This article discusses some of the violations of international law that in turn take place in connection with the Australian Government's boating practice. As regards rules, reference will be made to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Other countries can transfer historical objects with the consent of the coastal state (article 303 paragraph 2).
SEARCH AND RESCUE
Other countries in the Exclusive Economic Zone of a country can enjoy the freedoms contained in the high seas; freedom of navigation, freedom of overflight, as well as freedom of laying submarine cables and pipelines.16 Nevertheless, the freedom of navigation possessed by other countries in the EEZ of a coastal state is not as free as freedom of navigation on the open sea This is because the provision in Article 58 paragraph (2) which states that the provisions of High Seas also apply in the EEZ as long as they do not contradict the rights and jurisdiction of coastal states. The coastal state in the EEZ has limited rights to the water column, if other countries hold military exercises there, the coastal state cannot use its right to exploit natural resources.
For this reason, it is why the freedom to sail in the EEZ is not as free as the freedom to sail on the high seas. The state's obligation in SAR is further clarified by the adoption of the fifth SOLAS convention in 1974, where SAR is an obligation and absolutely binding for the state. This convention is designed to create a legal framework to improve the cooperation agreement with neighboring countries in the distribution of the SAR region without affecting the national borders. 19.
18 Arthur Alan Severance, “The Duty to Render Assistance in the Satellite Age”, California International Law Journal, 2006, page 5. As members of the SAR Convention, both countries have a duty to establish SAR cooperation, and Indonesia and Australia have a contiguous SAR region , so cooperation in SAR services is very important.
OPERATION SOVEREIGN BORDERS
Maritime Border Command, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, National Assessment Office, Australian Secret Intelligence Service, Department of Defence, Attorney-General's Department, Australian Signals Directorate, Australian Crime Commission, Australian Maritime Safety Authority, Police Australian Federal, Australian Geospatial Intelligence Organisation, Department of Immigration and Border Protection, Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, and Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. 22. Providing some supplies such as the orange lifeboat for asylum seekers arriving by boat is not feasible. Imposition of TPV (Temporary Protection Visa) for asylum seekers awaiting determination of their status in Australia.
Official data released by the Australian government only shows the number of boats returned through July 2015. The impact of the implementation of this operation was directly felt by transit countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia for the asylum seekers who. 22 Department of Immigration and Border Protection, Organizational Chart, February 2016, accessible at https://www.border.gov.au/OperationSovereignBorders/Documents/osb-organisational-chart.pdf.
Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser even stated that this policy was very 'expensive', cruel and dangerous.24 International relations between Indonesia and Australia were disturbed by the violation of Indonesia's maritime boundary by the Australian Navy, so that many boats were returned to Indonesian waters . 25. The implementation of this policy is shrouded in secrecy, with Australia's Immigration Minister Scott Morrison and the Australian Department of Immigration and Border Protection restricting access to information on all aspects of OSB policies, including:26.
FACTS AND STATISTICS OF VIOLATION
VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW IN THE IMPLE- MENTATION OF OPERATION SOVEREIGN BORDERS
The principle of non-refoulement laid down in Article 33 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees Convention). This principle is a declaration of prohibition for the state parties to the convention to return asylum seekers to countries where their lives and freedom are threatened because of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group and political views.37 Not only for the member states of the 1951 convention, this principle is also binding on non-state parties to the convention as customary international law because it formed a public order in international society. As one of the main principles of refugee protection, the purpose of this principle is to ensure that asylum seekers, especially refugees, will not be sent back to the area that could endanger their lives.
The Executive Committee of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has mentioned in one of the guidelines that they have prepared that as a form of minimum standards for the treatment of refugees, displaced persons must be accepted in advance by the country in which they are seeking asylum, or they can be accepted by the country at least for a while. In this return, Australia breached international law in relation to violations of the principle of non-refoulement by directly or indirectly leading to the expulsion of refugees and establishing rules that impede the entry of refugees. In terms of exceptions, what Australia has committed to does not meet any criteria for exceptions to this principle; threat to national security and criminal record of refugees.43 These two exceptions apply to refugees individually.
Criminal threats that can absolve receiving countries from the obligation of non-refoulement should be a criminal offense with specific consequences for the receiving country. Both Australia and a member of the 1951 Convention should not return these refugee and asylum seeker boats.
VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW Although there is still a debate about the application of obligations
VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW Although the use of obligations is still being debated. According to details of the incidents, where Australia boards ships carrying asylum seekers, then transfers the passengers to another ship and heads into Indonesian waters, Australia has implemented effective controls on ships carrying asylum seekers. However, Fischer-Lescano, Lohr and Tohidipur stated that the physical presence and use of force to move or return a ship to countries of origin or transit can be categorized as effective control, which can result in human rights liability for people under their effective control. 48.
Once Australia has implemented effective controls on ships carrying asylum seekers, then human rights obligations that include non-refoulement follow. In the Hirsi case, Italy said it had neglected its non-refoulement obligation, saying it should have known the risks the asylum seekers would face. Indonesia, although bound by the principle of non-refoulement as part of international practice, is not a party to the 1951 Convention, so the duty to treat refugees well will tend to be weaker than Australia, which is a party to the convention. therefore, it did not guarantee asylum seekers that they would fare well in Indonesia.
Australia's effective controls against asylum seekers arriving by boat who turned back were not entirely successful. Australia in this position, failed to ensure that asylum seekers were intercepted can arrive safely at least in the countries where it is returned, even some of the boats were not equipped with.
LIABILITY FOR SEARCH AND RESCUE
The next question is whether then finding the migrants in the lifeboat and then pushing them into Indonesian waters complies with the criteria in the rescue attempt which is "transfer to a safe place". A safe place or "a place of safety" in the 2004 IMO Guidelines is indicated as a place where the rescue operation can be stopped for the safety of the lives of the people who were in danger are no longer threatened and their basic needs are well met. 54 In fact, the ship provided by the Australian authorities where the asylum seekers were moved for security reasons does not meet the security standards itself. The boat was not equipped with enough supplies during the trip, and some boats even ran out of fuel in the middle of the ocean.
So, if Australia argues that the transfer to the ship they facilitate is part of the search and rescue efforts, the facts do not say so, because instead of saving, it would lead to misery. Search and Rescue Convention stipulates that countries must grant immediate access in accordance with national rules of the country.55 The state is not obliged to accept the people rescued at sea just because it is the nearest port. SOLAS amendments in 2004 stipulate that the country responsible for search and rescue plays a major role in ensuring.
51 Agreement between Australia and Indonesia on the Coordination of Search and Rescue Services, annex Art 4-5. However, the return of ships to Indonesian territorial waters is not appropriate because it needs regional mutual agreement in order to be executed.
VIOLATION OF THE SOVEREIGNTY OF INDONESIA
CONCLUSION
Based on the description in the previous sections, it can be concluded that the implementation of the boat return in Operation Sovereign Borders by the Australian Government was inconsistent with some aspects of international law. On the one hand, Australia established the obligation of search and rescue as the basis for intercepting ships carrying migrants, but in fact the condition of the returned ship was bad. Indonesia's sovereignty violations become an indisputable fact in Australia's implementation of the OSB, as recognized by Australian authorities.
Towing the boat back to Indonesian waters specifically to Territorial Water and Contiguous Zone does not meet the provisions in the law of the sea because it does not meet the category of ships that obtain the right of innocent passage on the Territorial Sea and has violated immigration laws at Adjacent Zone. Accessed via http://www.asrc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Operation-Sovereign-Borders-May-2014.pdf. Accessed via http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australia-turns-back-asylum-seeker-boat-from-indonesia vds.html ABC News, Asylum Seekers on Board ' Burns ' Boat Sepak Out, accessible via http://.
Council Decision of 26 April 2010 amending the Schengen Borders Code with regard to the control of external sea borders in the framework of operational cooperation coordinated by the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union, 2010. Available via http ://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1516/.
