Abstract
The Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT) passed the United Nations (UN) General Assembly in 2002. Its objective was twofold: first, to extend the role of the UN in monitoring the standards of detention in Member States through inspection visits; second, to require States to establish internal national preventive mechanisms (NPMs) to monitor their compliance with these international obligations. This article describes the various steps in the 15-year sequence that preceded Australia’s ratification of OPCAT in December 2017. The process has been fraught with political ambivalence: by the Commonwealth Government, concerned not to surrender any part of its sovereignty to an international body; and by the States and Territories, as the principal jurisdictions responsible for various forms of detention, concerned as to the impact OPCAT might have on their day-to-day administration of places of detention. The competing arguments and political ambivalence that have emerged during this 15-year sequence towards ratification are highlighted. It is likely that the model that Australia adopts will initially fall short of best practice. Nevertheless, an opportunity still exists for Australia to contribute to regional approaches towards detention standards and accountability protocols.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 4-22 |
| Journal | Australian Journal of Human Rights |
| Volume | 25 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2 May 2019 |
Fingerprint
Cite this
}
Australia’s circuitous path towards the ratification of OPCAT, 2002–2017 : the challenges of implementation. / Harding, Richard.
In: Australian Journal of Human Rights, Vol. 25, No. 1, 02.05.2019, p. 4-22.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
TY - JOUR
T1 - Australia’s circuitous path towards the ratification of OPCAT, 2002–2017
T2 - the challenges of implementation
AU - Harding, Richard
PY - 2019/5/2
Y1 - 2019/5/2
N2 - The Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT) passed the United Nations (UN) General Assembly in 2002. Its objective was twofold: first, to extend the role of the UN in monitoring the standards of detention in Member States through inspection visits; second, to require States to establish internal national preventive mechanisms (NPMs) to monitor their compliance with these international obligations. This article describes the various steps in the 15-year sequence that preceded Australia’s ratification of OPCAT in December 2017. The process has been fraught with political ambivalence: by the Commonwealth Government, concerned not to surrender any part of its sovereignty to an international body; and by the States and Territories, as the principal jurisdictions responsible for various forms of detention, concerned as to the impact OPCAT might have on their day-to-day administration of places of detention. The competing arguments and political ambivalence that have emerged during this 15-year sequence towards ratification are highlighted. It is likely that the model that Australia adopts will initially fall short of best practice. Nevertheless, an opportunity still exists for Australia to contribute to regional approaches towards detention standards and accountability protocols.
AB - The Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT) passed the United Nations (UN) General Assembly in 2002. Its objective was twofold: first, to extend the role of the UN in monitoring the standards of detention in Member States through inspection visits; second, to require States to establish internal national preventive mechanisms (NPMs) to monitor their compliance with these international obligations. This article describes the various steps in the 15-year sequence that preceded Australia’s ratification of OPCAT in December 2017. The process has been fraught with political ambivalence: by the Commonwealth Government, concerned not to surrender any part of its sovereignty to an international body; and by the States and Territories, as the principal jurisdictions responsible for various forms of detention, concerned as to the impact OPCAT might have on their day-to-day administration of places of detention. The competing arguments and political ambivalence that have emerged during this 15-year sequence towards ratification are highlighted. It is likely that the model that Australia adopts will initially fall short of best practice. Nevertheless, an opportunity still exists for Australia to contribute to regional approaches towards detention standards and accountability protocols.
KW - Australian ratification and implementation
KW - civil society
KW - human rights
KW - national preventive mechanisms
KW - OPCAT
KW - places of detention
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85065386726&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/1323238X.2019.1588062
DO - 10.1080/1323238X.2019.1588062
M3 - Article
VL - 25
SP - 4
EP - 22
JO - Australian Journal of Human Rights
JF - Australian Journal of Human Rights
SN - 1323-238X
IS - 1
ER -