Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/16142 Record ID: 828fac7f-261b-4148-97db-688ff84a025f
Full metadata record
| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.author | Booth, Kate | en |
| dc.contributor.author | Bacon, Rachel | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-06-30T23:23:55Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2022-06-30T23:23:55Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2002 | en |
| dc.identifier.citation | 24 (4), December 2002 | en |
| dc.identifier.issn | 0082-0512 | en |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/16142 | - |
| dc.language | en | en |
| dc.publisher | Faculty of Law | en |
| dc.subject | Refugee communities | en |
| dc.subject | Criminal justice responses | en |
| dc.subject | Legal issues | en |
| dc.subject.other | Culturally and Linguistically Diverse / Migrant / Refugee communities | en |
| dc.title | Persecution by omission: violence by non-state actors and the role of the state under the refugees convention in "Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Khawar" | en |
| dc.title.alternative | The Sydney law review | en |
| dc.type | Journal Article | en |
| dc.identifier.catalogid | 1870 | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | new_record | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | National | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | Journal article/research paper | en |
| dc.subject.readinglist | Culturally and Linguistically Diverse / Migrant / Refugee communities | en |
| dc.description.notes | Discusses the recent case of Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Khawar, in which the High Court’s decision confirmed that ‘persecution’ within the meaning of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees may arise in situations where applicants for refugee status are in fear of violence by private individuals and their state of nationality fails to provide protection, be it through condoning, tolerating or actively committing that violence. The requirement for a ‘nexus’ between the Convention and the State’s omission must still however be established, such that the failure of the State in question to provide protection must be motivated by a reason stipulated in the Convention. The facts of the case and the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal and the Federal Court, both at first instance and on appeal, are presented before the views of each of the Justices of the High Court on the major issues of the case are examined in detail. Some of the implications of the decision and trends in overseas jurisdictions are then discussed and it is suggested that the decision in Khawar marks part of a broader shift in common law countries towards challenging the public/private dichotomy. Suggests that whilst the decision is not expected to open the ‘floodgates’ to all refugee women who have experienced domestic violence, it may pave the way for a more uniform and contextualised approach to gender-related violence. | en |
| dc.identifier.source | The Sydney law review | en |
| dc.date.entered | 2003-04-01 | en |
| dc.publisher.place | University of Sydney | en |
| Appears in Collections: | Journal Articles | |
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in ANROWS library are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.