User:Shrekinah/sandbox

Rameka v New Zealand
Rameka v New Zealand was a challenge to New Zealand’s preventive detention regime. It was also the first case where the Human Rights Committee found that New Zealand had breached the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Committee found that New Zealand had breached article 9(4) of the ICCPR in relation to one of the three authors of the communication. This was because he did not have the power to take proceedings to challenge the lawfulness of his detention. The decision was notable because of the substantial disagreement amongst Committee members. Commentator Claudia Geiringer, has noted that Rameka highlights how consensus decision making can lead to “lowest common denominator” outcomes.

History
The Bali Process on People Smuggling, Trafficking in Persons and Related Transnational Crime, or the Bali Process, was established in February 2002, where the governments of Indonesia and Australia held a regional ministerial conference in Bali, Indonesia to address the growing scale and complexity of people smuggling and trafficking in persons in the Asia Pacific region. It is a non-binding, international forum that exists for policy dialogue, information sharing and exchange to aid each participating state to address these challenges.

The outcomes of the conference can be reviewed in three focal points. Firstly, the ministers recognised that the illegal movements were an increasing problem as it creates “significant political, economic, social and security challenges” in national sovereignty. . Secondly, links to terrorism and the criminal nature of human trafficking were expressed as points of deep concern, denouncing it as “reprehensible criminal activities” that infringed on basic human rights and freedom. Thirdly, the meeting affirmed a strong commitment that participating states should cooperate and provide support in developing measures to combat people smuggling. It was expressed that the state should “provide appropriate protection and assistance” to the victims of trafficking, within the international framework and domestic law.

Purpose
Initially, the core points of action of the Bali Process as established in the first meeting were:
 * developing more effective information and intelligence sharing arrangements within the region to obtain a comprehensive view of illegal migration.
 * improving the cooperation of law-enforcement agencies to enhance deterrence and to fight against illegal immigration networks.
 * enhancing cooperation on border and visa systems to improve the detection and prevention of illegal movement
 * increasing public awareness of smuggling and trafficking operations to discourage those considering illegal movement and to warn those susceptible to trafficking
 * cooperating in verifying the identity and nationality of illegal migrants, in a timely manner.

At the Third Bali Process Regional Ministerial Conference in 2009, the objectives were expanded to accommodate a more humanitarian approach to migrant smugglings. The objectives were amended to the following:

Structure
The Bali Process is led by a steering group of four countries (Australia, Indonesia, New Zealand and Thailand), and is co-chaired by Australia and Indonesia. Currently, the Bali Process is comprised of 45 states, including the IOM,  UNHCR and  UNODC.

Bali Process Ad Hoc Group (AHG)
The AHG comprises of the most affected states, often taking the lead on collective action and focusing on specific issues of people smuggling, trafficking in persons and irregular migration.

Members of the AHG are:


 * Afghanistan
 * Australia
 * Bangladesh
 * India
 * Indonesia


 * Malaysia
 * Maldives
 * Myanmar
 * New Zealand
 * Pakistan


 * Philippines
 * Sri Lanka
 * Thailand
 * UAE
 * USA


 * Viet Nam
 * IOM
 * UNHCR
 * UNODC

The formation of the AHG occurred after the Third Bali Ministerial Conference, where ministers requested to make the AHG available as a mechanism to comprehensively deal with issues that impact the affected states on a case-by-case basis.

They report developments to the wider membership of the Bali Process. The Steering Group oversees their work, and IOM often provides support on administrative matters.

They are tasked to:
 * 1) develop practical outcomes at the operational level to assist countries to mitigate increased irregular population movements;
 * 2) to enhance information sharing arrangements between most-affected countries; and
 * 3) to report to Co-Chairs through the Steering Group with concrete recommendations to inform future regional cooperation on people smuggling and trafficking in persons.

The AHG has proven itself to be the critical mechanism in advancing the outcomes set out in the different meetings. It administers practical cooperation among Bali Process members to respond effectively to persistent and emerging challenges. It formally acknowledged the Bali Process Strategy For Cooperation as a ‘living’ document that will be revised regularly as future activities continue. The Bali Process Strategy outlines coordinated approaches to be implemented to migration challenges in order to strengthen the work of the organisation.

Annual AHG Senior Official Meetings have been held since its conception in 2009, and biannually in the years 2009 and 2011. They have held numerous workshops to address the different issues of illegal migration. In February 2017, they held the first Regional Biometric Data Exchange Solution (RBDES) Workshop, where immigration and foreign affairs officials were trained to use RBDES, a multinational tool that provides a data sharing framework. It allows the Bali Process members to share data with any other participating state.

Working Groups
The AHG has maintained a regular program of senior official meetings as well as working group level activities. Working groups were established in order to assist states in thoroughly and specifically addressing the different aspects to the issues of people smuggling and trafficking in persons.

Working Group on Trafficking in Persons
This Working Group focuses on developing more effective legal and law enforcement responses to combat trafficking in persons. It aims to provide a mechanism for Bali Process members to exchange effective practices, policies and legal responses, along with identifying areas for cooperation in responding to trafficking in persons. It is co-chaired by Australia and Indonesia, and reports annually to the AHG. This Working Group was established in 2013 as an outcome of the Fifth Bali Process Ministerial Conference.

They met for the first time in 2015, and have developed a Final Work Plan that sets out action items for the years 2015-2017. This involved action items such as identifying a list of priority issues for the regions, and provide training to relevant officials to capably respond to trafficking in persons.

Working Group on Disruption of Criminal Networks Involved in People Smuggling and Trafficking in Persons
The Working Group aims to provide ‘concrete, action oriented activities’ that enhance cooperation in disrupting criminal networks involved in people smuggling and trafficking in persons in the Asia Pacific region. It is co-chaired by New Zealand and Sri Lanka and reports annually to the AHG. Fifteen countries from the AHG members comprise this Working Group.

During their first meeting in May 2015, eight states (Indonesia, Malaysia, Maldives, New Zealand, Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Thailand) planned and participated in a Joint Period of Action to targeting criminal networks in sexual and labour exploitation and people smuggling.

Notably, authorities in the eight countries:
 * assisted 59 trafficked persons;
 * made 32 arrests and launched eight new investigations;
 * made over 70 bilateral and international enquires to progress trafficking in persons and people smuggling investigations;
 * conducted 68 awareness-raising activities, including for employers, civil society, and vulnerable groups; and
 * carried out 12 training sessions and trained 485 police, airport, immigration, and compliance officers throughout the region.

Joint Periods of Action continue as a regular activity for the participating countries.

Technical Experts Working Group on Irregular Movements
The Working Group works to assist countries in understanding and detecting irregular movements through borders. It aims to deal effectively with people smugglers by pursuing and prosecuting those involved in illegal activity. Initially, in 2009 it was focused on irregular movement by air but was expanded to movements by land and sea in 2012.

Regional Cooperation Framework (RCF)
Ministers in the Fourth Ministerial Conference agreed that an inclusive but non-binding Regional Cooperation Framework (RCF) would provide a more effective way for states to cooperate in addressing irregular movement in the region.

Regional Support Office (RSO)
The Regional Support Office (RSO) was established in 2012 to operationalise the Regional Cooperation Framework (RCF) developed at the Fourth Ministerial Conference in 2011.

The RSO acts as a focal point for States in the RCF for:
 * information sharing between States;
 * capacity building and exchange of best practices;
 * accumulation of common technical resources; and
 * logistical, administrative, operational and coordination support for joint projects.

These have yielded in concrete outcomes such as partnerships with Jakarta Centre for Law and Enforcement Cooperation (JCLEC), the implementation of a Forward Work Plan 2015-17 , development of Policy and Reference Guides , and the Regional Strategic Road Map.

The Bali Process Co-Chairs oversee the work done in the RSO along with consultation from UNHCR and IOM. Two RSO Co-Managers from Australia and Indonesia manage the day to day operation of the office. They report on a biannual basis to the Co-Chairs, with consultations from UNHCR and IOM. They also report to the Steering Group, the Ad Hoc Group and the full Bali Process membership during Senior Officials’ Meetings and Regional Ministerial Conferences.

The RSO’s activities, governance, and outcomes are reviewed after every 18-24 months in operation. In the 11th AHG Senior Official’s meeting, the AHG commended the RSO’s ongoing work and recognised its practical value.

The office located in Bangkok, Thailand.

Regional Immigration Liaison Officer Network (RILON)
In 2011, AHG members further developed the Regional Immigration Liaison Officer Network, or RILON in order to improve information sharing opportunities. RILON is co-chaired by Australia and Sri Lanka. It is currently established in Bangkok, Canberra, Colombo, Kuala Lumpur and New Delhi.

This is an initiative of the Technical Experts Working Group on Irregular Movements aimed to help alleviate information sharing between countries in the region, as ‘lack of technical information and intelligence sharing about irregular movements through immigration borders’ was underlined as a major obstacle in combating these issues during a meeting in Sri Lanka on May 2011.

Impacts on domestic legislation for participating countries
The effectiveness of the forum relies on a state’s domestic implementation as legislation offers tangible evidence of the effectiveness of the Bali Process.

Australia
Australia has led the way in regional efforts to prevent and counter people smuggling and trafficking mainly through the Bali Process. Along with China, it has devised model legislation to assist other countries in implementing the criminalisation of people smuggling in their domestic law. The model law was presented in 2003 and eighteen regional countries have made use of the model legislation. Nineteen states now have legislation in place against people smuggling.

New Zealand
New Zealand’s participation in the combat against people smuggling takes place through the Bali Process. In 2009, Cabinet approved New Zealand’s Plan of Action to prevent people trafficking that comprises three main focus areas: prevention, prosecution, and protection. These are words reiterated in the Bali Process meetings and outcomes. They also continue to support ongoing work in the most affected countries as well as multilateral agencies in the region.

Indonesia
In an effort to be committed to the fight against people smuggling and trafficking in persons, they have ratified the UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime in their implementation of Law No. 5 of 2009. They have also enacted national legislation against people smuggling as seen in Law No. 21 of 2007. Since the legislation commenced, there has been an increase of trafficking convictions, from 83 in 2004 to 291 in 2008. They have also enacted Law No. 6 of 2011 concerning the criminal network in illegal immigration, amending the Law No. 9 of 1992.

Malaysia
Malaysia has enacted a comprehensive Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act 2007 that came into full effect from February 2008. It has also created a Special Unit on Anti Trafficking in Person in respective enforcement agencies such as the Immigration Department, Royal Malaysia Customs and the Maritime Enforcement Agency.

It has also established shelters for victims of trafficking.

Criticisms
Because of its nature as an informal, non-binding forum for discussion, measuring the outcomes and achievements of the Bali Process in absolute terms is not possible. However, in a 2009 report by Indonesia Delegation, it praises the informal and non-binding principles of the Bali Process as it ‘incurs the means of being flexible in the approach towards these challenges.'

Bali Process response to the Andaman refugee crisis
In May 2015, more than 25,000 people fled Myanmar and Bangladesh by boat, around 8,000 stranded at sea and 370 casualties in what is known as the Andaman Sea crisis. The role that the Bali Process played in this was very limited.

The Indonesian foreign minister Retno Marsudi has stated that the failure of the Bali Process in responding to the Andaman crisis “must not happen again.” She acknowledged that the Bali Process was unable to address the sudden irregular migration flow in the Andaman sea. Former Indonesian foreign minister Dr Hassan Wirajuda who played a critical role in establishing the Bali Process, has suggested that the co-chair roles may need to be rotated, as they have monopolised the position since 2002. He attributes the failure to respond to the different degrees of interest of the member states, including the co-chairs.

Since the crisis, the Bali Process ministers have held a review of the response to the Andaman Sea situation, which included lessons learned and recommendations. The need for clear communication between maritime officials, and lack of capabilities to facilitate cooperation were seen as critical.

Accountability and reporting
In the review, the AHG recognised that it has been a challenge to measure progress on agreements and commitments made in meetings due to ‘lack of centralised monitoring and reporting.’ To address this, the Task Force on Planning and Preparedness was made. They are to be held accountable for supervising progress in implementing the action plans agreed in the review, identifying major barriers, and reporting back to the AHG within 12 months.