Australia as an International Citizen: Refugees, Aid, and Climate
This paper evaluates Australia's conduct as an international citizen by examining three critical policy areas: refugee and asylum seeker policy, foreign aid effectiveness, and climate change responsibility. Drawing on analyses by Peter Mares, Peter Singer and Tom Gregg, Patrick Kilby, and Matt McDonald, the paper argues that Australia has generally failed to fulfill the obligations of a good international citizen. Despite its status as a developed nation in the Asia-Pacific region, Australia's response to the MV Tampa incident, its neoliberal-driven AusAID program, and its shifting — often self-interested — positions on global climate change collectively demonstrate a pattern of prioritizing national interests over the common good.
- Introduction: Australia's Role in International Affairs: Thesis: Australia has not been a good international citizen
- Mares and Singer: Australia's Response to the 1951 Refugee Convention: Tampa incident and violations of refugee convention articles
- Kilby on AusAID: Australia's Aid Program and Poverty Reduction: AusAID's neoliberal framework fails recipient countries
- McDonald on Climate Change: Retributive and Distributive Justice: Australia's shifting, self-interested climate change stance
- Conclusion: Australia prioritizes self-interest over global common good
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Organizes a multi-issue argument around a single evaluative thesis — whether Australia qualifies as a "good international citizen" — giving each section a clear analytical purpose.
- Draws on a well-chosen mix of scholarly sources (books, journal articles) that represent different degrees of criticism, from Kilby's measured assessment of AusAID to Singer's direct indictment of Australia's refugee policy.
- Acknowledges complexity and nuance, particularly in the Kilby section, where the paper resists reducing every case to a simple "bad citizen" verdict before synthesizing all strands in the conclusion.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective source integration through comparative analysis: rather than summarizing each author in isolation, it places Mares and Singer in dialogue with each other, highlighting where they agree (Australia fell short) while noting their differing prescriptions (revisit the Convention vs. enforce it). This technique strengthens the overall argument by showing that the conclusion is supported across multiple analytical frameworks.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a framing introduction that states the thesis and previews supporting evidence. Three body sections each address one policy domain — refugee policy, aid programs, and climate change — with a dedicated scholarly source anchoring each section. A concise conclusion synthesizes all three domains to reaffirm the central claim. This issue-by-issue structure makes a complex, multi-source argument easy to follow.
Introduction: Australia's Role in International Affairs
In the arena of international politics, Australia is one of the leading nations in the Asia-Pacific region, a status attributable mainly to its development economically, politically, and socially. This does not mean, however, that it is considered a leader among the countries in the region. Owing not only to its cultural differences with other Asia-Pacific nations, but also because of the seemingly autonomous stance it takes on critical issues affecting the region, Australia is both respected and criticized for assuming an independent position on matters of global concern.
The discussion that follows focuses on the integration of political analyses concerning Australia's behavior and actions as an international citizen operating within the framework of achieving the common good — as a member of international bodies and organizations spearheaded by developed nations, specifically the United States and Britain. Drawing on analyses by Peter Mares, Peter Singer and Tom Gregg, Patrick Kilby, and Matt McDonald, this paper argues that Australia has, in general, not been a good international citizen. This conclusion is based on Australia's policies and actions toward important issues, particularly its laws regarding refugee seekers, its aid programs addressing poverty, and its approach to global climate change. More specifically, Australia has not been a good citizen in improving policies on refugee seekers and addressing climate change, nor has it been fully responsive to the needs of poor, developing countries through its aid programs.
References
Kilby, P. (2007). The Australian aid program: Dealing with poverty? Australian Journal of International Affairs, 114–129.
Mares, P. (2002). Borderline: Australia's response to refugees and asylum seekers in the wake of the Tampa. Sydney: UNSW Press.
McDonald, M. (2005). Fair weather friend? Ethics and Australia's approach to global climate change. Australian Journal of Politics and History, 216–234.
Singer, P., & Gregg, T. (2004). How ethical is Australia? Melbourne: Griffin Press.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.