Trent W. Buck via luv-talk wrote:
Peter Ross via luv-talk wrote:
In case it is safe,
I still consider the For the case of refugees, I don't think that's necessary. Australia signed the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees and the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees, so our current policy is illegal. End of story.
Illegal in what jurisdiction ? An Australian federal law, which conflicts with the Australian Constitution, is illegal in the jurisdiction of the Australian Federal Court; that is, that court has the power to declare that law unconstitutional and throw it out ! But thus far national commitments before the United Nations , are little more that statements of principle ie moral commitments Likewise the International Court in the Hague can make judgements of genocide etc; but as far as I know it has little power to enforce such judgements; given that national goverments, can simply declare that court to have no jurisdiction in their case. Perhaps in the future the United Nations Organization (or some successor) will morph into , a much maligned global "Government of the Federated Nations of Earth"; with something like a real international court and "Global Enforcement Body"; which has the actual means to enforce it's 'laws' In the mean time national governments can behave like the more or less benevolent thugs that they are ! An interesting piece of political 'theatre' which we may see one day; is the Sea Shepherd Organization; sueing the United Nation's for the cost of policing that organization's 'laws on whaling'. :-) regards Rohan McLeod