Surreal illustration symbolizing the displacement of refugees through transfer agreements between Australia and Israel and the uncertainty of their destination.

Outsourcing Responsibility: How Australia and Israel Externalize Refugee Obligations

Theo Raines in Global Affairs August 2025 • 4 min read.

"A deep dive into the legality and morality of transferring refugees to less developed nations, revealing a concerning trend in Western policies."

In recent years, a disturbing trend has emerged in Western nations: the externalization of refugee obligations. Australia and Israel have pioneered a new and unprecedented policy, permanently transferring refugees to less developed and less stable countries in exchange for financial compensation. This practice raises serious questions about legality, morality, and the very principles underpinning international refugee law.

This article delves into these controversial agreements, dissecting the policies implemented by Australia and Israel, and analyzing their implications for the global refugee regime. The central argument is that these transfers are not isolated incidents but rather a manifestation of a broader Western 'externalization' trend, designed to reduce the number of asylum seekers within their own borders.

While sharing the goal of burden-shifting with previous externalization policies, the Australian and Israeli transfers differ in crucial aspects. They target individuals with a clear need for international protection, transferring them to countries that are not merely transit points. These distinctions stretch the boundaries of legality and morality, prompting a critical examination of this alarming trend.

What Makes These Refugee Transfer Agreements So Problematic?

Surreal illustration symbolizing the displacement of refugees through transfer agreements between Australia and Israel and the uncertainty of their destination.

The Australian and Israeli policies share a common thread: the desire to outsource the responsibility of providing refuge to those fleeing persecution. This is achieved through agreements with less developed nations, offering financial or other incentives in exchange for accepting refugees. However, these agreements raise profound ethical and legal concerns.

Here are key points that illustrate the problematic nature of these agreements:

Constructive Refoulement: Even if not directly returning refugees to danger, the transfers create conditions so unfavorable that refugees may feel compelled to return, violating international law.
Violation of Convention: The transfers may violate articles of the Refugee Convention, including the prohibition on discrimination.
Ethical Concerns: The policies compromise the well-being of vulnerable individuals, lack justification beyond deterrence, and operate in secrecy.
Burden Shifting: The agreements shift responsibility to poorer countries, exacerbating global inequality and creating a 'might is right' scenario.
No Guarantee of Rights: Transferees may not receive adequate protection or have their rights fully respected in the receiving countries.

Critics argue that these agreements prioritize the interests of wealthier nations over the fundamental rights of refugees, creating a dangerous precedent for international refugee protection. The lack of transparency and the potential for exploitation of vulnerable individuals further compound these concerns.

A Call for Scrutiny and Re-evaluation

The permanent transfer of refugees by Australia and Israel represents a concerning trend in Western policies. While these agreements may appear to offer a solution to domestic political pressures, they raise profound ethical and legal questions that demand careful scrutiny. As the world grapples with an unprecedented refugee crisis, it is imperative that nations uphold their obligations under international law and ensure the humane treatment of all those seeking refuge. The Australian and Israeli policies, with the many legal and non-legal issues they raise, should therefore act as a catalyst for the scrutiny, re-examination, and criticism of the externalization trend as a whole.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

This article is based on research published under:

DOI-LINK: 10.1093/ijrl/eey042, Alternate LINK

Title: Australian And Israeli Agreements For The Permanent Transfer Of Refugees: Stretching Further The (Il)Legality And (Im)Morality Of Western Externalization Policies

Subject: Law

Journal: International Journal of Refugee Law

Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)

Authors: Shani Bar-Tuvia

Published: 2018-10-01

Everything You Need To Know

What exactly are Australia and Israel doing when it comes to 'outsourcing responsibility' for refugees, and how does financial compensation play a role?

Australia and Israel have been engaging in a practice of externalizing refugee obligations. This involves transferring refugees to less developed and less stable countries in exchange for financial compensation. While the exact financial details may vary, the core principle is that Australia and Israel provide incentives to these countries to take on the responsibility of housing and caring for refugees who would otherwise seek asylum in Australia or Israel.

What does 'constructive refoulement' mean in the context of refugee transfers, and how does it relate to international law?

Constructive refoulement occurs when Australia and Israel transfer refugees to countries where conditions are so unfavorable that they feel compelled to return to their country of origin, even if Australia and Israel aren't directly deporting them. This undermines international refugee law and human rights principles, as it indirectly exposes refugees to the dangers they initially fled. This process makes their lives so difficult they return home.

What are the main ethical arguments against Australia and Israel's agreements to transfer refugees to less developed nations?

The key ethical concern around Australia and Israel's refugee transfer agreements is that they appear to prioritize national interests over the well-being and fundamental rights of vulnerable individuals. Critics argue that these policies lack humanitarian justification beyond mere deterrence. Also, the lack of transparency surrounding the agreements raises suspicions of potential exploitation and disregard for refugees' rights, creating a 'might is right' scenario where wealthier nations shift responsibility to poorer ones, potentially exacerbating global inequality.

How could the agreements between Australia, Israel, and less developed nations potentially violate the Refugee Convention?

The transfer agreements between Australia, Israel, and less developed nations risk violating the Refugee Convention because these nations may not provide adequate protection or fully respect the rights of the refugees. For example, there is a prohibition on discrimination within the convention, and these transfers may violate this. This undermines the principles of international refugee law, which are designed to ensure that refugees receive consistent and fair treatment regardless of where they seek asylum.

How do the refugee transfer agreements between Australia and Israel fit into a larger trend of 'externalization,' and what are the potential global implications for refugee protection?

The permanent transfer of refugees by Australia and Israel is part of a broader trend of Western 'externalization' designed to reduce the number of asylum seekers within their borders. This has implications for the global refugee regime because it can normalize the practice of wealthier nations shirking their responsibilities to protect refugees, potentially leading to a race to the bottom where countries compete to externalize their obligations, further marginalizing vulnerable populations and undermining international cooperation on refugee protection.