English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 114895/145933 (79%)
Visitors : 53858511      Online Users : 377
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
    •  Adv. Search
    Home ‧ Login ‧ Upload ‧ Help ‧ About ‧ Administer Goto mobile version


    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/156004


    Title: 澳洲未經許可海上入境者處境於國際人權法之合法性檢視
    The Legality of the Situations of Australia’s “Unauthorised Maritime Arrivals” under International Human Rights Law
    Authors: 李芝謙
    Lee, Chih-Chien
    Contributors: 蔡沛倫
    李芝謙
    Lee, Chih-Chien
    Keywords: 尋求庇護者
    未經許可海上入境者
    移民收容
    區域處理
    不遣返原則
    Asylum seeker
    Unauthorized maritime arrival
    Immigration detention
    Regional processing
    Non-refoulement principle
    Date: 2025
    Issue Date: 2025-03-03 14:33:44 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 本研究探討澳洲處理未經許可海上入境尋求庇護者（以下簡稱尋求庇護者）的程序是否符合國際人權法規範。首先根據主要國際公約釐清澳洲身為締約國，受到國際義務約束之範圍，並彙整聯合國條約機構以及學者對於剝奪自由之程序、被剝奪自由者之待遇與不遣返原則相關之公約條文的闡釋與解析，進而建構評斷國家實踐合法性之標準。澳洲1958年《移民法》則提供尋求庇護者之處理程序的主要架構，可以分為拘禁規定、申請簽證、區域處理與驅逐四部分。本研究依處理程序之順序，詳加分析《移民法》中有關條文。並透過澳洲國內之司法判例、官方以及非政府組織報告了解法規實踐之情形。
    根據澳洲1958年《移民法》，所有未經許可海上入境者須接受強制拘禁。他們必須被持續拘禁，直到被遞解出境、驅逐或獲得簽證，甚至無限期。這樣的拘禁違反比例原則，不符合《公政公約》第9條禁止任意拘禁的規定。此外，澳洲在拘禁程序以及簽證申請審核程序上，並沒有賦予尋求庇護者足夠的知情權以及司法救濟權，使其難以挑戰拘禁決定。此亦違反《公政公約》第9條關於逮捕與拘禁的程序標準規定。
    此外，澳洲制度下的收容中心生活條件惡劣，構成了國際人權法下的酷刑或不人道待遇。聯合國人權事務委員會和禁止酷刑委員會均認為，這些行為違反了《公政公約》第7條和《禁止酷刑公約》的規定。澳洲還與諾魯和巴紐簽署協議，將未經許可海上入境者轉移到這些國家的區域處理中心拘禁。尋求庇護者在當地區域處理中心同樣面臨酷刑與虐待的高度風險。澳洲法院在相關案件中多次指出，澳洲政府有權力進行區域處理安排，但無需對第三國的拘禁行為負責。然而，這種觀點不符合國際人權公約的要求，根據上述兩公約，即使行為發生在澳洲領土之外，只要是澳洲有效控制下的區域，都屬於澳洲的國際責任。而澳洲將尋求庇護者強制轉移到諾魯和巴紐的行為，已經違反了不遣返義務。
    總結來看，澳洲的拘禁程序，無論是國內還是區域處理，均存在嚴重的制度問題和人權侵犯。長期或無限期拘禁、缺乏透明的程序和惡劣的拘禁條件，皆違反了國際人權法的規定。澳洲需要調整相關之國內法制及政策，以確保符合其國際法義務，並保障尋求庇護者的基本權利不受侵犯。
    Reference: 中文文獻
    圖書
    1. 丘宏達, & 陳純一. (2024). 現代國際法 / 丘宏達著 ; 陳純一修訂 (修訂五版). 三民書局股份有限公司.

    期刊論文
    1. 王立達. (2000). 法釋義學研究取向初探：一個方法論的反省. 法令月刊, 51(9), 23–33. https://doi.org/10.6509/TLM.200009_51(9).0003
    2. 翁燕菁. (2016). 國門前的難民─不遣返原則與難民法. 月旦法學雜誌, 250, 158-170.

    英文文獻
    期刊論文
    1. Álvarez Ortega, E. L. (2015). The attribution of international responsibility to a State for conduct of private individuals within the territory of another State. InDret, 1.
    2. Curtin, J. (2005). 'Never say never': Al-Kateb v. Godwin. Sydney Law Review, 27(2), 355-370.
    3. Frelick, B. (1996). US refugee policy in the Caribbean: No bridge over troubled waters. The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, 20(2), 67–87. http://www.jstor.org/stable/45289975
    4. Léonard, S., & Kaunert, C. (2016). The extra-territorial processing of asylum claims. Forced migration review , 51, 48–51.
    5. Maguire, A. (2017). Case comment: “Plaintiff S195/2016” v. Minister for Immigration and Border Protection” [2017] HCA 31 (17 August 2017). University of New South Wales Law Journal Forum, 2017, 1–12. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.928007891084452
    6. Matera, M., Tubakovic, T., & Murray, P. (2023). Is Australia a Model for the UK? A Critical Assessment of Parallels of Cruelty in Refugee Externalization Policies. Journal of Refugee Studies, 36(2), 271-293.
    7. McKay, F. (2013). A return to the Pacific Solution. Forced Migration Review, 44, 24-26.
    8. Saul, B. (2012). Dark justice : Australias indefinite detention of refugees on security grounds under international human rights law. Melbourne Journal of International Law, 13(2), 685–731.
    9. Taylor, S. (2007). Australia's Pacific Solution Mark II: The Lessons to Be Learned. UTS L. Rev., 9, 106.

    學術論著
    1. Conte, A., & Burchill, R. he refugee convention 1951: article 33. UNHCR.
    2. Nowak, M., Birk, M., & Monina, G. (Eds.). (2019). The United Nations convention against torture and its optional protocol: a commentary. Oxford University Press.
    3. Pearson, E. (2016). Case Analysis – Plaintiff M68/2015 v. Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. ILA Reporter, International Law Association (Australian Branch). https://ilareporter.org.au/2016/03/case-analysis-plaintiff-m682015-v-minister-for-immigration-and-border-protection/
    4. Taylor, P. M. (2020). A Commentary on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: The UN Human Rights Committee's Monitoring of ICCPR Rights. Cambridge University Press, 58-86.

    政府部門資料
    1. Australian Attorney-General Department. (2019). Independent Review Brochure. https://www.ag.gov.au/national-security/publications/independent-review-adverse-security-assessments-brochure
    2. Australian Human Rights Commission. (2013). Human rights standards for immigration detention. https://humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/document/publication/HR_standards_immigration_detention.pdf
    3. Australian Human Rights Commission. (2013). Tell Me About: Refugees with Adverse Security Assessments. https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/asylum-seekers-and-refugees/publications/tell-me-about-frefugees-adverse-security#fn2
    4. Australian Human Rights Commission. (2020). Inspections of Australia’s immigration detention facilities 2019 Report. https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/asylum-seekers-and-refugees/publications/inspections-australias-immigration-detention
    5. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Australian Government. (2012). Memorandum of Understanding between the Republic of Nauru and Australia on the Enduring Regional Processing Capability in Republic of Nauru. https://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/nauru/memorandum-understanding-between-republic-nauru-and-australia-enduring-regional-processing-capability-republic-nauru
    6. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Australian Government. (2013). Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea and the Government of Australia, relating to the transfer to, and assessment and settlement in, Papua New Guinea of certain persons, and related issues. https://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/papua-new-guinea/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-government-of-the-independent-state-of-papua-new-guinea-and-the-government-of-austr
    7. Department of Home Affairs. (2023). Immigration and citizenship, Subclass 785 Temporary Protection visa. Australian Government. https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/getting-a-visa/visa-listing/temporary-protection-785#When
    8. Law Council of Australia. (2023). Review of the Migration Amendment (Clarifying International Obligations for Removal) Act 2021.
    9. Law Council of Australia. (n.d.). An inquiry into the Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Bill 2014, submission no 129 to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Parliament of Australia.
    10. Love,S. & Ferris,L..(2024). Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2324a/24bd066
    11. McCluskey, I. (2013). Migration Amendment (Unauthorised Maritime Arrivals and Other Measures) Bill 2012. Parliamentary Library.
    12. Migration Act 1958, Application of section 198AD to certain transitory persons § 198AH (2024) . https://www.legislation.gov.au/C1958A00062/latest/text
    13. Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023. https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=LEGISLATION;id=legislation%2Fbills%2Fr7114_aspassed%2F0001;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr7114_aspassed%2F0000%22
    14. Migration and Other Legislation Amendment (Bridging Visas, Serious Offenders and Other Measures) Bill 2023. https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query%3DId%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr7128%22;rec=0
    15. Migration Regulations 1994, Subclass 051—Bridging (Protection Visa Applicant), 051.21—Criteria to be satisfied at time of application § 051.213 (2024). https://www.legislation.gov.au/F1996B03551/latest/text/2
    16. Migration Regulations 1994, Subclass 785—Temporary Protection, 785.22—Criteria to be satisfied at time of decision § 785.226 (2024). https://www.legislation.gov.au/F1996B03551/latest/text/2
    17. Migration Regulations 1994, Subclass 790—Safe Haven Enterprise, 790.22—Criteria to be satisfied at time of decision § 790.226 (2024). https://www.legislation.gov.au/F1996B03551/latest/text/2
    18. Public Interest Advocacy Centre. (2018). In Poor Health: Health care in Australian Immigration Detention; Public Interest Advocacy Centre. (2021). In Poor Health: Healthcare Denied: Medevac and the long wait for Essential Medical Treatment in Australian Immigration Detention.
    19. Revised Explanatory Memorandum, Migration Amendment (Clarifying International Obligations for Removal) Bill 2021 (Cth). https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr6696_ems_b5bd7c14-8a16-4782-8418-21f2a0c27b3d%22
    20. Rudd, K. (2013, July 19). Regional Resettlement Arrangement. Joint press conference with PNG Prime Minister Peter O'Neill, Brisbane. https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:%22media/pressrel/2611766%22

    聯合國機構資料
    1. A v. Australia, (Human Rights Committee, 1997).
    2. Ahani v. Canada, (Human Rights Committee, 2004). CCPR/C/80/D/1051/2002.
    3. Australia. CAT/C/AUS/CO/6.
    4. Australia. CCPR/C/AUS/CO/6.
    5. Campbell v Jamaica, (Human Rights Committee, 1992). CCPR/C/44/D/248/1987.
    6. Committee Against Torture. (2008). General comment No. 2: Implementation of article 2 by States parties (para.16). CAT/C/GC/2.
    7. Committee against Torture. (2011). Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Morocco. CAT/C/MAR/CO/4.
    8. Committee against Torture. (2014). Concluding observations on the combined fourth and fifth periodic reports of Australia. CAT/C/AUS/CO/4-5. United Nations. https://docstore.ohchr.org/SelfServices/FilesHandler.ashx?enc=6QkG1d%2FPPRiCAqhKb7yhsoQ6oVJgGLf6YX4ROs1VbzHbjPhQXE%2B0WWmIrYFRkrdSVDi646tTx7wQu2ScGTgf%2BJVP%2Bu4P9Ry9gI0FCCIcBVuKEcWc%2Fk%2FXTL4sM%2BWHda%2Fd
    9. Committee against Torture. (2018). General comment No. 4. CAT/C/GC/4.
    10. Committee against Torture. (2022). Concluding observations on the sixth periodic report of Australia. CAT/C/AUS/CO/6. United Nations. https://docstore.ohchr.org/SelfServices/FilesHandler.ashx?enc=6QkG1d%2FPPRiCAqhKb7yhsoQ6oVJgGLf6YX4ROs1VbzEru4wycL%2FqQoIrzLep%2BJZyT2kIvroOhuMbJG1ioCx4Z3eXyrZ%2FkEdUDMwgHAnBoh0v9T4FjuSgv4v9weZd7XDc
    11. Committee against Torture. (2022). Concluding observations on the sixth periodic report of Australia. CAT/C/AUS/CO/6.
    12. Executive Committee of the High Commissioner's Programme, Standing Committee. Detention of Asylum-Seekers and Refugees: The Framework, the Problem and Recommended Practice. (1999) EC/49/SC/CRP.13. UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). https://www.refworld.org/reference/annualreport/unhcr/1999/en/57707.
    13. F.J. et al. v. Australia, (UN Human Rights Committee, 2016). No. 2233/2013. https://www.refworld.org/jurisprudence/caselaw/hrc/2016/en/95314
    14. F.K.A.G. et al. v Australia, (UN Human Rights Committee, 2013). CCPR/C/108/D/2094/2011.
    15. Human Rights Committee. (2025). Australia responsible for arbitrary detention of asylum seekers in offshore facilities, UN Human Rights Committee finds.
    16. International Court of Justice. (2004). Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
    17. International Law Commission. (2001). Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft_articles/9_6_2001.pdf
    18. Israil v. Kazakhstan, (Human Rights Committee, 2011). CCPR/C/103/D/2024/2011.
    19. M.M.M. et al. v. Australia, (UN Human Rights Committee, 2013). CCPR/C/108/D/2136/2012.
    20. MV v Netherlands, (Committee against Torture, 2003). CAT/C/30/D/201/2002.
    21. Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention at its eighty-ninth session, 23–27 November 2020. (2021). A/HRC/WGAD/2020/70
    22. Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention at its ninety-seventh session, 28 August–1 September 2023. (2023). A/HRC/WGAD/2023/44.
    23. Rafael Marques de Morais v. Angola, (Human Rights Committee, 2005). CCPR/C/83/D/1128/2002.
    24. Rummery, A. (2008, February 11). Australia's "Pacific Solution" draws to a close. UNHCR. https://www.unhcr.org/news/australias-pacific-solution-draws-close
    25. Shafiq v. Australia, (Human Rights Committee, 2006). CCPR/C/88/D/1324/2004.
    26. Stefan Lars Nystrom v. Australia, (Human Rights Committee, 2011). CCPR/C/102/D/1557/2007.
    27. Tursunov v. Kazakhstan, (Committee against Torture, 2015). CAT/C/54/D/538/2013; H.Y. v. Switzerland, (Committee against Torture, 2017). CAT/C/61/D/747/2016.
    28. UN Commission on Human Rights. (1999). Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. E/CN.4/2000/4. https://www.refworld.org/reference/themreport/unchr/1999/en/38432.
    29. UN High Commissioner for Refugees. (1990). The Refugee Convention, 1951: The Travaux préparatoires analysed with a Commentary by Dr. Paul Weis.
    30. UN High Commissioner for Refugees. (1997). UNHCR Note on the Principle of Non-Refoulement. https://www.refworld.org/policy/legalguidance/unhcr/1997/en/36258.
    31. UN High Commissioner for Refugees. (2007). Advisory Opinion on the Extraterritorial Application of Non-Refoulement Obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. (para.24). https://www.refworld.org/policy/legalguidance/unhcr/2007/en/40854
    32. UN High Commissioner for Refugees. (2012). Guidelines on the Applicable Criteria and Standards relating to the Detention of Asylum-Seekers and Alternatives to Detention. https://www.refworld.org/policy/legalguidance/unhcr/2012/en/87776.
    33. UN High Commissioner for Refugees. (2012). Guidelines on the applicable criteria and standards relating to the detention of asylum-seekers and alternatives to detention.
    34. UN High Commissioner for Refugees. (2023, December 22). Data list. United Nations. https://www.unhcr.org/hk/about-us/figures-at-a-glance
    35. UN Human Rights Committee. (2012). Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee, Guatemala. CCPR/C/GTM/CO/3.
    36. UN Human Rights Committee. (2013) Views of the Human Rights Committee under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (108th session) concerning Communication No. 2136/2012*. CCPR/C/108/D/2136/2012. United Nations. https://docstore.ohchr.org/SelfServices/FilesHandler.ashx?enc=6QkG1d%2fPPRiCAqhKb7yhstcNDCvDan1pXU7dsZDBaDWODtfxbURVE1Cw2Yn82fL7iJNiv1L6K5aTCLdZ48JqjYJwX%2bHu%2bMCS9UUUdT4hbBVQrHgm%2bqF8y04%2ftBk6tT718nNgZjkOofYKikDD4qR%2fplmIFsouFoxVCUkbHznayf0%3d
    37. UN Human Rights Committee. (2013). Concluding observations on the initial report of Angola. CCPR/C/AGO/CO/1.
    38. UN Human Rights Committee. (2014) . General comment no. 35, Article 9 (Liberty and security of person). CCPR/C/GC/35.
    39. UN Human Rights Committee. (2015). Concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. CCPR/C/GBR/CO/7.
    40. UN Human Rights Committee. (2015). Concluding observations on the sixth periodic report of Canada. CCPR/C/CAN/CO/6.
    41. UN Human Rights Committee. (2016). Concluding observations on the sixth periodic report of Costa Rica. CCPR/C/CRI/CO/6.
    42. UN Human Rights Committee.(2017). Concluding observations on the fifth periodic report of Romania. CCPR/C/ROU/CO/5.
    43. UN Human Rights Committee. (2017). Concluding observations on the sixth periodic report of Australia. CCPR/C/AUS/CO/6.
    44. UN Human Rights Committee. (2018). Concluding observations on the initial report of Belize. CCPR/C/BLZ/CO/1/Add.1.
    45. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, United Nations Human Rights Council. Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention at its eighty-sixth session, 18–22 November 2019. (2019). A/HRC/WGAD/2019/74.

    非政府組織資料
    1. Amnesty International. (2017). Diplomatic assurances against torture – inherently wrong, inherently unreliable. https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/ior40/6145/2017/en/
    2. Andrew & Renata Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, Refugee Council of Australia& Human Rights Law Centre. (2022). Torture and cruel treatment in Australia’s refugee protection and immigration detention regimes. Submission to the UN Committee Against Torture’s sixth periodic review of Australia, 75th Session, 2022, NGO response to State party report.
    3. Andrew & Renata Kaldor Centre. (2022). Follow-up Civil Society Report on United Nations Human Rights Committee Concluding Observations 2017 – 2019: Australia.
    4. Asylum Insight. (2018). VISAS AND LIVING IN AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITIES. https://asyluminsightsite.squarespace.com/visas#.WzuzgrixVEY
    5. Human Rights Law Centre, Andrew & Renata Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law& Refugee Council of Australia. (2022) Torture and cruel treatment in Australia’s refugee protection and immigration detention regimes. Submission to the UN Committee Against Torture’s sixth periodic review of Australia, 75th Session, 2022, NGO response to State party report.
    6. Human Rights Watch. (2016). Australia: Appalling Abuse, Neglect of Refugees on Nauru. https://www-hrw-org.translate.goog/news/2016/08/02/australia-appalling-abuse-neglect-refugees-nauru?_x_tr_sl=en&_x_tr_tl=zh-TW&_x_tr_hl=zh-TW&_x_tr_pto=sc
    7. Law Council of Australia. (2024). Migration Amendment Bill 2024. (para. 62,63). https://lawcouncil.au/publicassets/add2a0c3-58a8-ef11-94ac-005056be13b5/4621%20-%20S%20-%20Migration%20Amendment%20Bill%202024.pdf
    8. Refugee council of Australia. (2024). Offshore processing statistics. https://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/operation-sovereign-borders-offshore-detention-statistics/7/
    9. Refugee council of Australia. (2024). Refugee Council of Australia dismayed at new draconian migration laws. https://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/dismay-at-new-draconian-migration-laws/

    新聞報導
    1. Doherty, B., & Gillespie, E. (2023). Australia to move last refugee from offshore processing on Nauru – but its cruelty and cost are not over. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jun/24/australia-to-move-last-refugee-from-offshore-processing-on-nauru-but-its-cruelty-and-cost-is-not-over
    2. SBS News. (2017). Settlement for Manus detainees 'not an admission of liability', says Dutton. https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/settlement-for-manus-detainees-not-an-admission-of-liability-says-dutton/covvk5ohg

    國內法院判決
    1. Al-Kateb v Godwin, (High Court of Australia, 2004).
    2. ASF17 v. Commonwealth of Australia, (High Court of Australia, 2024).
    3. Chu Kheng Lim v Minister for Immigration Local Government & Ethnic Affairs, (High Court of Australia, 1992).
    4. Commonwealth of Australia v AJL20, (High Court of Australia, 2021).
    5. Namah v Pato, (the Supreme Court of Papua New Guinea, 2016). PGSC 13; SC1497.
    6. NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, (High Court of Australia, 2023).
    7. Plaintiff M47/2012 v. Director General of Security and Ors, (High court of Australia, 2012).
    8. Plaintiff M68-2015 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, (High Court of Australia, 2016).
    9. Plaintiff M76-2013 v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship, (High Court of Australia, 2013)
    10. Plaintiff S195-2016 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, (High Court of Australia, 2017).
    11. Re Woolley; Ex parte Applicants M276/2003 by their next friend GS, (High Court of Australia, 2004).

    網路資料
    1. Birchall, E. & and Paull, A. (2018). The Manus Island class action: Kamasaee v Commonwealth of Australia & Ors, S CI 2014 6770. https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/PrecedentAULA/2018/45.html
    2. Clark, M. (2016). Plaintiff M68/2015 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. The Melbourne Law School High Court Blog. https://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/opinionsonhigh/about/this-blog/
    3. Driscoll, M. & Ash, H. (2013). Australia’s Indefinite Stance on Indefinite Detention: Plaintiff M76/2013 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. The Melbourne Law School High Court Blog. https://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/opinionsonhigh/2014/02/11/driscoll-ash-m76/
    4. Hume, D. (2016). Plaintiff M68-2015 – offshore processing and the limits of Chapter III. AUSPUBLAW, UNSW Law & Justice. https://www.auspublaw.org/blog/2016/02/plaintiff-m68-2015
    5. John, L, Langbien, J, & Verma, S. Liberty, punishment and the power to detain: the fallout from NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. AUSPUBLAW, UNSW Law & Justice. https://www.auspublaw.org/blog/2023/12/liberty-punishment-and-the-power-to-detain-the-fallout-from-nzyq-v-minister-for-immigration-citizenship-and-multicultural-affairs
    6. John, L, Langbien, J, & Verma, S. Liberty, punishment and the power to detain: the fallout from NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. AUSPUBLAW, UNSW Law & Justice. https://www.auspublaw.org/blog/2023/12/liberty-punishment-and-the-power-to-detain-the-fallout-from-nzyq-v-minister-for-immigration-citizenship-and-multicultural-affairs
    7. Starcevic, S. (2023, November 7). Italy announces deal to build migrant centers in Albania. POLITICO. https://www.politico.eu/article/italy-and-albania-strike-rwanda-style-migrant-deal/
    8. Turan, B., and others. (2022, July 24). The crime effect of refugees. VoxEU. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/crime-effect-refugees
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    外交學系
    111253015
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0111253015
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[外交學系] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    301501.pdf1519KbAdobe PDF0View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback