Les établissements pour personnes âgées, les centres pénitentiaires et les monastères, trois univers à priori très différents. Et pourtant, nous y avons constaté des similarités qui nous ont amenés à réfléchir sur la problématique suivante : Quelles dynamiques psychiques interagissent dans une institution totale (Goffman, 1968) qui accueille des personnes sur le long terme, d’une part selon que le mode d’entrée principal y soit choisi, contraint ou forcé, et d’autre part selon que le sujet ait la capacité de quitter librement l’institution ou non ? Cette question nous permet de penser les liens mouvants et interdépendants entre le sujet, l’institution et la société. Dans cette étude, c’est à la rencontre de l’humain que nous allons, qu’il soit âgé et dépendant, prisonnier, soignant, surveillant ou moine. Leurs témoignages nous amènent à repenser lesquestions de l’ego, de la paix, de la liberté et de l’amou / Retirement homes, detention centers and monasteries : at first sight, these three institutions seem to be very different. Nevertheless, we noticed similarities which led us to ask ourselves the following question: What are the psychic dynamics involved in a total institution (GOFFMAN, 1968) which receives persons on a long-term basis, depending on whether the main admission mode is chosen, constrained or forced, or whether the subject has the ability to leave the institution freely or not ? This question allow us to think about the shifting and independent links between people, institution and society. This study is about meeting differents humans whether they are old and dependant, prisoner, nurse, prison warder or monks. Their testimonies invite us to reconsider the question of ego, peace, freedom and love.

This thesis evaluates the policy of mandatory detention for asylum seekers maintained by successive Australian governments against several core liberal principles. These principles are derived from various accounts of liberal political thought and the major themes and criticisms inherent in the public debate over the policy. The justifications of the policy given by the Australian government and the criticisms enunciated by scholars, refugee advocates and non-government organisations with respect to the policy strongly correspond with the core liberal principles of fairness, protecting the rights of the individual, accountability and proportionality. The claims of the critics converge on a central point of contention: that the mandatory detention of asylum seekers violates core liberal principles. To ascertain the extent to which the claims of the critics can be supported, the thesis selectively draws on liberal political theory to provide a framework for the analysis of the policy against these liberal principles, a basis for inquiry largely neglected by contributors to the literature. This thesis argues that, on balance, the mandatory detention policy employed by successive Australian governments violates core liberal principles. The claims of the critics are weakened, but by no means discredited, by the importance of the government's maintenance of strong border control. In the main, however, criticisms made by opponents of the policy can be supported. This thesis contributes to the substantial body of literature on the mandatory detention policy by shedding light on how liberal principles may be applicable to the mandatory detention policy. Further, it aims to contribute to an enriched understanding of the Australian government's competence to detain asylum seekers.

This thesis is based on a particular domain of anthropological inquiry, the anthropology of policy, which proposes that policy be contemplated as an ethnographic object itself. The policy I consider is Australia's refugee policy, which advocates the mandatory detention of

<abstract>