�鶹��madou

We are recognised as leading scholarly authorities in the field of international refugee law.��

��Selected publications:

• Guy S Goodwin-Gill and Jane McAdam, with Emma Dunlop, (4th edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2021)

• Cathryn Costello, Michelle Foster and Jane McAdam (eds), (Oxford University Press, 2021)

• Jane McAdam and Tamara Wood, ‘The Concept of “International Protection” in the Global Compacts on Refugees and Migration’ (2021) 23 Interventions – International Journal of Postcolonial Studies 191–206

If a person crosses a border to escape a risk of persecution, conflict, a disaster or the impacts of climate change, how ‘imminent’ must the feared harm be before another State is required to offer protection? In international refugee and human rights law, the appropriate test is whether there is a real risk of harm in the reasonably foreseeable future. However, there is a concerning trend, particularly in cases concerning protection from the longer-term impacts of climate change, of decision-makers regarding such harm as too distant, and therefore denying protection. The ramifications of such reasoning are far-reaching and could unnecessarily and inappropriately restrict international protection. Through a detailed examination of international and national jurisprudence, Professors Jane McAdam, Michelle Foster and Hélène Lambert show why ‘imminence’ has no place in the international protection regime.��

Our pioneering research has stimulated debates about the role of time in international protection claims, particularly with respect to harm that may eventuate in the longer-term rather than immediate future. We have articulated why, as a matter of law, it is erroneous to require that a person face an imminent risk of harm if removed – a threshold that has seemingly been used to deny people protection in the face of future climate impacts. Rather, the appropriate test is whether a person faces a real risk of serious harm in the reasonably foreseeable future. This requires an assessment of the intensity, severity and nature of future harm, based on its foreseeability in light of the individual’s circumstances.��

We thank the Australian Research Council for its generous support of this research through a Discovery Grant (DP160100079).��

Selected publications:

• Michelle Foster and Jane McAdam, ‘Analysis of “Imminence” in International Protection Claims: Teitiota v New Zealand and Beyond’ (2022) 71 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 975–82

• Michelle Foster, Hannah Gordon, Hélène Lambert and Jane McAdam, ‘“Time” in Refugee Status Determination in Australia and the United Kingdom: A Clear and Present Danger from Armed Conflict?’ (2022) 34 International Journal of Refugee Law 163–91����

• Adrienne Anderson, Michelle Foster, Hélène Lambert and Jane McAdam, ‘A Well-Founded Fear of Being Persecuted … But When?’ (2020) 42 Sydney Law Review 155–81

• Adrienne Anderson, Michelle Foster, Hélène Lambert and Jane McAdam, ‘Imminence in Refugee and Human Rights Law: A Misplaced Notion for International Protection’ (2019) 68 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 111–40

This PhD project research, undertaken by Aidan Hammerschmid, focuses on the meaning of article 1F(c) of the 1951 Refugee Convention, which denies refugee protection to an individual who ‘has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations’. The research explains how a person seeking asylum, as a natural person rather than a state or an international organization, can contravene the UN’s purposes and principles, which are set out in the Charter of the United Nations and which formally bind only UN member states and the UN itself. The research aims to produce actionable guidance for the competent national authorities of asylum States, which bear primary responsibility for performing refugee status determination and for deciding the question of exclusion under article 1F(c) of the Convention.

National responses to COVID-19 starkly revealed the significance of internal movement and its regulation. Yet, the focus of scholarship on medico-legal border control has been almost exclusively on international movement. This project addresses that major gap by researching the regulation of internal movement in past and present pandemic times, with a focus on plague, influenza, SARS and COVID-19. Bringing law and history together, it seeks to clarify how internal movement has been, and can best be, lawfully regulated. The research also considers the legality of Australia’s strict international border controls during the pandemic, which severely restricted the rights of citizens and permanent residents to leave and to enter the country.��

The project is generously funded by an Australian Research Council Special Research Initiative grant (SR200200683). The legal team is comprised of Professor Jane McAdam and Dr Regina Jefferies; the history team is comprised of Professor Alison Bashford, Dr Chi Chi Huang and Tiarne Barratt.��

For more information, visit the project page here:

Selected publications

• Regina Jefferies and Jane McAdam, ‘Locked In: Australia’s COVID-19 Border Closures and the Right to Leave’ (2023) 41 Australian Year Book of International Law (published online)��

• Regina Jefferies, Jane McAdam and Sangeetha Pillai, ‘Can We Still Call Australia �鶹��madou? The Right to Return and the Legality of Australia’s COVID-19 Travel Restrictions’ (2021) 27(2) Australian Journal of Human Rights 211–31

• Michelle Foster, Hélène Lambert and Jane McAdam, ‘Refugee Protection in the COVID-19 Crisis and Beyond: The Capacity and Limits of International Law’ (2021) 44 �鶹��madou Law Journal 103–24

• Jane McAdam, ‘A Watching Brief on the Impacts of COVID-19 on the World’s Displaced People’ (2020) 32 International Journal of Refugee Law 364–66

• Daniel Ghezelbash and Nikolas Feith Tan, ‘The End of the Right to Seek Asylum? COVID-19 and the Future of Refugee Protection (2020) 32 International Journal of Refugee Law 668

Selected media

• Jane McAdam, Alison Bashford and Regina Jefferies, ‘Will NSW’s Opening Up to International Travel Lead to Internal Borders Closing Down?’, Pearls and Irritations (22 October 2021) ��

• Liz Hicks, Jane McAdam and Regina Jefferies, ‘The Federal Government Just Made It Even Harder for Australians Overseas to Come �鶹��madou. Is This Legal? Or Reasonable?’, The Conversation (9 August 2021) ��

• Regina Jefferies and Jane McAdam. ‘Hard to See the Reasoning Behind New Rules for Australian Expats’, Sydney Morning Herald (8 August 2021)

• Jane McAdam and Regina Jefferies, ‘Why the Latest Travel Caps Look Like an Arbitrary Restriction on Australians’ Right to Come �鶹��madou’, The Conversation (5 July 2021)

• Regina Jefferies and Jane McAdam, ‘Who’s Being Allowed to Leave Australia during COVID? FOI Data Show It Is Murky and Arbitrary’, The Conversation (1 July 2021) ��

• Regina Jefferies and Jane McAdam, ‘Bring Them �鶹��madou: Why We Can’t Leave Australians Stranded in India’, Sydney Morning Herald (28 April 2021) ��

• Jane McAdam, ‘Policing the Borders’, Inside Story (8 July 2020)

• Jane McAdam, ‘The Twin Calamities of Climate Change and COVID-19’, COVID-19 Watch (Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, 7 May 2020)

• Jane McAdam, ‘The Impacts of COVID-19 on the World’s Displaced People: A Watching Brief’, COVID-19 Watch (Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, 6 April 2020)

This project, led by Daniel Ghezelbash, involves pioneering work to reimagine the methods and approaches to studying refugee law, including through interdisciplinary, empirical and quantitative approaches. It aims to break down the silos between refugee law scholarship and the broader field of refugee studies, and foster an integrated transdisciplinary research agenda on refugee law. It also includes broader work reflecting on and shaping methods and approaches to studying comparative migration law.

Selected publications

• Thomas Gammeltoft-Hansen, Daniel Ghezelbash and Helene Lambert, ‘Special Issue: ‘Towards a Transdisciplinary Research Agenda on Refugee Law’ (2023) Journal of Refugee Studies (forthcoming)

• Daniel Ghezelbash and Keyvan Dorostkar, ‘Understanding the Politics of Refugee Law and Policy Making: Interdisciplinary and Empirical Approaches’ (2023) Journal of Refugee Studies (advance)

• Daniel Ghezelbash, Kevin Fredy Hinterberger, Carole Viennet and Lukas Heckendorn Urscheler (eds), ‘Special Issue: Comparative Migration Law: Methods, Debates and New Frontiers’ (2023) 7(2) International Journal of Migration and Border Studies

This project examines the processes through which restrictive asylum policies are spreading around the globe and the competitive deterrence mindset that is fuelling this diffusion. It also explores the tactics that governments have used to justify these policies and evade their international obligations. This work is vital to inform strategies aimed at greater accountability and safeguarding the protection of refugees and other forced migrants in a volatile international political climate.

Selected publications

• Daniel Ghezelbash, ‘Legal Transfers of Migration Law: The Case for an Interdisciplinary Approach’ (2023) 7(2) International Journal of Migration and Border Studies 182

• Daniel Ghezelbash, ‘Hyper-Legalism and Obfuscation: How States Evade Their International Obligations Towards Refugees’ (2020) 68(3) American Journal of Comparative Law 479

• Daniel Ghezelbash, Refuge Lost: Asylum Law in an Interdependent World (Cambridge University Press, 2018)

• Daniel Ghezelbash, ‘Legal Transfers of Restrictive Immigration Laws: A Historical Perspective’ (2017) 66(1) International and Comparative Law Quarterly 235

• Daniel Ghezelbash, ‘Forces of Diffusion: What Drives the Transfer of Immigration Policy and Law Across Jurisdictions?’ (2014) 1(2) International Journal of Migration and Border Studies 139

Media

• Daniel Ghezelbash, ‘,’ The Guardian (19 February 2022)

• Regina Jefferies and Daniel Ghezelbash, ‘’, Just Security (22 July 2021)

• Daniel Ghezelbash, ‘Why Europe Shouldn’t Follow Australia’s Lead on Asylum Seekers’, The Conversation (28 March 2018)

This project examines certain aspects of international refugee law from a��gender��perspective. Natasha Yacoub's��research applies feminist approaches to different areas of refugee law, including the protection of women fleeing by sea, cessation of refugee status and voluntary repatriation as a durable solution. This research draws on decades of work in conflict and non-conflict countries on��gender��and refugee protection.��It��both critiques and offers to transform refugee law through collaboration with and contribution to the work of feminist scholars including those with lived experience. Yacoub's PhD research applies a��gender-sensitive approach to voluntary repatriation in international refugee law��through the case study of Sudan.��

Madeline��Gleeson's research explores how the asylum claims of women fear serious forms of discrimination against women, including��gender-based violence, are assessed under international law. This research focuses in particular on the application of the��non-refoulement��obligation implied in the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, and on the normative value of the individual communications procedure of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.

Anna��Talbot’s research examines the interaction of��gender-based harms and refugee externalisation, building on over a decade’s experience working with refugees and other survivors of��gender-based violence as a legal practitioner in both domestic and international settings. Her research focuses on due diligence obligations under international human rights law.

Selected publications

• Natasha��Yacoub, 'Feminist Approaches to Migration Law' in Vincent Chetail (ed)��Elgar Encyclopedia of Migration Law��(forthcoming).
• Anna��Talbot, Anthea Vogl and Sara Dehm, '' (2024)��International Journal of Refugee Law��1 (advanced access publication).
• Madeline��Gleeson, '' (2024) 118(1)��American Journal of International Law��41.
• Natasha Yacoub “: A Thinly Veiled Durable Solution for Refugee Women (Voelkerrechtsblog, 8 March 2023).
• Natasha Yacoub, Janna Wessels and Rosa da Costa, ''��(Refugee Law Initiative Blog, 13 January 2023).
• Natasha��Yacoub, '' (Refugee Law Initiative��Blog, 5 January 2022).
• Natasha Yacoub, Nicola Errington, Wai Wai Nu and Alexandra Robinson, ''��(2021) 22(1)��Asia-Pacific Journal on Human Rights and the Law��96.

��