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 Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Australia is a destination state for refugees or asylum seekers. As a state in which has ratified the 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugee and its 1967 Protocol, Australia is legally bound to comply with non-refoulement principle. Referring to Operation Soverign Borders, the Australian Navy and Police in its border have driven undocumented 54 Sri Lanka asylum seekers away into Indonesian waters. This has led to international complaints. The questions arisen are whether Australia has breached the non-refoulement principle and how she would bear the legal responsibility. The research applies the normative research method and reveals that Australia is inconsistent with the non-refoulement principle and Australia should have apologized to Indonesia. Nevertheless, as International Law does not regulate the secondary rule in the Article 33 Convention on Refugee 1951 and its Protocol 1967, Australia would not satisfy their apology to Indonesia. Keywords: Apology, Non-refoulement Principle, Asylum seeker s

PERMINTAAN MAAF AUSTRALIA DAN PRINSIP NON REFOULEMENT (STUDI KASUS PENCARI SUAKA SRI LANKA)