English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This paper uses Australia as a case study to analyse restrictions on international movement during the COVID-19 pandemic. Restrictions on inbound and outbound travel have been a key tool deployed by governments across the globe to suppress the COVID-19 pandemic. We use ‘COVID zero’ Australia as a case study to assess an extreme response to restricting international movement. We look at the recent complaint launched before the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva. The action was raised with the support of a group of Australian citizens stranded abroad with the assistance of the expert in Australian constitutional law who is the second author of this paper. We argue that the measures implemented by Australian governments to effectively eliminate COVID-19 domestically have provided insufficient consideration of, and alternatives to, the current system’s failure to facilitate essential international travel. For this reason, Australia’s framework for restricting international movement lacks proportionality and necessity from the perspective of human rights and freedoms.

The challenge of ‘COVID-19 free’ Australia: international travel restrictions and stranded citizens