Interpreting asylum, reinterpreting refugees: An Australian case-study

Australian responses to Cambodian asylum-seekers have been characterised by a continuing history of conflict between the legislative, executive and judicial branches of Government. I argue that this conflict has worked to conceal Australian international and humanitarian obligations towards asylum-seekers and refugees. In addition to this, terms used to describe asylum-seekers and refugees as 'boat people' 'queue jumpers' 'economic refugees' etc, have operated as categories of bureaucratic control and political power which have also worked to conceal those obligations. Further to this, I explore the form and content of the relevant international instruments as these articulate the obligations upon states in the grant of asylum. I then examine Australian responses to Cambodian asylum-seekers and argue that the international instruments are no longer sufficient obligation upon signatory stales such as Australia, to entrench the rights of asylum-seekers. I therefore suggest an extension to the current theoretical debate as this might inform possible ways in which to reconceptualise both the rights of asylum-seekers and the international and humanitarian obligations upon those countries from which they seek asylum.