Explore the vast range of titles available.

In The Long Count, the first book of JM Gulvin's masterful new crime series, we meet Ranger John Quarrie as he is called to the scene of an apparent suicide by a fellow war veteran. Although the local police want the case shut down, John Q is convinced that events aren't quite so straightforward. When his hunch is backed up by the man's son, Isaac - just back from Vietnam, and convinced his father was murdered - they start to look into a series of other violent incidents in the area, including a recent fire at the local Trinity Asylum and the disappearance of Isaac's twin brother, Ishmael. In a desperate race against time, John Q has to try and unravel the dark secrets at the heart of this family and get to the truth before the count is up...Dripping with atmosphere and a sense of time and place, The Long Count is a page-turner and a psychological puzzle - for fans of Shutter Island and True Detective.

This article offers a fresh analysis of Sydney-based version 1.0’s theatre production CMI (A Certain Maritime Incident, 2004), which engaged with asylum seekers arriving by boat in the context of the so-called ‘children overboard affair’ and the maritime disaster, in which over 300 people from the SIEV X, a brittle Indonesian fishing boat, perished. The performance invited audiences to see the unfamiliar in themselves rather than in those frequently rejected as ‘the other’. In doing so, it questioned common notions of the unfamiliar that is perceived by audiences as different, foreign or insufficiently known, and interrupted a long tradition of opposing the familiar culture(s) of Australians and the unfamiliar culture(s) of the ‘boat people’. The article explores how version 1.0 used effectively a destabilisation of meaning, a playful inversion of socio-political responsibilities and challenged common notions of the roles of fact and fiction in order to offer an alternative perspective on public events, thus making an important contribution to Australia’s communicative memory of issues that continue to be pertinent beyond Australian borders.

\"After being dragged into the Salpetriere asylum screaming, covered in blood, and suffering from amnesia, Josephine is diagnosed with what the nineteenth-century Parisian press has dubbed 'the epidemic of the age': hysteria. It's a disease so uniquely baffling that Jean-Martin Charcot, the Salpetriere's acclaimed director, devotes popular lectures to it, using hypnosis to elicit fits and fantastical symptoms in front of rapt audiences. Young, charismatic, and highly susceptible to this entrancement, Josephine quickly becomes a favorite of the powerful doctor and the Parisian public alike. But her true ally at the Salpetriere is Laure, a lonely ward attendant. As their friendship blossoms into something more, the two women find comfort and even joy together despite their bleak surroundings. Soon, Josephine's memory returns, and with it images of a gruesome crime she's convinced she's committed. Ensnared in Charcot's hypnotic web, she starts spiraling into seeming insanity, prompting a terrified Laure to plot their escape together. First, though, Laure must solve a grim mystery: Who, really, is the girl she's grown to love? Is Josephine a madwoman...\"--Publisher.

Young Sara Crewe grew up with her rich father in India, surrounded by servants and luxury.She's not royalty, but when she arrives at Miss Minchin's boarding school in London, everyone insists on treating her like a princess.Despite her cleverness and compassion, the other girls and Miss Minchin soon come to resent Sara's wealth and privilege.

This essay offers an exclusive examination of Spark’s representation of Eastern European exiles in Territorial Rights . I analyze how the author intricately weaves in the Italian-Bulgarian Cold War context to foreground the insidious role propaganda plays in shaping the Western Gaze toward the Eastern European refugee as an amalgamation of friend and foe.

Bordering processes take place through different means and are carried out by different actors. Laws and regulatory activities have a prominent place among border-drawing instruments: Their capacity to mobilise actors, allocate funds, and determine procedures and remedies make them a formidable and multifaceted bordering tool. It is therefore not surprising to notice that EU institutions have heavily relied on regulatory tools when the need to resort to new bordering processes emerged in the aftermath of the so-called migration crisis. This article delves into a particular (re-)bordering process emerging from the legislative proposals attached to the Commission’s 2020 New Pact on Migration and Asylum: the attempt to uncouple the duty to fully respect and protect fundamental rights from the reality of migrants’ presence on national territory. This objective is pursued by the proposed legislative package through non-entry fictions, capable of untangling the legal notion of “border” from its physical reality for the purpose of immigration law (only). The analysis of the relevant provisions provides the reader with a number of insights into the transformation of EU borders. First, borders (as defined by the law) are subject to a peculiar legal regime. Secondly, the legal notion of borders is increasingly independent of its physical/geographical correspondence. Thirdly, legal border lines are not linked to any place on the ground, but rather follow irregular migrants as they move, confining them to areas of less law, no matter their location.

This essay reflects on the 2024 US presidential election in light of the conservative movement’s increasing conflation of fact and literary fiction. Recent mobilizations of literature by J. D. Vance, Curtis Yarvin, and Clarence Thomas not only illustrate how literature and literary value can be weaponized in support of right-wing political programs, but also how these readers deliberately obfuscate the distinction between truth and narrative to construct alternative realities. In conclusion, the essay briefly reads Gustavo Petro’s conspicuous invocations of One Hundred Years of Solitude as a cautionary tale for opponents of the MAGA movement not to simply imitate the far right’s deliberate strategies of conflation.

Executive Summary This article argues that the long-standing binary between “refugees” and “economic migrants” is doctrinally outdated and normatively indefensible in light of contemporary displacement realities. While the 1951 Refugee Convention recognizes persecution only as targeted political or identity-based harm, millions of people today are compelled to migrate by forms of extreme deprivation produced by discriminatory governance, systemic state neglect, and global economic structures. The article develops the concept of structural persecution to describe situations in which socio-economic harm is attributable to identifiable state actions, omissions, or broader systems of power, and demonstrates how such circumstances can fall within the meaning of persecution under existing Convention grounds. It proposes an interpretive framework that enables refugee law to respond coherently to modern displacement dynamics without altering the Convention definition, while also grounding protection within a broader framework of global justice. Key Findings: The refugee/economic migrant divide is a legal fiction that obscures the political and structural drivers of poverty-induced displacement. Extreme deprivation is often the result of identifiable policies, governance failures, or transnational economic arrangements, not neutral misfortune. Current refugee doctrine privileges individualized, intentional harm, making it poorly equipped to recognize coercion embedded in structural systems, such as state abdication of essential services, discriminatory development policies, or state complicity in environmental degradation. Human rights law already recognizes severe socio-economic deprivation as a violation of core rights, including life, dignity, subsistence, and non-discrimination. The artificial separation between refugee law and human rights law produces an incoherent protection regime. Structural persecution is compatible with the Refugee Convention when understood as persecution arising from systemic deprivation linked to a Convention ground. It can be analyzed through established concepts such as constructive persecution, cumulative harm, and discriminatory impact. Regional frameworks in Africa and Latin America already acknowledge that displacement stems from complex crises involving economic collapse, governance failure, and environmental harm. These instruments offer models for more context-reflective protection in international law. Global inequities and historical patterns of extraction shape contemporary mobility, creating obligations of responsibility-sharing for states whose policies contribute to structural drivers of displacement. Policy Recommendations: Integrate structural persecution into refugee status determination by adopting doctrinal tests that assess serious harm, structural causation, disproportionate impact linked to Convention grounds, and lack of state protection. Issue UNHCR and national-level guidance explicitly recognizing that systemic deprivation, when attributable to identifiable actors or policies, may constitute persecution under the 1951 Convention. Expand complementary protection frameworks to cover individuals fleeing survival-threatening conditions where structural harm does not neatly align with Convention grounds. Develop responsibility-sharing mechanisms, including financial, resettlement, and technical commitments, based on states’ contributions to global economic, environmental, and security structures that generate displacement. Reform global migration governance frameworks, including implementation of the Global Compacts, to better protect individuals in “vulnerable situations” whose displacement arises from structural forces. Strengthen regional protection systems and support Global South innovations, such as those reflected in the Cartagena Declaration and Kampala Convention, to ensure that structural drivers of displacement are recognized as legitimate grounds for protection. Align humanitarian, development, and protection programming with the understanding that displacement is often rooted in systemic inequalities, requiring holistic responses that address both immediate needs and underlying structural conditions.

The fact that most Southeast Asian States are not party to the main instruments pertaining to the protection of refugees has given rise to the ‘rejection of international refugee law’ theory, which has largely dominated the literature on the issues pertaining to refugees in Southeast Asia. Based on an analysis of the practices of Southeast Asian States with regard to refugees, this article argues that although they are not party to the 1951 Convention, the main countries of asylum in the region, i.e. Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia, de facto treat differently the people they acknowledge to be in need of some sort of protection: that is, refugees. Unlike other irregular migrants, refugees are protected against non-refoulement and, to a certain extent, are also protected from detention for irregular entry into the territory of another State. In doing so, Southeast Asian States maintain a ‘fiction’ according to which they preserve sovereignty over the borders of their countries while in reality largely accepting the limitations posed by international refugee law.

The article focuses on the prose experiment Die Auswandernden by the Austrian writer Peter Waterhouse and the illustrator Nanne Meyer in 2016. The book falls in the category of literary texts reflecting refugee and asylum-seeker experiences that have appeared on the German book market since 2012. The paper aims to describe the literary strategies Waterhouse uses to represent the refugee condition. It explores the author’s implicit programmatic statements, the construction of the female protagonist as a refugee and asylum seeking figure and Waterhouse’s reflections on language, especially the language of Austrian judiciary system.