原告 S99:从心理创伤的角度重写难民法

IF 1.4 Q3 DEMOGRAPHY Refugee Survey Quarterly Pub Date : 2024-04-02 DOI:10.1093/rsq/hdae003
Jessica Hambly, Neeraja Sanmuhanathan
{"title":"原告 S99:从心理创伤的角度重写难民法","authors":"Jessica Hambly, Neeraja Sanmuhanathan","doi":"10.1093/rsq/hdae003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Plaintiff S99/2016 v. Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 483 was a decision of the Australian Federal Court concerning a woman (referred to in the decision as “Plaintiff S99”) who had been recognised as a refugee in the Republic of Nauru, having been transferred there by Australia under an offshore processing agreement. The decision in Plaintiff S99 established an important precedent that many refugees and asylum-seekers in Australia’s offshore processing centres on Manus and Nauru, including children with severe health problems, subsequently relied upon to be transferred to Australia for critical medical care. Drawing on the recent turn towards trauma-informed practice across other areas of law and policy, we ask: what does this mean for refugees, and, more specifically, what does this mean for judgment writing in refugee law? We use our rewrite of Plaintiff S99 to highlight aspects of the decision and its legacy that continue to silence and erase the experiences of refugees, especially refugee women, and frequently contribute to compounding their trauma. Our contribution calls for a reorientation towards “do no harm” principles, which lie at the heart of trauma and violence-informed practice. In particular, our approach to rewriting S99 aims at foregrounding dignity and safety, promoting respect for physical and mental health, and centring the voice, experience, and longer-term protection needs of refugees.","PeriodicalId":39907,"journal":{"name":"Refugee Survey Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Plaintiff S99: Rewriting Refugee Law Through a Trauma-Informed Lens\",\"authors\":\"Jessica Hambly, Neeraja Sanmuhanathan\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/rsq/hdae003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Plaintiff S99/2016 v. Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 483 was a decision of the Australian Federal Court concerning a woman (referred to in the decision as “Plaintiff S99”) who had been recognised as a refugee in the Republic of Nauru, having been transferred there by Australia under an offshore processing agreement. The decision in Plaintiff S99 established an important precedent that many refugees and asylum-seekers in Australia’s offshore processing centres on Manus and Nauru, including children with severe health problems, subsequently relied upon to be transferred to Australia for critical medical care. Drawing on the recent turn towards trauma-informed practice across other areas of law and policy, we ask: what does this mean for refugees, and, more specifically, what does this mean for judgment writing in refugee law? We use our rewrite of Plaintiff S99 to highlight aspects of the decision and its legacy that continue to silence and erase the experiences of refugees, especially refugee women, and frequently contribute to compounding their trauma. Our contribution calls for a reorientation towards “do no harm” principles, which lie at the heart of trauma and violence-informed practice. In particular, our approach to rewriting S99 aims at foregrounding dignity and safety, promoting respect for physical and mental health, and centring the voice, experience, and longer-term protection needs of refugees.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39907,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Refugee Survey Quarterly\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Refugee Survey Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/rsq/hdae003\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DEMOGRAPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Refugee Survey Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/rsq/hdae003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DEMOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

原告 S99/2016 诉移民与边境保护部长案([2016] FCA 483)是澳大利亚联邦法院的一项判决,该判决涉及一名妇女(判决中称为 "原告 S99"),她在瑙鲁共和国被认定为难民,并根据离岸处理协议被澳大利亚转移至瑙鲁。原告 S99 一案的裁决开创了一个重要先例,澳大利亚马努斯和瑙鲁离岸处理中心的许多难民和寻求庇护者,包括有严重健康问题的儿童,后来都依靠这个先例被转移到澳大利亚接受重要的医疗护理。借鉴近期其他法律和政策领域转向创伤知情实践的趋势,我们要问:这对难民意味着什么,更具体地说,这对难民法中的判决书写作意味着什么?我们利用对S99号原告案的重写来强调该判决及其遗留问题的各个方面,这些方面继续压制和抹杀难民,尤其是难民妇女的经历,并经常加剧她们的创伤。我们呼吁重新定位 "不伤害 "原则,这是以创伤和暴力为基础的实践的核心。特别是,我们重写 S99 的方法旨在强调尊严和安全,促进对身心健康的尊重,并以难民的声音、经历和长期保护需求为中心。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Plaintiff S99: Rewriting Refugee Law Through a Trauma-Informed Lens
Plaintiff S99/2016 v. Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 483 was a decision of the Australian Federal Court concerning a woman (referred to in the decision as “Plaintiff S99”) who had been recognised as a refugee in the Republic of Nauru, having been transferred there by Australia under an offshore processing agreement. The decision in Plaintiff S99 established an important precedent that many refugees and asylum-seekers in Australia’s offshore processing centres on Manus and Nauru, including children with severe health problems, subsequently relied upon to be transferred to Australia for critical medical care. Drawing on the recent turn towards trauma-informed practice across other areas of law and policy, we ask: what does this mean for refugees, and, more specifically, what does this mean for judgment writing in refugee law? We use our rewrite of Plaintiff S99 to highlight aspects of the decision and its legacy that continue to silence and erase the experiences of refugees, especially refugee women, and frequently contribute to compounding their trauma. Our contribution calls for a reorientation towards “do no harm” principles, which lie at the heart of trauma and violence-informed practice. In particular, our approach to rewriting S99 aims at foregrounding dignity and safety, promoting respect for physical and mental health, and centring the voice, experience, and longer-term protection needs of refugees.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Refugee Survey Quarterly
Refugee Survey Quarterly Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
8.30%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: The Refugee Survey Quarterly is published four times a year and serves as an authoritative source on current refugee and international protection issues. Each issue contains a selection of articles and documents on a specific theme, as well as book reviews on refugee-related literature. With this distinctive thematic approach, the journal crosses in each issue the entire range of refugee research on a particular key challenge to forced migration. The journal seeks to act as a link between scholars and practitioners by highlighting the evolving nature of refugee protection as reflected in the practice of UNHCR and other major actors in the field.
期刊最新文献
The Challenge of Evaluating the Impact of NGOs on the Human Capital and Life Satisfaction of Syrian Refugees in Turkey “Where is Home?” Perceptions of Home and Future among Ukrainian Refugees in Norway Recognising Palestinian Refugees: Applicability of Article 1D of the 1951 Refugee Convention in Turkey Rewriting Refugee Law: Centring Refugee Knowledges and Lived Experience Wanted Refugees: The Forming of an Instrument Constituency for Refugee Resettlement in the European Union
×
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