Double standards and consistency

Question

1. How does DFAT explain the gap between Australia's sanctions approach to Russia and its much narrower response to Israel? 2. Does DFAT apply the same evidentiary and policy thresholds to all countries when considering sanctions for grave human rights abuses? 3. How does DFAT guard against the perception, or reality, of selective enforcement of sanctions based on political relationships? 4. Does DFAT accept that the credibility of Australia's sanctions regime depends on consistent application across allies and adversaries alike? 5. DFAT's own internal documents reportedly raised concern about apparent impunity and accusations of double standards. How is DFAT addressing that concern in practice?

Answer

Please see attached answer

Documents

• Question with answer (PDF) (opens in a new tab)
• 137.pdf (opens in a new tab)