A Question That Does Not Arise: Operation Sovereign Borders and Notions of Sovereignty in Australia

Abstract

This research examines extraordinary measures in immigration policy through Operation Sovereign Borders. Despite being a signatory to the Refugee Conventions, Australia has employed military-led turn-back operations to prevent asylum seekers from arriving by boat. Given that it continues to turn back boats, a question arises regarding whether Australia is genuinely committed to its obligations. If not, why does it remain a signatory? The research highlights how Operation Sovereign Borders builds on earlier policies, particularly the Pacific Solution, but signifies a shift in tone and intensity with its emphasis on sovereignty. Drawing on Carl Schmitt’s concept of sovereignty and the friend-enemy distinction, the research argues that Operation Sovereign Borders reflects a sovereign enforcement of power through the government’s demonstrated ability to disregard rules and norms. Two levels at which this friend-enemy distinction operates—domestic and international—are identified, illustrating how it is reinforced within Australia’s political community. Operation Sovereign Borders, then, is interpreted as a “state of exception” where legal norms are suspended to demonstrate the government’s capacity to project sovereignty. The research concludes that Australia ultimately undermines its legitimacy as a liberal democratic state due to its definition of sovereignty in decisionist terms and the dehumanization of its political enemy.