Human Rights Elephants in an Era of Globalisation

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS XV

1 INTRODUCTION: HUMAN RIGHTS ELEPHANTS IN A GLOBALISING WORLD 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Focus of this research 3
1.2.1 Focusing on contexts of confinement 3
1.2.1.1 A choice for confinement 3
1.2.1.2 Some remarks on confinement in migration control 5
1.2.2 Focusing on the ‘glocal’ level 7
1.3 Research questions 10
1.4 Research design 13
1.4.1 Case study selection 13
1.4.2 Methods 14
1.4.2.1 Review of literature and documents 15
1.4.2.2 Doctrinal legal analysis 16
1.4.2.3 Semi-structured interviews 16
1.4.3 Qualitative interviews: RPC Nauru 17
1.4.3.1 Access to the research site 17
1.4.3.2 Ethical considerations 19
1.4.3.3 Before the interviews 19
1.4.3.4 During the interviews 24
1.4.3.5 After the interviews 26
1.4.4 Qualitative interviews: PI Norgerhaven 27
1.4.4.1 Access to the research site 27
1.4.4.2 The interviews 28
1.5 Introducing the case studies: from Nauru to Norgerhaven 29
1.5.1 Offshore processing in the Pacific: an Australian-Nauruan immigration detention setting 31
1.5.1.1 The lead-up to Operation Sovereign Borders 31
1.5.1.2 The introduction of Operation Sovereign Borders 34
1.5.1.3 Controversies relating to offshore processing 36
1.5.2 Offshore imprisonment in Northern Europe: a Norwegian-Dutch penal experiment 47
1.5.2.1 Background of the Norwegian-Dutch cooperation: a novel Belgian-Dutch penal construction 47
1.5.2.2 ‘The Garden of Norway’: Norwegian-Dutch penal cooperation 48
1.5.2.3 PI Norgerhaven: from extensive compliments to the occasional controversy 49
1.6 Definitional issues 51
1.7 Roadmap 52

PART I – THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM
Commodification & crimmigration as challenges to international human rights law accountability, effectiveness, and legitimacy 57

2 BARS WITH BARCODES: THE COMMODIFICATION OF CONFINEMENT 59
2.1 Introduction 59
2.2 Theorising commodification: nodal governance and anchored pluralism 62
2.3 Commodification in confinement on a global level 66
2.3.1 Privatisation 66
2.3.1.1 Privatising prisons 67
2.3.1.2 Privatising immigration detention 75
2.3.1.3 The private actors 78
2.3.2 Offshoring 81
2.3.2.1 Offshoring immigration detention 81
2.3.2.2 Offshoring prisons 84
2.4 Commodification in confinement on a local level: examining the case studies 87
2.4.1 RPC Nauru: a nodal perspective 87
2.4.1.1 The Australian Government and the Nauruan Government 87
2.4.1.2 Construction services 90
2.4.1.3 Service providers for garrison, welfare, security, health services, and claims assistance 90
2.4.1.4 Health care: IHMS and the Republic of Nauru Hospital 97
2.4.1.5 Policing and incidents: The Nauru Police Force and the Australian Federal Police 97
2.4.1.6 Resettlement 98
2.4.1.7 RPC Nauru: a nodal picture 98
2.4.2 PI Norgerhaven: a nodal perspective 104
2.5 The commodification challenge to international human rights law from a ‘glocal’ perspective 109
2.5.1 The first fundamental tenet: the ‘rights’ aspect of human rights 110
2.5.2 The commodification challenge to international human rights law 117
2.5.2.1 The commodification challenge to international human rights law accountability 118
2.5.2.2 The commodification challenge to international human rights law effectiveness 121
2.5.2.3 The commodification challenge to international human rights law legitimacy 122
2.6 Conclusion 127

3 LOCKED UP, LOCKED OUT, LOCKED AWAY: CRIMMIGRATION IN CONFINEMENT 129
3.1 Introduction 129
3.2 Theorising crimmigration: the merger of criminal justice and migration control 132
3.3 Crimmigration in confinement on a global level 139
3.3.1 The ‘criminalisation of immigration detention’ 140
3.3.2 The ‘immigrationisation of prisons’ 142
3.3.3 The shades of crimmigration 148
3.4 The crimmigration-commodification nexus 149
3.4.1 Crimmigration and the privatisation of prisons 149
3.4.2 Crimmigration and the privatisation of immigration detention 151
3.4.3 Crimmigration and the offshoring of prisons 152
3.4.4 Crimmigration and the offshoring of immigration detention 153
3.5 Crimmigration on a local level: examining the case studies 154
3.5.1 RPC Nauru: a crimmigration perspective 154
3.5.2 PI Norgerhaven: a crimmigration perspective 158
3.6 The crimmigration challenge to international human rights law from a ‘glocal’ perspective 160
3.6.1 The second fundamental tenet: equal individuals 161
3.6.2 The crimmigration challenge to international human rights law 164
3.6.2.1 The crimmigration challenge to international human rights law accountability 165
3.6.2.2 The crimmigration challenge to international human rights law effectiveness 169
3.6.2.3 The crimmigration challenge to international human rights law legitimacy 169
3.7 Conclusion 171

PART II – THE TUSKLESS ELEPHANT
A promise under strain? The veracity and resilience of international human rights law in the books 173

4 THE LAST AMONG EQUALS? LIMITING HUMAN RIGHTS IN CONFINEMENT 175
4.1 Introduction 175
4.2 The fundamental tenets: international human rights law as a Janus-faced phenomenon 177
4.3 Interfering with human rights entitlements 180
4.3.1 Interfering with civil rights on account of individuals’ confinement 182
4.3.1.1 The core right at stake: the right to liberty 182
4.3.1.2 The prohibition of forced or compulsory labour 187
4.3.1.3 The right to family life 190
4.3.2 Interfering with political rights on account of membership status: disenfranchisement 195
4.4 The case study contexts 202
4.4.1 RPC Nauru 203
4.4.1.1 Prior to the introduction of open centre arrangements 203
4.4.1.2 After the introduction of open centre arrangements 207
4.4.2 PI Norgerhaven 209
4.4.2.1 Identifying the relevant principles from the case law of the ECtHR 210
4.4.2.2 Applying the principles to PI Norgerhaven 216
4.5 Conclusion 220

5 WIDENING THE NET: TOWARDS PRIVATE HUMAN RIGHTS OBLIGATIONS? 225
5.1 Introduction 225
5.2 Private obligations: between resilience and veracity 225
5.3 ‘Positive obligations’ and ‘horizontal application’ as effective resilient
efforts? 233
5.4 The case study context: RPC Nauru 237
5.5 Conclusion 241

6 SOPHISTICATING THE NET I: STATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONDUCT 243
6.1 Introduction 243
6.2 Responsibility for conduct: attribution 245
6.3 The ILC Draft Articles 247
6.3.1 Conduct of organs of a state (Article 4) 247
6.3.2 Conduct of persons or entities exercising elements of governmental authority (Article 5) 249
6.3.3 Conduct of organs placed at the disposal of a State by another State (Article 6) 252
6.3.4 Excess of authority or contravention of instructions (Article 7) 253
6.3.5 Conduct directed or controlled by a State (Article 8) 254
6.3.6 Conduct acknowledged and adopted by a State as its own (Article 11) 257
6.4 Attributing conduct to multiple states: joint responsibility 257
6.4.1 Multiple states acting independently 258
6.4.2 Joint acts 259
6.4.3 Derived responsibility 260
6.4.3.1 Aid or assistance 261
6.4.3.2 Direction or control 263
6.4.3.3 Coercion 264
6.5 Applying the framework: RPC Nauru 265
6.5.1 Articles 4 and 6 Draft Articles 265
6.5.2 Article 5 Draft Articles 266
6.5.2.1 Service providers providing safety and garrison services 266
6.5.2.2 The Nauru (RPC) Corporation 273
6.5.3 Article 8 Draft Articles 274
6.5.4 Joint responsibility 278
6.6 Applying the framework: PI Norgerhaven 281
6.6.1 Articles 4 and 6 Draft Articles 281
6.6.2 Joint responsibility 283
6.7 Positive obligations: a modern-day panacea for state responsibility? 284
6.8 Conclusion 288

7 SOPHISTICATING THE NET II: THE SCOPE OF STATE OBLIGATIONS 291
7.1 Introduction 291
7.2 Staying veracious to the fundamental tenet of territorial state obligations 293
7.2.1 The ICCPR 294
7.2.2 The ICESCR 295
7.2.3 The CAT 296
7.2.4 The OAS Charter system 297
7.2.5 The ACHR 298
7.2.6 The ECHR 300
7.3 Showing resilience in the face of extraterritorial state conduct 301
7.3.1 The ICCPR 301
7.3.2 The ICESCR 305
7.3.3 The CAT 310
7.3.4 The OAS Charter system 311
7.3.5 The ACHR 312
7.4 The complexity of resilience: The ECHR as a showcase example 314
7.4.1 The European Commission of Human Rights 315
7.4.2 The European Court of Human Rights 318
7.4.2.1 The European Court of Human Rights: a spatial model 319
7.4.2.2 The European Court of Human Rights: a personal model 324
7.4.2.3 Exploring six complexities 328
7.4.2.4 ECtHR: Concluding remarks 351
7.5 Rules of derived responsibility as lex specialis? 352
7.6 Applying the framework: RPC Nauru 356
7.6.1 Nauru’s human rights obligations 356
7.6.2 Australia’s human rights obligations 358
7.7 Applying the framework: PI Norgerhaven 364
7.7.1 The Netherlands’ human rights obligations 364
7.7.2 Norway’s human rights obligations 365
7.8 Conclusion 366

INTERMEZZO
Ambiguity and Abundance of Control: The Contextualised Challenge for International Human Rights Law in Nauru and Norgerhaven 376

PART III – ELEPHANTS’ DESIRE PATHS
Reconceptualising human rights protection: Towards holistic assessments 383

8 FROM JANUS TO BRAHMA: A HOLISTIC RECONCEPTUALISATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS 385
8.1 Introduction 385
8.2 Responses to the commodification impasse 388
8.3 In search of a socio-legal alternative: legal pluralism, legal consciousness, & legal alienation 393
8.4 From law to human rights 398
8.4.1 Four schools of human rights 399
8.4.2 From Janus to Brahma 402
8.5 A holistic approach to understanding the role of human rights
8.5.1 From legal pluralism, consciousness, & alienation to human rights pluralism, consciousness, & alienation 403
8.5.2 The dimensions’ constitutive function: four human rights consciousnesses 406
8.5.2.1 The four bases for human rights consciousness
8.5.2.2 The construction of ‘unique’ human rights consciousnesses: norm internalisation and norm socialisation 406
8.5.3 The dimensions’ directional function: four human rights vernacularisation mechanisms 411
8.5.3.1 Human rights through deliberative processes
8.5.3.2 Human rights through implemented frameworks of morality 412
8.5.3.3 Human rights through protest activities 418
8.5.3.4 Human rights through discourse
8.5.4 The dimensions’ instrumental function: four human rights instruments 425
8.5.4.1 Human rights as deliberative principles 425
8.5.4.2 Human rights as natural entitlements 429
8.5.4.3 Human rights as protest tools 430
8.5.4.4 Human rights as discursive expressions 431
8.5.5 A synergistic complexity: dimensional crossovers 432
8.5.6 From conceptual synergy to methodology: a few notes 440
8.5.6.1 Assessing deliberative processes 442
8.5.6.2 Assessing frameworks of morality 442
8.5.6.3 Assessing protest activities 443
8.5.6.4 Assessing discourse 444
8.6 Conclusion 446

9 HUMAN RIGHTS AS A HOLISTIC PROTECTION MECHANISM IN RPC NAURU 449
9.1 Introduction 449
9.2 Vernacularisation opportunities of lawyers and (quasi-judicial) monitoring bodies 451
9.2.1 The limited potential of private human rights obligations in action 452
9.2.2 The precarious position of human rights in the Asia-Pacific context 458
9.2.3 The troubling set-up and particularities of RPC Nauru 461
9.3 Vernacularisation opportunities of welfare workers 463
9.3.1 Human rights consciousness: internalisation and socialisation 464
9.3.2 Discretionary decision-making 472
9.3.2.1 Constrained discretionary decision-making 472
9.3.2.2 Scope for discretionary decision-making 479
9.4 Vernacularisation opportunities of institutionalised NGOs 486
9.4.1 Human rights consciousness 488
9.4.2 Vernacularisation through humanitarian aid 490
9.4.3 Vernacularisation through advocacy 493
9.4.3.1 Advocacy opportunities 493
9.4.3.2 The instrumental role of human rights as an advocacy tool 498
9.5 Towards synergy: commodification, crimmigration, and human rights vernacularisation 505
9.5.1 The impact of crimmigration 506
9.5.2 The impact of commodification 510
9.6 Conclusion 514

10 CONCLUSION: ELEPHANTS NEVER FORGET 519
10.1 Introduction 519
10.2 Answering the sub-questions of this research 521
10.3 Answering the main research question 528
10.4 Reflections 532
10.4.1 Commodification 532
10.4.2 Crimmigration 539
10.4.3 International human rights law 543
10.4.4 Final notes on the ‘human rights elephant’ 551

SUMMARY 557
SAMENVATTING (DUTCH SUMMARY) 573
REFERENCES 591
ANNEX I: TOPIC LIST RPC NAURU 653
ANNEX II: TOPIC LIST PI NORGERHAVEN 655
CURRICULUM VITAE 657