Refugees and Model of Justice within Australian Territory - Coursework Example

Refugees & model of Justice within Australian Territory Introduction The issue of refugees is a global enigma that characterizes the 21st century with global economies seeing substantial number of people moving to and from their home countries to seek asylum or refuge elsewhere. Majority of refugees globally are moved out of their home by varied reasons among them wars, famine, environmental reasons, natural calamities such as earthquakes, hurricanes and floods, persecution in their home countries for cultural, economic, religious and social reasons, diseases and political discord as highlighted by Hathaway (2005). Among contemporary economies that source the highest numbers of refugees are those that have experienced decades of civil strife, interracial wars and ethnic clashes such as Sudan, Afghanistan, Palestine, Myanmar and Iraq among others. In Sudan, the number of internally displaced persons (IDPs) is the highest globally while Azerbaijan has the highest per capita internally displaced persons worldwide with more than a million internally displaced persons and refugees (Amnesty International, 1997). The United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (the Refugee Convention) defines a refugee as an individual who due to a well founded fear of persecution for reasons of religion, race, and nationality (Matthew, 2004). In addition, political affiliation, membership of a social grouping is compelled out of his home country and from the described fears is unwilling to seek protection from their home country (Smith, 2008). Refugees included asylum seekers and displaced persons who have left their home countries due to war and forceful eviction within their home countries. Australia is a member of the international community that offer refuge as a host country to thousand of refugees and is charged with the responsibility of safeguarding the refugees and dealing with refugee issues. Owing to massive cases of violations of the rights of refugees, the international community is striving to develop and implement the best mechanisms and policies to deal with the refugee problem and ensuring their rights as human beings and as refugees is observed (Amnesty International, 1997). This report seeks to critically, explore the issue of refugees using the utilitarian theory of justice within Australian Territory. Challenges facing refugees in Australia Refugees are a vulnerable group of people as they are prone to oppression, violation of their fundamental human rights through forced labour, sexual harassment, child labour and lack of effective and efficient health care as discussed by Amnesty International (1997). More often than not, they are held in detention camps for prolonged amount of time, they are exposed to deplorable housing and living conditions and they are not able to access legal counsel, medical care such as counselling and access to basic essentials such as nutritious food, clean water, shelter, education and clothing (Smith, 2008). The need for counselling is necessitated by the susceptibility of the refugees to post traumatic stress disorder and depression associated with fear of living in new context that has a different culture from their own, the memories of what they witnessed back home and fearing for the lives of their loved ones who they may not know where they are. They may have psychological traumas, chronic fatigue syndrome, insomnia, amnesia, and anxiety, which need counselling to resolve (Hathaway, 2005). Humanitarian program and efforts made by Australia to help refugees Austria helps refugees on two courses. The first course is helping refugees within its territories through onshore protection and the second course is helping refugees that are outside her territory through offshore resettlement as discussed by (D.I.C. 2011). The figure below shows facts and figures on Australian humanitarian program Humanitarian Program grants by category 2004–05 to 2009–10 Category 2004–05 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 Refugee 5511 6022 6003 6004 64992 6003 Special Humanitarian (offshore) 6585 6736 5183 4795 4511 3233 Onshore (visa grants) 1065 1372 1793 2131 2492 4534 Temporary Humanitarian Concern 17 14 38 84 5 - Total 13 178 14 144 13 017 13 014 13 507 13 770 Figure 1 The Australian offshore visa grants by top ten nations of birth are as follows 2009–10 offshore visa grants by top ten countries of birth Countries Number of visas granted Burma 1959 Iraq 1688 Bhutan 1144 Afghanistan 951 Congo (DRC) 584 Ethiopia 392 Somalia 317 Sudan 298 Liberia 258 Sierra Leone 237 Figure 2 The figures for the Australian humanitarian program for the year 2010 and 2011 are six thousand places for refugees from abroad and seven thousand seven hundred and fifty places for other humanitarian (D.I.C. 2011). Utilitarian theory of Justice Justice refers to the model of ethical aptness established on judiciousness, morals and ethics, religion, natural regulations, impartiality and neutrality and the retribution of violation of the agreed ethics and moral standards. Justice safeguards and guides social institutions as it seek to establish truth. Justice for all humanities is vital and more significant than care, kindness, donations and goodwill as highlighted by Richard (1992). In implementing justice, there are models that are used to help select the best course of action to take to counter social issues and challenges. Among such models are distributive justice, restorative and retributive justice. Under retributive justice there is the utilitarian theory that suggests that allocation of social goods are just and fair when the distribution improves efficiency, where efficiency is defined as pleasure, achievement and meeting varied preferences in the social set up (Richard, 1992). Utilitarian theory mentions that the moral value of an action is determined exclusively by its efficacy and worth in making the most of a utility as totalled among all sentient entities. Therefore, an action is judged based on its consequence and the after effects influence the moral value of an action (Mill, 2006). Utility of action is dependent on the intensity of the action, duration of an action, its certainty, and propinquity of an action, its productiveness and the number of people impacted by the action. This means that pleasure and delight of people should be sacrificed only to bring greater pleasure and delight to other people (Mill, 2006). Utilitarian theory dejects punishment. However, the theory implies that it might be necessary to use threat to entice people to make better choices that improve the welfare for all and rehabilitation of people considered unethical to help modify their conduct and safeguard them from doing what is considered wrong. In addition, confinement or incarceration might be necessary for persons who cannot be, easily reformed and imprisoning them will be for the greater good and safety of the majority of people as described by Amir (2008). Utilitarian perspective on the refugee issue in Australian territory Justice for all including refugees and other vulnerable groups is not an option. The continued perception of refugees as immigrants by the stakeholders such as the receiving country impedes international efforts to safeguard the rights of refugees. There are three major resolutions to dealing with refugees which includes voluntary repatriation where refugees are allowed to go back to their home countries willingly and with the surety that their lives, rights and freedom is not at risk or under threat any longer (Amnesty International, 1997). The other resolution is local integration where the receiving country incorporates the refugees into local communities and they offer them citizenship. There is resettlement in a third country where the refugees cannot go back to their home countries and neither can they remain in the host country since, the host country does not have the capacity to support them and therefore, they are resettled in another country (Amnesty International, 1997). International law and justice for refugees mandates member states such as Australia to safeguard refugees’ right to dignity, impartiality, freedom, and access to basic standard of life that entails freedom from aggression, hunger and promotes tolerance and unity (Matthew, 2004). From a utilitarian perspective, this entails helping refugees with the view that safety, security and provision for the local communities in terms of food, water, shelter, education and other social economic amenities is not compromised. This however, is not easy since, Austrian local communities see the act of receiving refugees as a means of cutting down on the number of employment opportunities available, increased pressure on available resources such as land and increased risks of spread of infectious and communicable diseases and increased threat of insecurities (Smith, 2008). Utilitarianism suggests sacrificing the happiness of people only to generate greater happiness to other people (Mill, 2006). This has been practiced in Australia where substantial amounts of annual budget have been allocated to aid refugees and accommodate them. This includes provision of educational opportunities, visa grants, shelter, clean water, food, educational lessons in English and developing the skills and knowledge of the refugees (Matthew, 2004). Nevertheless, the recent formulation and implementation of strict onshore refugee policies and the mandatory detention of asylum seekers can be viewed as the government attempts to sacrifice the welfare of the refugees for the greater good of the Australian population especially with the rising issues of security threat associated with terrorism (Gibney, 2004). This sentiments has however, elicited heated debate in regards to Australia taking responsibility to offer protection and refuge when need be as a developed economy. The question that begs for answers is who owes the refugees moral responsibility and whose actions should be used to determine the greater good? Since, in case of wars and when refugees are forcibly, evicted out of their home country, no one should be made to benefit from the atrocities, neither the victim nor the people that are evicting others as noted by Gibney (2004). From a utilitarian point of view, the moral authority of any norm is received from the tacit approval of the party subject to that norm, which means norms are outcomes of consent and thus, they only bind parties to the agreement (Richard, 1992). Utilitarianism compels international community members such as Australia to help others (refugees), to the level at which their welfare is minimized to the same level as the welfare of the refugees they are trying to enhance (Amir, 2008). This has prompted Australia to develop stricter measures to not only, minimize harm on refugees but to safeguard the welfare of its people in terms of national and economic security (Smith, 2008). The challenge of refugees is not an issue for the third and developing economies only, since it can escalates to levels that affect developed nations (Amnesty International, 1997). From a utilitarian perspective therefore, Australia in collaboration from international communities has the moral authority and responsibility to fend for refugees and safeguard their rights. This is because, it would be for the greater good of not only the Australian people but also to the world if refugees are properly handled to avoid disgruntled refugees from forming vigilante groups and resistance movements is search for justice. What Australia needs to do is to formulate and implement refugee friendly policies and legal systems and improving its structural regulation systems. Additionally, developing the skills and knowledge of refugees to empower them when they are in its territories that would help the refugees fend for themselves when in Australia, when they go back home or when resettled to third countries (Richard, 1992). Australia as a developed economy needs to collaborate with other community members to ease pressure from her as a nation. Sharing accountability for the welfare and protection of the rights of the refugees globally is fair, just, reasonable, sustainable and is fundamental for the world order and would assist global states to implement effective immigration policies and guidelines (Penz, 2000). In addition, through this arrangement of accountability and responsibility sharing, refugees will gain, as they are more likely to attain a more structured system of sustainable and adequate protection (Amir, 2008). Utilitarianism quantifies the moral value based on its capacity to increase or reduce the sum total of the utility (Richard, 1992). In relation to the issue of refugees, Australia is more likely to increase the utility through responsibility sharing, since the care and protection of the refugees will be carried by the country whose utility reduces minimally as a consequence. This supports Joseph Carens’ sentiments that utilitarianism to moral parity is achieved when everyone is to count for one and no one for more than one, when utility is measured as highlighted by Amir (2008). From a utilitarian perspective, countries where refugees originate from will be held economically accountable for their mess and may move to impact their utility, which will consequently minimize the problem of refugees as less and less countries would want to reduce their economic utility (Penz, 2000). Australia’s move to form stricter immigration and refugee policies is indicative of the government’s attempts to limit the effect refugees have in altering the cultural, economic, environmental, social and political landscapes of the receiving nation. This from a utilitarian point of view is essential in protecting the greater welfare of the Australian population socially, economically, culturally, politically and environmentally (Amir, 2008). Be it as it may, Australian efforts to cater for the needs of the refugees and safeguard their fundamental human rights have been commendable. This is illustrated by effective and competent refugee management systems through establishment of sustainable programs for educating and training refugees with vocational skills, teaching English as a second language to facilitate effective communication for refugees and provision of clean water, hygienic living conditions in detention and refugee camps, medical services and provision of nutritious foods and essential clothing. The Australia government in a bid to sacrifice the welfare of the Australian people for greater good of world order, Australian authorities in collaboration with other international and non-governmental organizations have taken steps in providing refugees with legal counsel that help them to handle legal issues and foster capacity building in detention and refugee camps. According to Koizumi (1993), legal counsel is vital in safeguarding freedom of refugees to worship, access legal assistance, access social security, get equal treatment, have the right to associate, acquire employment, own property and access housing and education among others. Legal counsel helps in implementation of social justice and equity for refugees in their home countries, in the receiving countries and even when they are resettled in third countries. Nevertheless, it is important to note that using utilitarianism to tackle the issues of refugees in Australia generates more controversy, as it would mean, the rights of the minority group will be more often than not, be overlooked in order to generate greater value and welfare for the majority group as discussed by Penz (2000). The more likely group to suffer from such an arrangement would be the refugees, as the Australian government, has the moral authority and reasonability of safeguarding the rights and welfare of her people that put them into leadership than of those from outside as discussed by Matthew (2004). This is illustrated by the treatment of asylum seekers who seek protection in Australia and arrive in excised offshore zones such as Christmas Island who are denied access to the Refugee review tribunal and they are not allowed to go through the Australian refugee status determination systems. This limits the asylum seekers ability to present a valid visa application except when the Minister for Immigration allows them to do so. These infringes on Australia’s obligations to international human rights and their accountability as a member of the Refugee Convention to safeguard the fundamental rights of refugees despite their possessing or lacking valid visas, how they come and where they arrive at. The dilemma for majority of practitioners of social justice dealing with refugee issues is selecting the best appropriate model of justice to use that caters for the welfare of the refugees and protects their fundamental human rights. Moreover, those that foster partiality and autonomy of the receiving country to decide when, how, who and where to receive asylum seekers as highlighted by Whittaker (2006). In addition, having the right to admit or refuse admittance to those who do not qualify to be refugees based on the definition given by the Refugee Convention but have a real threat to their lives or have founded fears of persecution. To ensure Australian moral worth increases with taking responsibility for refugees, it is imperative from a utilitarian point of view, to calculate the sacrifices in terms of the wellbeing that would be lost and the gains in terms of well being that will be acquired as indicated by Amir (2008). This is particularly true, as the wellbeing of humanity globally will directly or indirectly, be enhanced by upholding the rights of the refugees and asylum seekers whose life is threatened in their home countries. In addition, costs, which amount to losses of the wellbeing, need to be reflected, upon and thereby, mechanisms and solutions that accrue the least costs or losses to wellbeing should be pursued (Mill, 2006). However, this view may prompt Australia not to accept any more refugees if by accepting more refugees the losses of wellbeing in terms of costs are increased. Nevertheless, the important point for Australia to remember is that justice for all is not an option and refusing refugee’s entrance or allowing tendencies of human rights violations, is contravention of Australia’s obligation to international human rights and the Refugee Convention as noted by Matthew (2004). However, taking strict measures is equally important as it helps strikes a balance necessary for catering and meeting the needs and expectations of all the stakeholders who constitute the refugees, the local communities in the receiving country, and international community members in general. Although the efforts Australia has done is commendable there is so much more that needs to be done to ensure the basic needs of refugees are met, their fundamental human rights are safeguarded and they are protected from perceived threat from their home country. Conclusion The challenge of refugees is not a problem for the third and developing countries alone. There are thousand of refugees moving from their home countries for fear of persecution for basis of their race, nationality, membership to particular social group, religion and political opinion and affiliation among others. The report has critically evaluated the utilitarian perspective on handling the issue of refugees in Australia. Utilitarian theory of justice suggests that the moral value of an action is determined exclusively by its efficacy and worth in making the most of a utility as totalled among all sentient entities. Therefore, an action is judged based on its consequence and the after effects influence the moral value of an action. Australia as a developed economy and a signatory to the Refugee Convention has formulated and implemented strict refugee policies and has mandated mandatory detention for asylum seekers. This move can be viewed from a utilitarian perspective as attempts by the Australian government to sacrifice the welfare of a few refugees for the greater welfare of the more Australian population. This however, generates controversy, as the rights of the refugees are as important as the rights of the citizen. The solution to the refugee problem from a utilitarian point of view is sharing responsibility and moral authority among international community members in order to ensure the country whose utility will be minimally affected receives more refugees than a country whose utility reduces substantially as a consequence. This calls for calculations of the sacrifices in terms of the wellbeing that would be lost and the gains in terms of well being that will be acquired. References Amir, T.K. 2008. Not in my backyard: on the morality of responsibility –sharing on refugee law. London: Selected Works. Accessed from http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=tally_kritzman_amir&sei-redir=1#search=%22utilitarian+perspective+on+refugees%22. Retrieved on 21st May 2011. Amnesty International. 1997. Refugees: human rights have no borders. London: Amnesty International. D.I.C. 2011. Visas, Immigration and Refugees. Sidney: Australian Government, Department of Immigration and Citizenship. Accessed from http://www.immi.gov.au/visas/humanitarian/. Retrieved on the 21st May 2011. Gibney, M.J. 2004. The ethics and politics of asylum: liberal democracy and the response to refugees. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hathaway, J.C. 2005. The rights of refugees under international law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Matthew, J. G. 2004. The Ethics and Politics of Asylum: Liberal Democracy and the Response to Refugees. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mill, J.S. 2006. Utilitarianism. Oxford: Oxford University. Penz, P. 2000. Ethical Reflections on the Institution of Asylum. Accessed from http://pi.library.yorku.ca/ojs/index.php/refuge/article/viewFile/21204/19875. Retrieved on the 21st May 2011. Richard, B. B. 1992. Morality, Utilitarianism, and Rights. New York: Cambridge University Press. p.197. Smith, J.W. 2008. Immigration, population and sustainable environments: the limits to Australia's growth. San Francisco: the University of California. Whittaker, D.J. 2006. Asylum seekers and refugees in the contemporary world. New Jersey: Taylor & Francis. Read More