not be assured. It is understood that this term also covers a person who transits an intermediate country for a short period of time without having applied for, or received, asylum there. No strict time limit can be applied to the concept "coming directly" and each case must be judged on its merits.

Explain to me how Australian Navy interception of asylum seeker boat and brought them back to Indonesia as a way to "Denial" them access to international protection?

Are you saying Indonesia is not a country on the international standard? Or Indonesia is not a country of adequate protection?

So, sending them to Indonesia, which is where they came from would resulting a refoulment of life or freedom threaten base on the race, nationality, religion or membership of social groups?

So, they cannot, at any circumstance, seek international protection in Indonesia?

Here is the full text of that item -- please note the bolded (by me) part. The issue is not whether they can or cannot seek protection, but that they may be deported further back, all the way back to their home country. In effect, Australia can't just push them back onto another country (Indonesia) and say "not my problem - you deal with it".

• Interception measures should not result in asylum-seekers and refugees being denied access to international protection, or result in those in need of international protection being returned, directly or indirectly, to the frontiers of territories where their life or freedom would be threatened on account of a Convention ground, or where the person has other grounds for protection based on international law. Intercepted persons found to be in need of international protection should have access to durable solutions.

It is under UNCLOS jurisdiction to turn around any people that is breaking the law of Australia

UNCLOS would apply to most people but, when someone requests asylum, then the UNHCR rules kick in.

There are no law in place to instruct the navy to bring them ashore and have them apply Asylum in Australia.

The Conclusion in post #87 about ensuring asylum seekers retain international protections.

 

[Maxtini]

The question is what does it mean by transit is not based on the term transits, that's basically what is amount to the word transit?

Now let's take a look of how an refugee can apply for a refugee visa to Australia? There are only 2 ways. You either apply in person in any of the Australian embassy, or you apply in person in any DIAC outlet in Australia, last time I check, you cannot apply refugee thru the internet.

So what does that have to do with transiting?

For a person go from A to B and transiting thru C, it is said the person have no intention to stay at C, either the Craft or ship have to stop at C to continue on with the journey, likely take on fuel and food and water

However, since a person can only apply for an asylum visa with from an Australian Embassy or in person in Australia, when the person alight in Indonesia and continue on the journey to Australia, he forfeited the option to apply in person in Australian embassy, that would contribute to a clause that the person is intended to go to Indonesia in order to go to Australia, that intention would void the purpose of transit

If you go to Indonesia for the express purpose of change ship and head to Australia, you are not transiting thru, but rather intentionally getting in Indonesia for a purpose

And this can only be judged by Indonesian authority as this does not happen in Australia, what you are saying is, since Indonesia government does not know those refugee seeker landed in Indonesia, so as far as Indonesia concern, they are just transiting.

If Indonesian government did not judge when those people were thee for whatever business, how do you suppose Australian to find out after the fact?

You're blathering and playing with words~
Changing modes of transportation still count as transiting, and of course they will have intention to go to Indonesia for transiting purpose in order to go to Australia~ otherwise how can they reach Australia? I don't understand how that could void the purpose of transit.

And FYI information, I suggest you read the protocol and convention clearly. Don't play with words to find and made silly justification~

You keep saying asylum seekers are not covered by the convention, in realities, they are, until they are proven fraudulent; The term has been made cleared by UNHCR.

http://www.unhcr.org.au/pdfs/detentionguidelines.pdf

Consistent with this Article, detention should only be resorted to in cases of necessity. The detention of asylum-seekers who come "directly" in an irregular manner should, therefore, not be automatic, or unduly prolonged. This provision applies not only to recognised refugees but also to asylum-seekers pending determination of their status, as recognition of refugee status does not make an individual a refugee but declares him to be one. Conclusion No. 44(XXXVII) of the Executive Committee on the Detention of Refugees and Asylum-Seekers examines more concretely what is meant by the term "necessary". This Conclusion also provides guidelines to States on the use of detention and recommendations as to certain procedural guarantees to which detainees should be entitled.

Explainer: the legal implications of 'tow-backs'

Asylum seekers who do not have a well-founded fear of persecution are not granted any rights under the convention. However, until asylum seekers have undergone a fair and effective process to accurately identify whether or not they are refugees, they should all be granted rights under the convention. This is to ensure that those asylum seekers who are indeed refugees are not wrongly denied rights.

 

[Mighty Caty]

"person seeking protection" = "person seeking protection as a refugee" = "asylum seeker".

The use of the phrase "person seeking" here specifically broadens the meaning to include asylum seekers. The UNHCR EXCom Conclusion corroborates this interpretation of the Convention.

Actually, no......

According to UNHCR definition of Asylum seeker

The terms asylum-seeker and refugee are often confused: an asylum-seeker is someone who says he or she is a refugee, but whose claim has not yet been definitively evaluated.

National asylum systems are there to decide which asylum-seekers actually qualify for international protection. Those judged through proper procedures not to be refugees, nor to be in need of any other form of international protection, can be sent back to their home countries.
The efficiency of the asylum system is key. If the asylum system is both fast and fair, then people who know they are not refugees have little incentive to make a claim in the first place, thereby benefitting both the host country and the refugees for whom the system is intended.
During mass movements of refugees (usually as a result of conflicts or generalized violence as opposed to individual persecution), there is not - and never will be - a capacity to conduct individual asylum interviews for everyone who has crossed the border. Nor is it usually necessary, since in such circumstances it is generally evident why they have fled. As a result, such groups are often declared "prima facie" refugees.

UNHCR - Asylum-Seekers

So, no, a person seeking protection (ie asylum seeker) is NOT the same as a refugee.

It maybe equal in your definition, but not under UNHCR definition.
National, instead of international standard decide which asylum seekers qualify for international protection.

It says, quite explicitly, that, if the third country can not provide permanent settlement (regardless of any signatory status which is not mentioned, thus irrelevant), then Sweden will consider their application.

Actually, the guideline is far from explicit, the only thing the "Guideline" mentioned is a third country, it could be a country where a UN Refugee camp is based, or it could be another EU country or non-EU country that was being overwhlem by refugee application. It could have been from a thrid country.

The quote you mentioned is no where near explicit.

Again, you can conflating two concepts: surrendering to a border guard and requesting asylum is not the same as filing a formal application. All it is saying is that you cannot file your application at the border.

of course, you can surrender yourselve to the border guard , however, since there are no application in border, there are no representative that would accept your claim or your application on asylum either, so there are no application mean there are no asylum seeker status can be grant on border, so there would not be ay duty of carein this case from the border guard.

In sweden, only Migration Board and Migration Tribunal personnel have the power to deal with asylum issue, border guard are not require to escort or do anything to any people surrender themselves at border. They would simply just refuse their entry, if you do not have proper document.

If that border post was manned by migration board or migration tribunal member, then they will do something on the asylum seeker for their issue.

Post # 87, which I will address your concerns below.


http://www.unhcr.org.au/pdfs/detentionguidelines.pdf

4. The expression "coming directly" in Article 31(1), covers the situation of a person who enters the country in which asylum is sought directly from the country of origin, or from another country where his protection, safety and security could not be assured. It is understood that this term also covers a person who transits an intermediate country for a short period of time without having applied for, or received, asylum there. No strict time limit can be applied to the concept "coming directly" and each case must be judged on its merits.



Here is the full text of that item -- please note the bolded (by me) part. The issue is not whether they can or cannot seek protection, but that they may be deported further back, all the way back to their home country. In effect, Australia can't just push them back onto another country (Indonesia) and say "not my problem - you deal with it".

• Interception measures should not result in asylum-seekers and refugees being denied access to international protection, or result in those in need of international protection being returned, directly or indirectly, to the frontiers of territories where their life or freedom would be threatened on account of a Convention ground, or where the person has other grounds for protection based on international law. Intercepted persons found to be in need of international protection should have access to durable solutions.

No, the prospect on the interception rules is not whether or not the person is a refugee or asylum seeker.
Or that if the person is directly or indirectly being returned.

But the interception did focus on the red part. That is that person (set aside whether or not it meant refugee or asylum seeker)
should not be return to territories that their life and freedom may be threaten by the grounds for protection.

It does actually justified the removal for an alternative destination. Given if the removal destination is not threaten the persons life or freedom on the same ground of the international protection require.

Simply speaking, if Australia do not want them, they can literally pass on to a thrid country, there are no provision on gorund that Australia have to take in all consideration for anyone who wish for international protection, nor would a grant of refugee status is a certainty.

UNCLOS would apply to most people but, when someone requests asylum, then the UNHCR rules kick in.

The Conclusion in post #87 about ensuring asylum seekers retain international protections.

Again, saids who? You?

as i said, the conclusion of interception did prohibit country to deport the person where actual harm of life and freedom may occur, unless you are saying Indonesia is a country that would harm those refugee, the conclusion does not apply.

If indonesian do not want them, they can pass them to another country the same way the Australian do, or they can pass them to UNHCR Refugee camp, the way Swedish did.

I have a feeling we are turning round and round here

 

[Mighty Caty]

You're blathering and playing with words~
Changing modes of transportation still count as transiting, and of course they will have intention to go to Indonesia for transiting purpose in order to go to Australia~ otherwise how can they reach Australia? I don't understand how that could void the purpose of transit.

And FYI information, I suggest you read the protocol and convention clearly. Don't play with words to find and made silly justification~

You keep saying asylum seekers are not covered by the convention, in realities, they are(ARE THEY??), until they are proven fraudulent; The term has been made cleared by UNHCR.

http://www.unhcr.org.au/pdfs/detentionguidelines.pdf

Consistent with this Article, detention should only be resorted to in cases of necessity. The detention of asylum-seekers who come "directly" in an irregular manner should, therefore, not be automatic, or unduly prolonged. This provision applies not only to recognised refugees but also to asylum-seekers pending determination of their status, as recognition of refugee status does not make an individual a refugee but declares him to be one. Conclusion No. 44(XXXVII) of the Executive Committee on the Detention of Refugees and Asylum-Seekers examines more concretely what is meant by the term "necessary". This Conclusion also provides guidelines to States on the use of detention and recommendations as to certain procedural guarantees to which detainees should be entitled.

Explainer: the legal implications of 'tow-backs'

Asylum seekers who do not have a well-founded fear of persecution are not granted any rights under the convention. However, until asylum seekers have undergone a fair and effective process to accurately identify whether or not they are refugees, they should all be granted rights under the convention. This is to ensure that those asylum seekers who are indeed refugees are not wrongly denied rights.

Using big cap does not means you are anymore correct than you are already are, that is zero

First of all, the Convention mean the 1951 convention regarding status of right on refugee.

The link you provided is for the internment of asylum seeker, not any parts that covered by the convention.
Even so, they still say it is ok for any country to intern asylum seeker when necessary.

The term transit as mentioned in the article (Not the convention but the one you have mentioned) is about a person travel from their origin to their destination via an intermediate country. And without delay and with a good cause. Although the term "without delay" and "with a good clause" did not further explain, the interpretation of the article call for any of such circumstance should be judge individually with merit.

So, if Indonesian government did not judge those case (Ie what they did in indonesia and how long it took) as a simple "Without delay" or "With good cause" how would the Australian know what is the situation of the delay encountered in Indonesia and thus determined the fact "Without Delay" and "With a good cause" to its merit?

as for your second quote, here is a quote from the same article

It should be noted that Australia may be allowed to interfere with such boats in its own waters or (under certain limited circumstances) in its Contiguous Zone, which extends up to 24 nautical miles (about 27.6 miles or 44.4 kilometres) from Australian land.

and

It is not clear from the news reports thus far if the boats returned to Indonesian waters had been registered in Indonesia and were flying the Indonesian flag. If they were, they are owed protection by Indonesia. Any transgression against them would be akin to a transgression against Indonesia.

 

[Indos]

I have a feeling we are turning round and round here

Good discussion actually....The different thing between Indonesia and Australia is that we treat the refugees no matter what....we treat them well here.....not like you who put them into Papua Nugini or just push back them to our shore....we have moral standard....