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

Interdiction policies by countries such as the U.S. and Australia are embedded in these states’ perception of their obligations to asylum seekers as strictly territorially bound. With the aim of limiting asylum seekers access to protection mechanisms, these policies are carried out in an arena firmly within the reach of executive-driven actions yet beyond the purview of constitutional or judicial safeguards. In the case of the U.S., the long-standing Haitian interdiction policy illustrates the manipulation of this protection gap, and, in Australia, the administration’s reaction to the Tampa incident in 2001 and the subsequent policy developments provide further illustration. The autonomy with which states carry out such policies poses a significant threat to the refugee protection regime, especially the international norm of non-refoulement.

The Spaces In Between: American and Australian Interdiction Policies and Their Implications for the Refugee Protection Regime