The State of Personal Liberty in Australia after M47: A Risk Theory Analysis of Security Rights

Kellie L. Robson
{"title":"The State of Personal Liberty in Australia after M47: A Risk Theory Analysis of Security Rights","authors":"Kellie L. Robson","doi":"10.26180/5DB802B1D8662","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Plaintiff M47/2012 v Director General of Security, the High Court of Australia unanimously applied a test of compatibility with human rights related statutory responsibilities to an impugned public interest criterion. A clear majority of the High Court appeared willing to consider whether the right to personal liberty in Australia has constitutional protections extending to refugees. This article applies Ulrich Beck’s risk theory to recent preventive, administrative detention of refugees under adverse security assessments to examine the relationship between liberty rights and the decision-makers responsible for assessing, and for managing, national security risk. Risk theory casts light on how the collective right to national security relies on respecting every individual’s right to liberty and security of person. The High Court’s formal, values-based method of statutory interpretation is endorsed as an effective accountability mechanism capable of protecting fundamental values expressive of human rights.","PeriodicalId":44672,"journal":{"name":"Monash University Law Review","volume":"2 1","pages":"506-538"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Monash University Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26180/5DB802B1D8662","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In Plaintiff M47/2012 v Director General of Security, the High Court of Australia unanimously applied a test of compatibility with human rights related statutory responsibilities to an impugned public interest criterion. A clear majority of the High Court appeared willing to consider whether the right to personal liberty in Australia has constitutional protections extending to refugees. This article applies Ulrich Beck’s risk theory to recent preventive, administrative detention of refugees under adverse security assessments to examine the relationship between liberty rights and the decision-makers responsible for assessing, and for managing, national security risk. Risk theory casts light on how the collective right to national security relies on respecting every individual’s right to liberty and security of person. The High Court’s formal, values-based method of statutory interpretation is endorsed as an effective accountability mechanism capable of protecting fundamental values expressive of human rights.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
M47之后澳大利亚的人身自由状况:担保权的风险理论分析
在原告M47/2012诉安全总监一案中,澳大利亚高等法院一致将与人权相关的法定责任的兼容性测试应用于一项受到质疑的公共利益标准。高等法院的绝大多数法官似乎愿意考虑澳大利亚宪法对难民的人身自由权是否有保护。本文将Ulrich Beck的风险理论应用于最近在不利安全评估下对难民的预防性行政拘留,以检验自由权利与负责评估和管理国家安全风险的决策者之间的关系。风险理论揭示了国家安全的集体权利是如何建立在尊重每一个人的人身自由和安全权利的基础上的。高等法院正式的、以价值观为基础的法律解释方法被认为是一种有效的问责机制,能够保护体现人权的基本价值观。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
期刊最新文献
Revisiting Section 32(1) of the Victorian Charter: strained constructions and legislative intention Peoplehood Obscured? The Normative Status of Self-Determination after the Chagos Advisory Opinion (Advance) Is the Wisdom of a Person's Decision Relevant to Their Capacity to Make That Decision? Not Black and White?: Disciplinary Regulation of Doctors Convicted of Child Pornography Offences in Australia Reconceptualising the Law of the Dead by Expanding the Interests of the Living
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1