Implikasi Amandemen Migration Act 1958 Australia bagi Penerima Suaka asal Papua yang Menjalani Hukuman Penjara menurut Prinsip Non-Refoulement dalam Hukum Internasional.
ABSTRAK
IMPLIKASI AMANDEMEN MIGRATION ACT 1958 DI AUSTRALIA
TERHADAP PENERIMA SUAKA ASAL PAPUA YANG SEDANG
MENJALANI HUKUMAN PENJARA DIKAITKAN DENGAN PRINSIP
NON-REFOULEMENT DALAM HUKUM INTERNASIONAL
Risky Ajeng Kemala Fauzia
110110110324
Pada Desember 2014, pemerintah koalisi terpilih yang dipimpin
Tony Abbott di Australia mengesahkan amandemen Migration Act 1958,
suatu undang-undang yang mengatur tentang kedatangan, kepergian dan
izin tinggal warga asing. Dalam amandemen tersebut, terdapat pasalpasal yang memberi kesempatan pada Australia untuk tidak
melaksanakan prinsip non-refoulement. Dengan adanya amandemen ini,
Alfons Pirimapun, seorang penerima suaka asal Papua yang sedang
menjalani hukuman penjara, terancam dideportasi karena ketentuan
dalam Section 501 yang mengharuskan Menteri Imigrasi untuk mencabut
visa warga asing yang memiliki substantial criminal record. Hal ini
berpotensi melanggar prinsip non-refoulement karena Alfons Pirimapun
merupakan seorang pengungsi berdasarkan Convention Relating to the
Status of Refugees 1951 yang harus dilindungi.
Metode penelitian yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah
metode yuridis normatif, yaitu penelitian yang dilakukan dengan
mendasarkan pada studi kepustakaan atau perolehan data sekunder
berupa peraturan perundang-undangan yang didukung dengan data
primer yang diperoleh melalui penelitian lapangan.
Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa Section 5H, 5J, 197C, dan
501 dalam amandemen Migration Act 1958 di Australia tidak sesuai
dengan prinsip non-refoulement. Upaya hukum yang dapat dilakukan
untuk menanggulangi implikasi yang diakibatkan amandemen Migration
Act 1958 adalah dengan mengajukan judicial review pada Administrative
Appeals Tribunal (AAT) atau Federal Court of Australia (FCA). Apabila
permohonan tersebut ditolak, maka ia dapat melaporkan putusan Menteri
Imigrasi untuk mendeportasinya pada Australian Human Rights
Commission (AHRC).
iv
ABSTRACT
THE IMPLICATION OF AUSTRALIAN MIGRATION ACT 1958
AMENDMENTS TO PAPUAN REFUGEE SERVING JAIL TIME BASED
ON NON-REFOULEMENT PRINCIPLE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW
Risky Ajeng Kemala Fauzia
110110110324
In December 2014, elected coalition government led by Tony
Abbott in Australia approved amendments to Migration Act 1958, which is
an act relating to the entry into, and presence in, Australia of aliens, and
the departure or deportation from Australia of aliens and certain other
persons. In the amendments which titled Migration and Maritime Powers
Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Act
2014 and Migration Amendment (Character and General Visa
Cancellation) Bill 2014, there are a few articles which increased Australia’s
capabilities to avoid its international obligations to protect asylum seekers
and refugees by not adhering to non-refoulement principle. With these
changes, a Papuan refugee who is currently serving jail time, Alfons
Pirimapun, fears deportation under the regulation in Section 501 which
declares the Minister must cancel the visa of foreign nationals who has
substantial criminal record. This allegedly violates the non-refoulement
principle due to Pirimapun’s status as a recognized refugee under the
1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951.
The method of this research is legal normative, which is conducted
by literature studies or secondary data acquirement such as international
laws, regulations and also customary law.
The results of this research show that the regulations implied in
Section 5H, 5J, 197C, and 501 of Migration Act 1958 in Australia are not
consistent with non-refoulement principle which is the cornerstone of
asylum and refugee law. Discretionary power is needed in order to decide
the most appropriate way to deal with convicted asylum seekers and
refugees other than returning them to a country where their life and
freedom will be threatened. Legal efforts to avoid deportation decision
faced by Alfons Pirimapun are to invoke judicial review to Administrative
Appeals Tribunal (AAT) or Federal Court of Australia (FCA). If the judicial
review requests are by chance rejected, the last resort will be to report the
decision to Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC).
v
IMPLIKASI AMANDEMEN MIGRATION ACT 1958 DI AUSTRALIA
TERHADAP PENERIMA SUAKA ASAL PAPUA YANG SEDANG
MENJALANI HUKUMAN PENJARA DIKAITKAN DENGAN PRINSIP
NON-REFOULEMENT DALAM HUKUM INTERNASIONAL
Risky Ajeng Kemala Fauzia
110110110324
Pada Desember 2014, pemerintah koalisi terpilih yang dipimpin
Tony Abbott di Australia mengesahkan amandemen Migration Act 1958,
suatu undang-undang yang mengatur tentang kedatangan, kepergian dan
izin tinggal warga asing. Dalam amandemen tersebut, terdapat pasalpasal yang memberi kesempatan pada Australia untuk tidak
melaksanakan prinsip non-refoulement. Dengan adanya amandemen ini,
Alfons Pirimapun, seorang penerima suaka asal Papua yang sedang
menjalani hukuman penjara, terancam dideportasi karena ketentuan
dalam Section 501 yang mengharuskan Menteri Imigrasi untuk mencabut
visa warga asing yang memiliki substantial criminal record. Hal ini
berpotensi melanggar prinsip non-refoulement karena Alfons Pirimapun
merupakan seorang pengungsi berdasarkan Convention Relating to the
Status of Refugees 1951 yang harus dilindungi.
Metode penelitian yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah
metode yuridis normatif, yaitu penelitian yang dilakukan dengan
mendasarkan pada studi kepustakaan atau perolehan data sekunder
berupa peraturan perundang-undangan yang didukung dengan data
primer yang diperoleh melalui penelitian lapangan.
Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa Section 5H, 5J, 197C, dan
501 dalam amandemen Migration Act 1958 di Australia tidak sesuai
dengan prinsip non-refoulement. Upaya hukum yang dapat dilakukan
untuk menanggulangi implikasi yang diakibatkan amandemen Migration
Act 1958 adalah dengan mengajukan judicial review pada Administrative
Appeals Tribunal (AAT) atau Federal Court of Australia (FCA). Apabila
permohonan tersebut ditolak, maka ia dapat melaporkan putusan Menteri
Imigrasi untuk mendeportasinya pada Australian Human Rights
Commission (AHRC).
iv
ABSTRACT
THE IMPLICATION OF AUSTRALIAN MIGRATION ACT 1958
AMENDMENTS TO PAPUAN REFUGEE SERVING JAIL TIME BASED
ON NON-REFOULEMENT PRINCIPLE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW
Risky Ajeng Kemala Fauzia
110110110324
In December 2014, elected coalition government led by Tony
Abbott in Australia approved amendments to Migration Act 1958, which is
an act relating to the entry into, and presence in, Australia of aliens, and
the departure or deportation from Australia of aliens and certain other
persons. In the amendments which titled Migration and Maritime Powers
Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Act
2014 and Migration Amendment (Character and General Visa
Cancellation) Bill 2014, there are a few articles which increased Australia’s
capabilities to avoid its international obligations to protect asylum seekers
and refugees by not adhering to non-refoulement principle. With these
changes, a Papuan refugee who is currently serving jail time, Alfons
Pirimapun, fears deportation under the regulation in Section 501 which
declares the Minister must cancel the visa of foreign nationals who has
substantial criminal record. This allegedly violates the non-refoulement
principle due to Pirimapun’s status as a recognized refugee under the
1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951.
The method of this research is legal normative, which is conducted
by literature studies or secondary data acquirement such as international
laws, regulations and also customary law.
The results of this research show that the regulations implied in
Section 5H, 5J, 197C, and 501 of Migration Act 1958 in Australia are not
consistent with non-refoulement principle which is the cornerstone of
asylum and refugee law. Discretionary power is needed in order to decide
the most appropriate way to deal with convicted asylum seekers and
refugees other than returning them to a country where their life and
freedom will be threatened. Legal efforts to avoid deportation decision
faced by Alfons Pirimapun are to invoke judicial review to Administrative
Appeals Tribunal (AAT) or Federal Court of Australia (FCA). If the judicial
review requests are by chance rejected, the last resort will be to report the
decision to Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC).
v