Russia Faces Defeat in Canberra Embassy Dispute, Set for Compensation

Share this @internewscast.com

Australia can reclaim a proposed Russian embassy site but will need to compensate the authoritarian state for cancelling its lease on the land.

In 2023, Australia quickly passed laws to cancel Russia’s lease on a plot of land where it planned to build an embassy a few hundred metres from Parliament House in Canberra.

The government claimed the site could pose a threat to national security.

Russia described the cancellation of the 99-year lease, which was granted by the Australian government in 2008, as a hostile action amounting to “Russophobic hysteria”.

It took the fight to the High Court, arguing the laws were unconstitutional and there was no evidence the embassy posed a national security threat.

The High Court on Wednesday ruled in the federal government’s favour, finding the laws were valid.

In a recent ruling, Russia has been granted the right to receive compensation, with the stipulation that the Australian government must cover half of Russia’s legal expenses. This decision follows a standoff involving a plot of land where construction was halted.

An empty block of land with a small white demountable building on it. A temporary chain link fence with a sign saying the land belongs to the Commonwealth of Australia.

Despite no developments having been completed on the site, a Russian official took up residence there, effectively thwarting any Australian attempts to reclaim the land. This bold move was intended to challenge the Australian government’s authority over the plot.

The situation has drawn parallels with hypothetical scenarios, such as one involving an army barracks. In such cases, the Commonwealth can rightfully acquire adjacent land to ensure security. However, it is noted that compensation should still be provided to the landowners.

Top lawyer Bret Walker SC, representing Russia, previously argued it was offensive to assume people would willingly give up their property without compensation because national security grounds were invoked.

Previously, Donaghue argued before the High Court that a nation should not receive compensation for issues they have caused themselves. This sentiment reflects the ongoing complexities in international land disputes and the responsibilities of governments in addressing such challenges.

Solicitor-General Stephen Donaghue argued the government had the power and authority to make laws stripping the Russians of their lease.

The Commonwealth also relied on “specific advice” about the nature of the construction that was planned and the capacity the site’s location would provide the Russian mission.

The advice from ASIO was not detailed in court due to public interest immunity protections.

Compensation should not be paid to a nation “for problems they cause themselves”, Donaghue told the High Court previously.

Walker said it was “really disturbing” to propose the taking of land without compensation on preemptive national security grounds where no explicit threat had been proven.

He said such a precedent was absurd and would mean “everyone is to be regarded, until proven otherwise, a terrorist threat”.