Title: 'The securitisation of the asylum procedure through exclusion'

Abstract: Under the Refugee Convention, states can exclude asylum seekers from refugee status if they have committed international crimes. My PhD topic looks at how Article 1F otherwise known as the exclusion clause taken on the burden of a national security provision from other articles of the Refugee Convention. Unlike its intention to exclude those undeserving of international protection, judges and tribunal members have expanded the intention of the article to exclude refugees for the purposes of national security reasons.

Through the lens of Agamben, I look at dangers of constructing these asylum seekers as security threats. The exclusion clause can be seen as the exception to the Refugee Convention, where these asylum seekers would otherwise fall under the protection of the Convention. These exceptional circumstances of asylum seekers who have committed international crimes are marked by the concentration of power by decision makers resulting in the reduction of law. This concentrated power determines whether emergency action needs to be taken. The idea is that the security of society is at stake so there is ‘no choice’ but to exclude these asylum seekers from the protection of the Refugee Convention. Therefore, in a ‘crisis’ such as the emergency of excluding asylum seekers who have committed international crimes, the language of necessity and power relations need to be studied.

My research examines the legal subject that the exceptional nature of the exclusion clause creates. It becomes normalised so that other refugees also become increasingly excluded from the political community. For example, in Australia, excluded asylum seekers are being denied access to fair trial rights such as being subjected to indefinite detention, lack of legal reasoning and are unable to access merits review. This treatment is also directed to 'genuine' refugees who have had an adverse security assessment made against them.