Search

International migration governance can be represented as a system set up to manage cross‐border mobility of people in the interest of participating states; mostly by means of bilateral agreements between countries and top‐down, UN‐mediated multilateral and EU‐directed plurilateral arrangements. The latter have often failed to work effectively, so we ask if there is another way. We argue that Australia and New Zealand, together with several Pacific nations, form the ANZ Pacific Migration Governance System (ANZPAC), which provides an alternative way of regional migration governance. We call it an idiorhythmic system of governance: a bottom‐up arrangement between states using devolved and/or self‐regulating coordinating mechanisms to allow participating states sufficient freedom to pursue their own agendas at a pace determined mostly uni‐nationally. ANZPAC facilitates enhanced mobility of migrants to and within the region while also helping to reticulate inflows of unauthorized immigrants. It offers interesting, albeit at times controversial, lessons for other countries. Polish Research Foundation NCNOPUS 10 research support scheme (research project 2015/19/B/HS4/00364 'The impact of wealth formation by economic migrants on their mobility and integration: Polish migrants in countries of the European Community and Australia'). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Contrary to popular belief, the conclusion of the 1951 ANZUS Treaty did little to encourage an immediate closer political relationship between Australia and New Zealand. The Tasman powers disagreed on major strategic issues and cooperation was minimal (and in some cases entirely absent). Focusing on the development of trans-Tasman relations between 1951 and 1955, this article examines Australian and New Zealand views pertaining to the scope and implementation of the ANZUS Treaty, proposals for the Five Power Staff Agency in Southeast Asia, the “United Action” proposal during the 1954 Indochina Crisis and the “Operation Oracle” project during the 1954–1955 Quemoy–Matsu Crisis. This article advances the conclusion that Australia and New Zealand mainly disagreed on these issues due to competing views about their respective political relationships with the United States and Britain. In other words, in the immediate post-treaty period, closer trans-Tasman political relations were ultimately hindered by strong divisions over accepting the United States instead of Britain as the cornerstone of their respective foreign policies. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article mentions the 80th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between New Zealand and Australia, including the history of the two countries' diplomatic ties and how they have developed, and the efforts of early representatives such as Carl Berendsen and Thomas d'Alton.

Sino-American debates about the emerging security order in the Asia-Pacific region have not paid enough attention to the perspectives of lesser powers. Among them, Australia and New Zealand, as developed nations increasingly integrated with Asia, are potentially most influential. A historical analysis of their different yet complementary security perceptions and policies suggests diminishing relevance of traditional security structures in the post-Cold War international environment. In the Asia-Pacific region, the established US-centered bilateral alliances are expedient for upholding the status quo, but less so for managing the necessary change. Australia has been at the forefront of promoting the growth of new multilateral regional structures, based on the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), whereas New Zealand has been most successful in developing mutually satisfying relations with China. As desirable strategic partners of both China and the United States, the two middle powers are best suited to promoting a realignment based on common economic interests and values, rather than on balance of power, thus bridging the supposed gap between 'Asian' and 'Western' values. A Trans-Pacific Partnership including China may eventually become a centerpiece of regional realignment that could serve not only trade but also security by ensuring increasing interaction and understanding among people at all levels-the best safeguard against a slide to military rivalry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Australia's profile as one of Washington's leading allies in the Asia Pacific has grown due to the Obama Administration's rebalancing strategy. While New Zealand is both unable and unwilling to match the intensity of its neighbour's relationship with the world's leading power, its own strategic ties with Washington have strengthened considerably in recent times. While Australia's alliance with the United States may raise future challenges vis-à-vis its increasingly important relationship with a rising China, New Zealand also has a balancing act to maintain, not least because of its close economic ties with the People's Republic. In different ways both Australia and New Zealand may currently be reducing their room for maneouver if and when the contest between the United States and China becomes more severe. The risks may be higher for Australia because the same strategic geography that gives it renewed prominence may also increase its exposure to competition and conflict in Asia, and because its own military rebalancing towards the north and west of the continent is occurring just as its defence budget has been significantly cut. For New Zealand, while those direct risks may be smaller, staying on Canberra's radar screen will become harder. Indeed as they each look towards their own relationships with the major powers, Australia and New Zealand may need to work even harder to sustain their own bilateral alliance relationship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Australia and New Zealand (Aotearoa) have shared almost two centuries of close relations created through close geographic proximity, shared membership of political associations, and frequent policy exchange. The relevant context has shifted from the British Empire and Commonwealth to a rapidly globalizing world under US military hegemony. Australia and New Zealand were among the early settler colonies of the British Empire and this article argues that, as such, the settler colonies helped shape the form of the Empire, and subsequently the Commonwealth. This history created strong, separate, if somewhat similar, traditions of independent political experimentation. This article explores different models for explaining the cross-Tasman relationship and concludes that the path-dependent approach works best. The path was also influenced by external shocks, notably the second world war and Britain's moves towards Europe, and it was these shocks that created the necessary ruptures to create change. The first world war had catapulted Australia and New Zealand towards separate nationhood, and simultaneously strengthened their cultural and political links. The second world war pushed Australia towards the USA and led both Australia and New Zealand to develop a more explicit role as regional leaders in the Pacific. For New Zealand, Britain's membership of the European Community created an economic crisis and politico-cultural stresses which are reverberating still. Such shocks created the preconditions also for closer association, exemplified in the CER Treaty, which in turn draws upon historical precedents and experiences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reviews the Australia-New Zealand (NZ) relationship which the author labels as perhaps the strongest between any two countries in the world. It chronicles the roots of the shared history over the last 100 years, starting with Galipoli, Turkey to Afghanistan. It also observes that the relationship is not an equal one, as NZ focuses a lot more than Australia as well as notes the asymmetry in defence and security.

For New Zealanders, Australians are both family and foreign. We come largely from the same stock and socially, culturally, administratively and economically we are entwined. Many New Zealanders live comfortably in Australia. And yet the two countries have important differences, not least of geography and topography, which have shaped the way New Zealanders think. There are differences of culture and strategic outlook, the latter the result of Australia's closer proximity to Asia and its greater perception of threat to its territorial integrity. Closer economic integration will continue, but there is little likelihood of a closer political union, if only because it is unnecessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Focuses on the relationship between New Zealand and Australia. Formation of Te Ao Maramatanga, the New Zealand College of Mental Health Nurses; Assessment of mental health nursing in New Zealand; Constitutional heritage of New Zealand.

Discusses several issues on the history of war and peace in Australia. Regulation of the labour market during the Second World War; Information on the 1953 Australian Convention on Peace and War; Discussion of Australia's relationship with New Zealand.