This article examines how rich democratic states circumvent and circumvent their international obligations to refugees. The focus is on two strategies. The first is hyper-legalism – an overly formalistic malicious approach to the interpretation of international law. The second is obfuscation, which includes secrecy about government actions and deliberate silence about purported legal justifications. The discussion will be illustrated by examples from the United States, Australia and Europe. The article concludes by discussing possible tactics to oppose these strategies and hold governments accountable for their actions. Our world is drowning in legalism, and its only hope is unheard-of grace. States are aware of the limits of hyper-legalism. Some acts are so blatant under international law that no amount of sophistication, no matter how formalistic, could legitimize them. In such circumstances, some States have resorted to the tactic of concealment. Obfuscation is achieved through the secrecy of government actions and deliberate silence on alleged legal justifications.

The tactic works best when government measures are taken against asylum seekers away from the public eye, such as push-back operations at sea and remote detention. Obfuscation has also been achieved through the criminalization of whistleblowing by government officials in the context of asylum. By carefully controlling the flow of information about their actions, governments can avoid accountability. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, their claims as to the conformity of their actions with international law cannot be questioned. Hyper-Grace may be a mistake, but at least it`s a step in the right direction. This may be wrong in some places, but isn`t legalism more dangerous? When I look at the church, I don`t see a place that needs more rules, stricter requirements, or higher standards. I see a place that needs more grace. This policy pushes the boundaries of what is acceptable under international law and exploits gaps in the international refugee protection regime. States have adopted two main strategies to pursue this objective of tax evasion. The first is hyperlegalism – an overly formalistic bad faith approach to interpreting international legal obligations.

Hyperlegalism occurs when states manipulate and exploit perceived gaps in the international refugee protection regime. States claim to respect the letter of international law, but do not respect its spirit. Arguments about territory and jurisdiction are widely used for hyperlegal arguments. States have tried to minimize the extraterritorial scope of their international obligations. At the same time, they have developed legal fictions allowing them to treat certain asylum seekers physically present on their territory as not „present“ within the meaning of national law. A related tactic is for States to legislate what they consider to be uncomfortable aspects of their international obligations and to redefine what those obligations imply in national laws and regulations. Hyperlegalism and obfuscation: how states circumvent their international obligations towards refugees. / Ghezelbash, Daniel. But grace does not neglect sin, grace destroys sin. Grace offers the only true liberation from sin. Religion, legality, and morality can do nothing but make you feel guilty, depressed, and worthless. The only way out is the free grace that Christ gives us.

The use of hyperlegalism and obfuscation by governments around the world undermines the international protection regime. However, you can be challenged with the right strategies. Hyperlegalism can be countered by a truly integrated approach to international law, in accordance with the rules of interpretation of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. By definition, hyper-legalism derogates from the requirement in Article 31(1) that a contract `must be interpreted in good faith and in the ordinary sense to be given to the terms of the contract in their context and in the light of its object and purpose`. Moreover, hyper-legalistic arguments often involve a selective approach to international legal systems, with governments choosing norms that support their actions while ignoring those that do not. This can be countered by the systemic integration of overlapping normative regimes that govern the interaction between governments and asylum seekers and refugees – including the Refugee Convention, human rights treaties, the law of the sea and cross-border crime treaties. These arguments can be advanced both in strategic disputes and before the Court of Public Opinion. Convincing arguments about the legality of international legal measures can influence public opinion, which in turn can provide impetus for policy change. Can you have too much grace? No.

But you can certainly have too much legalism! Enter your library card number to sign in. If you are unable to log in, please contact your librarian. UR – papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3548294 UNHCR (8 October 2008) „States Parties to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol“, www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b73b0d63.pdf, accessed 12 November 2009. Lopez, CS (2003) `Australian Immigration Policy at the Centenary: The Quest for Control`, Geo. L.J. UNHCR`s 18th Executive Committee (10. Oktober 2003) „Schlussfolgerung zu Schutzmaßnahmen bei Abhörmaßnahmen“, www.unhcr.org/refworld/type,EXCONC,,,3f93b2894,0.html, abgerufen am 2. December 2009. Oxfani Australia (August 2002) `Still Drifting: Australia`s Pacific Solution becomes „A Pacific Nightmare“` Oxfam Australia, www.oxfam.org.au/campaigns/refugees/still_drifting/, abgerufen am 2.

December 2009. Koskenniemi, M. (2002a) « The Lady Doth Protest Too Much: Kosovo and the Turn to Ethics in International Law », Modern Law Review, 65: 159. Slaughter Burley, A. M. (1993) « International Law and International Relations Theory: A Dual Agenda », A.J.I.L. 87, 205. Der Legalismus betont Sünde, Moral, Regeltreue, Selbstverleugnung und Selbstgerechtigkeit. Legalismus wird dich ausbrennen, dich verprügeln und zermürben. Projet de loi de 2006 portant modification de la loi sur les migrations (arrivées non autorisées désignées) (Cth) (Australie). Coombs, M. (31.

Août 2005) « Excising Australia: Are We Really Shrinking? », Parlement australien, Section du recueil de lois et de projets de loi, Note de recherche no 5, 2005–2006, www.aph.gov.au/Library/Pubs/RN/2005–06/06rn05.htm, abgerufen am 22. Février 2010. Jeffrey R. (2006) « Hersch Lauterpacht, The Realist Challenge and the `Grotian Tradition` in 20th-century International Relations », E.J.I.R. 12, 223. Habermas, J. (1996) Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy (übersetzt von W. Rehg), Cambridge UK: Polity Press. Aleinikoff, T. A. und Chetail, V. (Hrsg.) (2003) Migration and International Legal Norms, Pays-Bas: T.M.C.

Asser Press. Ozsoapbox (20. Oktober 2009) « Warum kein Aufschrei über Kevin Rudds « Indonesische Lösung »? » Ozsoapbox, ozsoapbox.com/rest-of-australia/why-no-outcry-over-kevin-rudds-indonesian-solution/, abgerufen am 22. Février 2010. Procureur général de l’Australie (20. Octobre 2009) « Matter of Public Importance — People-Smuggling », www.attorneygeneral.gov.au/www/ministers/mcclelland.nsf/Page/Speeches_2009_FourthQuarter_20October2009-MatterofPublicImportance-People-Smuggling, consulté le 22 février 2010. Harris Rimmer, S. (22 mai 2006) « Migration Amendment (Designated Unallowed Arrivals) Bill 2006 », Parlement d’Australie, Département des services parlementaires, Bills Digest No. 138, 2005–06 (22 May 2006), www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bd/2005–06/06BD138.pdf, accessed 8 October 2009) United Nations Human Rights Committee (24 July 2000) „Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee: Australia“, A/55/40, www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(symbol)/A.55.40, para. 498 to 528.EN? OpenDocument.

Retrieved 22 February 2010. Victorian Council for Civil Liberties Inc v. Minister of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2001) FCA 1297; 110 FCR 452 (Australia). Government of the United Kingdom (7. März 2003) „New Vision for Refugees“, www.proasyl.de/texte/europe/union/2003/UK_NewVision.pdf, abgerufen am 22. February 2010. Treatment of Prisoners Act 2005 (H.R. 2863, Titel X) (Treatment of Prisoners Act) (Vereinigte Staaten). Migration Legislation (Cth) (Australia) Amendment Act No. 1 2001. UNHCR (22. Dezember 2003) „A Revised „EU Prong“ Proposal“, www.unhcr.org/reiworld/pdfid/400e85b84.pdf, abgerufen am 23.

February 2010. UNHCR (22. May 2006) „Migration Amendment (Designated Unirregular Arrivals) Bill: Submission of the High Office of the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee“, www.unhcr.org.au/pdfs/designatedunauthorisedarrivalsbill.pdf, Abgerufen am 22. February 2010. Phillips, J. und Millbank, A. (5. Juli 2005) „The Detention and Removal of Asylum Seekers“, E-Brief, Parliament of Australia, Library of Parliament (5. July 2005), www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/SP/asylum_seekers.htm, accessed December 2, 2009.

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted 10 December 1984, entered into force 26 June 1987 www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm, accessed 22 February 2010. International Institutions: Laws, Rule-Making/Interpretation & Compliance eJournal.