Offshore Justice: could Australia end up at the ICC for abusing asylum-seekers?

Like Courtside Justice with Mark Kersten
Wednesday, August 17, 2016 - 19:29

By Mark Kersten

Since 2013, the Australian government has taken a “zero tolerance” approach to individuals seeking to illegally migrate to Australia by boat. Irrespective of their situations or the dangers they may otherwise face, the government gives them an impossible choice: they can go return to the places from which they flee, they can find some other country that will take them in or they can live indefinitely in the dusty, sweltering, secretive, and caged-in holding facilities in Nauru or Manus Island, which is part of Papua New Guinea. 

Staff working at those facilities have consistently complained of the horrendous, inhumane conditions faced by the people living there. According to leaked reports published by The Guardian, thousands of alleged abuses have gone uninvestigated. More than 50 percent of those reports involve children. They include allegations of sexual assault and self-harm or threats of self-harm by minors.
 

Compassionate approach?

Nothing, including the current refugee crisis in Europe, the tireless work of human rights advocates in Australia, and the release of an investigative documentary on the subject, has been able to budge the Australian government towards a more compassionate approach to the people seeking refuge in the country. On the contrary, due to the fact that the facilities aren’t directly run by Australia or are located in overseas Australian territories, the government seeks regularly to wash its hands of this controversy, maintaining that any alleged abuses are up to (the poorly equipped) authorities in Nauru or Papua New Guinea to investigate. Another popular justification relies more on a xenophobic logic, insisting that Australia simply can’t accept more migrants and still be Australian.

In reaction to allegations, from its own staff no less, the Australian government has now decided to close its detention facility in Manus Island. It remains unclear what will happen with those currently living there. Moreover, there has been no word on whether the asylum centre in Nauru will be closed. But a larger question remains: do the abuses at these facilities - and the negligent approach to them by the Australian government - amount to crimes against humanity? And if they do, should the ICC intervene?

According to Richard Ackland, the answer is yes — the ICC can and should intervene:

"It’s hard to imagine [Australian Prime Minister] Malcolm Turnbull, [Immigration Minister Peter] Dutton and other ministers in the same Hague dock as Congolese warlords who conscript child soldiers. Yet, it is quite plausible that the ICC could mount a preliminary examination into Australia’s shocking treatment of offshore detainees who sought our protection under the Refugee convention.

"Even a preliminary examination by the ICC would be a major embarrassment for Australia which, so far, has been beyond embarrassment in the ruthless implementation of 'border protection'. It would flag internationally a pariah status for a country that wantonly abuses human rights, particularly as there are policy options far more humane than the one preferred by successive governments."

Not a first

This isn’t the first time that it has been suggested that the ICC examine allegations of abuses against asylum-seekers in Australian detention facilities. In 2014, Andrew Wilkie, an independent member of parliament, insisted that the Australian government was committing crimes against humanity against asylum-seekers and requested that the ICC investigate. Wilkie argued that the Australian government was guilty of imprisonment and other severe deprivations of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law; deportation and other forcible transfer of population; and other international acts causing great suffering, or serious injury to body and mental and physical health. He further declared that: 

"The actions of the prime minister and members of his government against asylum-seekers are criminal. Actions such as forcible deportation, detention without trial, detention of children and conditions of detention constitute breaches of Article 7 (Crimes Against Humanity) of the Rome Statute, the treaty that governs the jurisdiction of the ICC.

"The government is pandering to racism, xenophobia and selfishness instead of acting like leaders. This is why I’ve asked the Prosecutor to initiate an investigation into the prime minister and the cabinet because - if they won’t listen to the swathe of community outrage - then hopefully they’ll listen to the International Criminal Court.More recently, an argument has been put forward from leading scholars of international law that the companies running the detention sites may be liable for crimes against humanity. Establishing the liability of such entities is critically important but, for the time being at least, the prosecution of corporate entities for international crimes remains a blind spot in international criminal justice."

Will the ICC intervene?

It’s unclear if the Office of the Prosecutor ever responded to Wilkie’s original request for a preliminary examination of the alleged abuses on Manus and Nauru. And Ackland is right: we won’t be seeing any indictments for top Australian officials any time soon. Still, the ICC has shown an interest in being a significant player on global issues that capture the interest of the international community. When the international community expressed its consternation about ISIS’s destruction of cultural historical sites in Timbuktu (Mali) the ICC charged an Islamic terrorist, Ahmad al-Faqi al-Mahdi. Showing more than a perfunctory interest in the the alleged abuses perpetrated by Australian officials would also demonstrate that the ICC won’t shy away from examining alleged abuses by Western states. 

Of course, the best outcome of any ICC intervention would not be to lure Australian officials into the Court’s dock. Ideally, an ICC preliminary examination would galvanise meaningful domestic action to investigate the alleged abuses, hold any perpetrators to account, prevent such senseless detention centres from operating in the future and offer reparations to those who have needlessly suffered under this policy.

The muscle of the ICC’s preliminary examination can be significant. Perhaps this is the time to flex it. 

This piece by Mark Kersten, the creator of Justice in Conflict, looking into the politics and dilemmas of international justice has been lightly edited since its first publication in August 2017. It was originally one of the  bi-monthly column Courtside Justice columns. 

Like
Anonymous
Linda King

they are not illegally migrating they are asylum seekers and refugees. it is not illegal to seek asylum . Bring on the ICC appearance of our heinous ministers won have facilitated this outrageous abuse of babies, children minors, woman and men

Saturday, October 8, 2016 - 13:22
Anonymous
John Ennis

I worked in MIRPC on Manus for long enough and saw enough, and made and maintained enough good conttacts there, to support all of the above with maybe some minor corrections which would only serve to paint the actions and situation as worse. I have shared hours of recorded statements with journalists Nd lawyers, including at least an hour of recorded sworn statement where I was interviewed by two Barristers with the express purpose of that being admissable as evidence, hopefully in any court. Furthermore I and numerous others are ready to stNd in court and share all we know. However, in my opinion the best witnesses are the detainees who have suffered in these Australian run Concentrstion Camps for 3 years or more.

Friday, October 7, 2016 - 16:53
Anonymous
Tracie Aylmer

The ICC has been analysing Australia's situation since 30 January 2015. If only they would start a preliminary investigation right now. It would provide relief for those within detention, as well as an end date for the freedom they all deserve.

My intent with writing the submission and handing over enormous bodies of evidence to the ICC was always in order to close the detention system down and ensure justice occurred for those that have been fundamentally harmed by this disgraceful system.

A preliminary investigation by the ICC of Australia would ensure all facets of detention would be closed, and with this legitimacy of the ICC would occur. No one in the international community would then question the independence of the ICC any further.

Thursday, October 6, 2016 - 14:52
Anonymous
Niko leka

The worry is that asylum seekers as witness are particulary vulnerable to intimidation

Thursday, October 6, 2016 - 14:38
Anonymous
Niko leka

There are two complaints about Australia's immigration detention that have been accepted for preliminary investigation. Tracie Aylmer wrote one and then Peter Farago (see https://www.change.org/p/international-criminal-court-chief-prosecutor-fatou-bensouda-end-detention-of-all-the-australian-asylum-seekers-in-remote-and-offshore-locations ) witnesses are currently lodging statements directly with the ICC

Thursday, October 6, 2016 - 14:37
Anonymous