The High Court on Thursday ruled that punitive measures —such as ankle monitors and curfews— for those released from immigration detention are unlawful and unconstitutional.

The government has responded with a Bill reintroducing the use of electronic ankle bracelet monitoring and curfews, measures that the High Court determined can only be imposed by courts.

Amnesty International Australia asserts that using surveillance and monitoring on people who have already served their time unacceptably infringes on the right to liberty and dignity.

The Bill further allows the government to pay third countries to accept non-citizens. Critically, it provides that when the government gives a mandatory notice to a person of third country “acceptance”, their Bridging Visa will automatically be cancelled, enabling their re-detention under the guise of seeking to deport them.

These sweeping measures are an attempt to circumvent High Court decisions and are a crushing setback for the rights of people seeking asylum. The expanded government power to deport people with cancelled visas to unknown third countries raises grave concerns for the safety and security of those seeking international protection. Detaining individuals subject to a third country agreement effectively reintroduces indefinite detention by stealth. It undermines the legitimacy of the High Court ruling in a previous case NZYQ which held indefinite detention is unlawful.

Amnesty condemns the Government’s attempt to absolve Australia of its international obligations under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, including Articles 31 and 33, which guarantee non-refoulement and the right not to be punished for people seeking asylum. This move highlights the Government’s preference for imposing quick fixes and increasing domestic costs, all while continuing its punitive agenda against refugees, people seeking asylum, and migrants.

This scheme will mean families will be separated and people permanently prevented from returning to their home in Australia.

A similar scheme, designed to avoid Australia’ responsibilities and outsource refugee protection to third countries, was tried by the Coalition in 2014. It was an expensive failure. The government paid $55 million for the deal, and all but one of the 10 refugees transferred there were forced to leave. One person remains in Cambodia, struggling and stateless.

Zaki Haidari, Amnesty International Australia’s Strategic Campaigner for Refugee Rights says:

“We welcome the High Court’s ruling declaring punitive surveillance and monitoring measures unlawful, but the Government has once again failed to prioritise human rights over political games.

“Last week, the Government rushed to introduce new legislation that not only reinforces the unlawful punitive measures but also grants the Minister more power to detain and deport refugees—potentially back to the countries they fled from in search of safety.

“This political game is nothing new. When Labor was in opposition, the Liberal Government introduced the ‘Cambodian deal’ that their immigration spokesman Richard Marles called an ‘expensive joke.’

“The reality is that successive governments have ignored the human rights of individuals, placing political interests ahead of respect and dignity for human beings.”

Zaki Haidari, Amnesty International Australia’s Strategic Campaigner for Refugee Rights

“The reality is that successive governments have ignored the human rights of individuals, placing political interests ahead of respect and dignity for human beings.

“The Federal Government must stop playing politics with people’s lives and recognise that refugees, migrants, and asylum seekers are human beings who have fled the most dire of circumstances.”

Background

In 2014 former Immigration Minister Scott Morrison made a deal with Cambodia to accept refugees held by Australia in Nauru. Cambodia, a struggling economy with a track record of human rights abuses and not signatory to the Refugees Convention, took in only 10 people and declared the deal closed.

Cambodia’s interior minister later admitted it was a failure, and the country did not have social programs to support refugees to integrate. One refugee remains stuck in Cambodia, a Rohingya man who escaped persecution in Myanmar, who struggles to find work and is stateless without ID documents or citizenship. The Australian government effectively abandoned these individuals, subjecting them to even greater risks and human rights abuses.

This past decision illustrates the deeply flawed proposal to deport refugees, asylum seekers, and migrants to third countries, furthering Australia’s abhorrent treatment of those seeking safety and permanent protection.

The post Federal Government’s move to reimpose punitive measures & deportation orders post High-Court ruling, result in grave threat to people seeking asylum appeared first on Amnesty International Australia.

The rules of war are known as International Humanitarian Law and include the Geneva Conventions, recognised by 196 countries. They are a practical set of rules applicable in armed conflict, intended to be universal and neutral. Their main objective is to reduce the human suffering caused by war.

Watch our explainer on the Rules of War.

What are the fundamental principles of the Rules of War?

1. Humanity – Which forbids the infliction of unnecessary suffering, injury and destruction.
   
2. Military necessity – While force is not prohibited in war, it must be limited to what is necessary to achieve legitimate military objectives.
   
3. Distinction – Parties to a conflict must always distinguish between civilians and combatants. Attacks may only be directed at military targets, including fighters. Attacks must never intentionally target civilians.
   
4. Proportionality – It is prohibited to launch attacks that may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury and damage to civilian objects that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
   
5. Precaution – Constant care must be taken to spare civilians and civilian objects.

What do these rules mean?

• Civilians must be protected. When attacking military targets, all parties must do all that’s possible to spare civilians and civilian objects.
  
• People in your power must be treated humanely. This means prisoners of war, detainees, the sick and the wounded must be cared for regardless of whose side they’re on.
  
• Victims of war must be protected. Humanitarian aid like food, water and medicine must be able to reach people. Parties to a conflict must facilitate humanitarian access.
  
• The rules of war must be applied without discrimination regardless of someone’s race, sex, nationality, political opinion, religion, or other status.

We all have a part to play in demanding that the rules of war are upheld and ensuring that rule breakers are held accountable. The rules of war protect our shared humanity, and our shared humanity must prevail.

Amnesty International Australia is a movement of people who take injustice personally. We are campaigning for a world where human rights are enjoyed by all – and we can only do it with your support.

Act now or learn more about our human rights campaigns.

The post Explainer: Are there rules in a war? appeared first on Amnesty International Australia.