International Solidarity and the Global Compact on Refugees: What Role for the African Union and the European Union?

On the 70th anniversary of the UN Refugee Convention, this article examines the concept of solidarity and explains its relevance today, through the lens of the Global Compact on Refugees (GCR). While stressing the potential as well as the challenges for thorough implementation of the solidarity mechanisms established by the GCR, the article argues that regional organizations may contribute to meeting the GCR objectives. This is particularly urgent for regions that are most affected by migratory flows. In proposing new ways of approaching the concept of solidarity, the article suggests that the African Union strengthen mechanisms other than the physical sharing of refugees, including pooling resources to support states experiencing large influxes of refugees. In addition to a system of financial support for refugee protection, the article also recommends that the European Union ensures safe channels for arrivals and a more robust resettlement programme, to help realize the GCR objectives.

12. The institutions of Justice and Home Affairs:

This chapter analyses the institutions of EU member state cooperation on issues such as asylum, refugee protection, migration, border controls, police cooperation, and judicial cooperation. Once seen as the prerogative of member states and as defining features of states’ identities as sovereign, complex incremental institutional change established new ways of working on internal security issues and reconfigured the strategic setting from which these issues are viewed. The recent history of these developments provides insight into the EU’s institutional and organizational development, while also demonstrating how, why, and with what effects these issues have become politicized in EU member states. The politicization of migration and asylum, in particular, complements this chapter’s focus on institutional developments by identifying the source of key pressures and strains to which these institutions have been exposed. The most recent COVID-19 pandemic restricting the free movement of people across Europe, the 2020 fire that broke out at the Moria refugee camp at Lesbos, and the European Commission’s ‘New Pact on Migration and Asylum’ of September 2020 raised serious questions about the content and viability of key components of the EU’s approach to security and human rights. From being a policy arena that was not even mentioned in the Treaty of Rome or Single European Act (SEA), internal security within an ‘area of freedom, security, and justice’ (AFSJ) is now a key EU priority. This chapter pinpoints key developments, specifies institutional roles, and explores the relationships over time between changing conceptualizations of security and institutional developments.

COVID-19 Border Closures: A Violation of Non-Refoulement Obligations in International Refugee and Human Rights Law?

COVID-19 has presented a number of challenges for the international refugee protection regime. An issue that has received little attention is the relationship between states tightening their borders in an effort to reduce the spread of COVID-19 and their non-refoulement obligations. This raises the question of how international law responds when non-refoulement obligations may conflict with other international human rights such as the rights to life and health. Further, the legal analysis of whether a particular COVID-19 border policy is in violation of non-refoulement obligations must take into account how the travel restriction will be implemented. This article provides an overarching analysis of non-refoulement provisions in international refugee and human rights law and which COVID-19 international travel restrictions may be in breach of these obligations. We examine different types of COVID-19 travel restrictions and argue that many are undoubtedly violations of non-refoulement, but others raise unsettled questions of international law. Nevertheless, there is jurisprudence and scholarship to support the proposition that a state’s non-refoulement obligations can be triggered even in these more contested scenarios.

An examination of refugee protection attitudes in Southeast Asia

<p>This thesis examines how Southeast Asian countries such as Thailand and Malaysia sought to articulate attitudes towards refugee protection during the Indochinese and Rohingya refugee crises. While countries in Southeast Asia are known to be reluctant to discuss and participate in refugee protection, preferring to follow the norm of non-interference encapsulated in the ‘ASEAN Way’ in recent years, over time, attitudes towards refugee protection have varied significantly. The thesis explores the internal and external pressures that have impacted on changing perceptions of refugee protection in Southeast Asia. To explore changes in refugee protection attitudes, I conduct a comparative case study between the Indochinese and Rohingya refugee crises, analysing the responses and the rationale justifying the level of refugee protection in Thailand and Malaysia. These two countries have employed a variety of arguments such as ethnicity, religion and economic costs of treaty accession to inform their practices of refugee protection. In addition, regional/international dynamics and the labelling of refugees have also affected the level of refugee protection as well. Overall, their selective engagement with international refugee law; ethnic considerations; regional influences and the securitisation of refugee crises contribute most to arguments as to why refugee protection attitudes in Southeast Asia have remained poor. My findings indicate that due to the overlapping nature of these factors, any examination of refugee protection attitudes cannot be answered adequately by a single explanation, be it the practice of non-interference or a non-ratification of the 1951 Refugee Convention. These attitudes are mostly influenced by internal pressures, with national and regional factors interacting in tandem to produce higher levels of insecurity for the refugees studied in this thesis. Ultimately, this thesis will demonstrate that while refugee protection attitudes in the two refugee crises were influenced by shifting notions of national security, race and regional dynamics, not much has changed in terms of the consequences for refugees.</p>

An examination of refugee protection attitudes in Southeast Asia

<p>This thesis examines how Southeast Asian countries such as Thailand and Malaysia sought to articulate attitudes towards refugee protection during the Indochinese and Rohingya refugee crises. While countries in Southeast Asia are known to be reluctant to discuss and participate in refugee protection, preferring to follow the norm of non-interference encapsulated in the ‘ASEAN Way’ in recent years, over time, attitudes towards refugee protection have varied significantly. The thesis explores the internal and external pressures that have impacted on changing perceptions of refugee protection in Southeast Asia. To explore changes in refugee protection attitudes, I conduct a comparative case study between the Indochinese and Rohingya refugee crises, analysing the responses and the rationale justifying the level of refugee protection in Thailand and Malaysia. These two countries have employed a variety of arguments such as ethnicity, religion and economic costs of treaty accession to inform their practices of refugee protection. In addition, regional/international dynamics and the labelling of refugees have also affected the level of refugee protection as well. Overall, their selective engagement with international refugee law; ethnic considerations; regional influences and the securitisation of refugee crises contribute most to arguments as to why refugee protection attitudes in Southeast Asia have remained poor. My findings indicate that due to the overlapping nature of these factors, any examination of refugee protection attitudes cannot be answered adequately by a single explanation, be it the practice of non-interference or a non-ratification of the 1951 Refugee Convention. These attitudes are mostly influenced by internal pressures, with national and regional factors interacting in tandem to produce higher levels of insecurity for the refugees studied in this thesis. Ultimately, this thesis will demonstrate that while refugee protection attitudes in the two refugee crises were influenced by shifting notions of national security, race and regional dynamics, not much has changed in terms of the consequences for refugees.</p>

The Ethics of Exile

Using the tools of normative political theory, this book explores the political relationship between exiles and the communities from which they have fled. It makes two central claims. First, exiles have rights and responsibilities in their homelands and are morally required and permitted to play particular roles in the homeland. Second, in playing these roles, exile politics can perform two corrective functions: it can repair defective political institutions at home and it can compensate for institutional shortcomings in the global domain. In short, exiles engage in a ‘politics from below’ and ‘away’ that produces alternative sites of power and can mitigate the several failings of an international system of states in an unequal world. This normative exploration of exile politics has a few implications. It counters an overwhelming focus, in both political philosophy and public discourse, on the consequences of forced migration for receiving societies—a focus that often treats exiles as passive actors. Recognizing the political agency of exiles reveals another side of the migration story, and allows for a more fulsome exploration of what political obligation and membership mean in an increasingly transnational world. Identifying exiles as important domestic and transnational actors also points to the ways third parties ought to enable the different roles exiles play in their communities of origin and in the international domain. And recognizing exile agency highlights the shortcomings of an international system of refugee protection that focuses on exiles’ humanitarian needs but denies them their political rights and agency.