Impact case study database

The first of the three impacts of the underpinning research concerns a change to society. Public discourse concerning migrant processing was enriched by introducing the concept of ICC liability for state actors. This evolution in public discourse to include ICC liability for crimes against humanity in MPCs is evidenced by a significant shift in the reporting of ICC cases in the UK press following publication of the communiqué in February 2017.

Following a London press conference on 13 February 2017, three of the UK’s ten national newspapers – The Guardian, Financial Times (FT) and the Daily Express – ran stories based on the research findings in their online editions. The Evening Standard also covered the communiqué’s release. These stories communicated the principles in the research key findings (see e.g. [5.1]). The Guardian and Daily Express benefitted by weaving the findings into their regular coverage of Australia’s MPCs. The Standard saw a 50% increase in its annual output covering Australian migrant processing following their article on the communiqué.

The change in practice of the FT is most striking. In the four years before they covered the communiqué, FT.com had published 71 articles concerning crimes against humanity prosecutions by the ICC, 80% of which referred to acts of violence in Africa. Only three concerned Western states (Ireland and Israel). After publishing their article discussing Dr Kalpouzos et al.’s first key finding – that the ICC has a role to play in holding Western nations to account – these numbers have increased significantly. In the year following February 2017, two of the FT’s five crimes against humanity articles concerned ICC action against the US – the first ever such action documented in the FT. To date the percentage of Western to rest-of-world ICC coverage has fallen to 22% of the 40 articles, but this is still markedly above the 3% pre-2017 level. This increase in coverage of ICC cases against Western actors indicates a significant impact of the findings of Dr Kalpouzos’ research on the e-papers’ 760,000 and 1,200,000 daily readers [5.2] – almost 10% and 2% of London and the UK’s populations respectively.

In addition to the overall impact on UK society and the change to UK newspapers’ coverage of ICC cases, publishing Dr Kalpouzos’ research findings also enriched the performance of these papers. The story was picked up immediately by all four Australian news websites with daily visitor numbers over 1,000,000. The research findings subsequently formed the basis of full articles in leading European and US online magazines ( Der Spiegel and Foreign Policy magazines, which reach 3,000,000 and 1,600,000 Europeans and North American subscribers per month, respectively). The Australian daily visitor figures suggest the key research findings could have reached anywhere up to 10 million Australian readers on publication day. Similar to the level of awareness raising in the UK, this represents a potential awareness change in 4% of the Australian population. The findings have impacted measurable portions of populations in all three border zones studied in the underpinning research i.e. EU/Libya and Turkey, US/Mexico and Australia/Indonesia.

The key research findings, and subsequent dissemination by the press, also underpinned a measurable impact on the Australian economy. In 2017, the research findings in the ICC communiqué were picked up by two of the country’s largest migrant-specialist legal aid charities – the Human Rights Law Centre (HRLC) and the National Justice Project (NJP) – and incorporated into their promotional materials (see e.g. [5.3]). Together these account for around 4% by revenue of the national legal aid sector with specialisation in migration [5.4]. In Melbourne, where HRLC is headquartered, this percentage is almost 10% of the refugee legal aid sector. An indicator of how significant a change to their services HRLC experienced in 2017 is evident from changes between their 2017 and 2018 annual reports. In particular, of their 9 project areas HRLC printed the two concerning migrants’ rights as sections 7 and 8 in June 2017; by June 2018, these sections were the 1^st and 2^nd entries. Similarly, of the five projects detailed in NJP’s 2018 annual report, one is based wholesale on concepts of criminal liability outlined in Dr Kalpouzos’ and his collaborators’ research. Both these charities reported a significant increase in donations between 2017 and 2018 (e.g. HRLC reports AUD 600,000 in June 2018, up from AUD 450,000 in June 2017). A HRLC report – detailing the recent history of Australia’s MPCs – includes the communiqué as 1 of the 15 key events of 2017 [5.5]. In London, a charity dedicated to legal aid for migrants and advised by Dr Kalpouzos (its director describes the research as “seminal” and “tremendously helpful” [5.6]) posted a record increase in donations in the year following the communiqué’s publication.

The underpinning research led to a change in public policy in Australia and in intergovernmental organisations. The Australian government was influenced directly by the key findings, referring to the communiqué both in the House of Representatives and the Senate. Evidence of the significance of the impact in the House is indicated by the fact that the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection critiqued the communiqué directly the day after its release [5.7]. The utility of the communiqué to the Senate is clear also – the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee produced a comprehensive report in April 2017 urging both houses to abolish Australian-backed MPCs. This report relied heavily on the research findings embodied in the communiqué, which was cited 36 times in the 245-page report [5.8]. One of the two MPCs operating on the Indonesian border at that time was closed within six months of this report.

Impact on intergovernmental bodies occurred in the component institutions of the United Nations and also at the International Criminal Court itself. The OHCHR was urged in February 2018, by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (SR for CIDT), to compel the ICC’s Prosecutor to (his final remark): “examine whether investigations for crimes against humanity are warranted in view of [...] serious human rights violations suffered by refugees [at MPCs] as a direct or indirect consequence of deliberate state policies”. According to his colleague, the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, the SR for CIDT built his submission on Dr Kalpouzos’ and colleagues’ research. The research was of significant value to her work (by providing “the perfect conceptual frame [...] to describe the almost casual nature in which [refugees’] rights are violated [at MPCs]” [5.9]).

Lastly, the ICC itself has been impacted by the key research findings. Indicators of the significance include that 4 of the ICC Prosecutor’s 30 statements to the UN Security Council in May 2019 refer to her mandate to protect migrants. Although the court’s formal response to the communiqué in February 2020 stated that the Prosecutor would not investigate Australia’s management of the MPCs, it concluded that violations of human rights at Australian MPCs had constituted one element of an ICC crime against humanity. The response directly addressed each of the arguments set out in the underpinning research [5.10]. The second of the two Australian MPCs was formally retired in March 2019 after new Australian legislation enabled medical evacuation of remaining detainees.