Cross-National Trends in Refugee Status

In chapter 3, a global dataset is used to answer two questions relating to refugee status determination. First, when are countries likely to delegate decision-making on asylum applications to the UN Refugee Agency? And second, when they retain these decision-making functions themselves, why do countries accept or reject asylum applications? Using a “double-hurdle model,” the first step estimates delegation and the second estimates acceptance rates given no delegation. Among the factors included in the model, in addition to foreign policy and ethnic politics, are the distance between the two countries, economic factors in each country, and whether the sending country is experiencing domestic violence. This chapter indicates that the theory may apply broadly across countries and over time, setting the stage for subsequent chapters to add detailed evidence.

Politics Overtakes Policy in Egypt

Chapter 4 considers refugee treatment, broadly conceived, in Egypt. Egypt is a “typical” refugee recipient: it is a developing country that has signed on to the 1951 Refugee Convention and hosts a relatively small number of refugees per capita. The chapter begins by reviewing the conventional wisdom about Egypt’s asylum policy, that is, that it has no policy. And indeed, Egypt does not have domestic refugee legislation or a single, clearly articulated official asylum policy. However, as this chapter demonstrates, there are clear patterns in Egypt’s responses to refugees. Drawing on elite interviews as well as archival sources and unpublished materials, it analyzes and compares Egypt’s post-WWII policies toward six refugee groups: Palestinians, Sudanese, Iraqis, Somalis, Eritreans, and Ethiopians. The fluctuation in policies over time and their variation by refugee group is consistent with the theory laid out in this book.

Refugee Debates in Kenya

To examine the mechanisms that shape asylum policy at a more fine-grained level, chapter 6 expands the analysis to cross-cutting pressures within the Kenyan parliament. Kenya is often considered a “crucial” case: it hosts one of the largest refugee populations in the world; it is home one of to the largest refugee camps in the world; and it is the site of a grave, protracted refugee situation. Unlike previous work on refugees in Kenya, this chapter zooms in on parliamentary debates. Qualitative interpretation and quantitative analysis of statements about refugees show that these differ substantially, depending on whether they are being delivered by members of the foreign policy establishment or parliamentarians who represent domestic constituencies. The evidence presented in this chapter further bolsters the argument that asylum policy is indeed shaped by foreign policy and ethnic politics.

The Implications of Selective Sovereignty for Refugee Rights

This concluding chapter uses the empirical evidence presented in previous chapters to reflect on the influence of foreign policy and ethnic politics on countries’ approaches to refugees. It considers the implications of these findings for a reconceptualization of the relationship between sovereignty and rights. The chapter also addresses the consequences of selective sovereignty for the international refugee regime. In so doing, it suggests some policy implications, such as attempting to identify when and where the international community can fruitfully exert pressure on states to welcome refugees. Selective sovereignty shapes the experiences of growing numbers of refugees around the world and, as a result, has consequences for long-term processes related to conflict, peacebuilding, and post-conflict reconstruction. Recent events underscore the importance of understanding why states sometimes assert their sovereignty and at other times uphold refugee rights.

The Role of Foreign Policy and Ethnic Politics

This chapter provides the theoretical answer to the puzzles posed in chapter 1. It starts by defining the central dependent variable, asylum policy. To compare asylum policy across countries and refugee groups, it introduces a set of indicators that cover admission at the border, freedom to reside outside camps, access to the labor market, and other aspects of the refugee experience. The chapter then develops the argument that countries’ approaches to refugees are shaped by a two-level dynamic involving foreign policy and ethnic politics. It details the causal pathways whereby relations with the sending country and domestic ethnic competition may result in relative inclusiveness, restrictiveness, or delegation. The chapter concludes by explaining the methods and data used to investigate this theory.

Selective Sovereignty and the Refugee Regime

This introductory chapter lays out the book’s central question: why do states sometimes assert, and at other times cede, their sovereign prerogatives in the face of refugee flows? The overview of refugee rights around the world presented in the chapter reveals two puzzling trends: governments treat some refugees well and others poorly (the “discrimination puzzle”), and governments often hand over asylum policymaking to the UN (the “delegation puzzle”). These patterns complicate a conventional wisdom that pits state sovereignty against human rights. This chapter’s discussion sets the stage for subsequent chapters by establishing the present-day significance of state responses to refugees, the prevalence of discrimination and delegation, and the inadequacy of existing explanations for these phenomena.

Selective Protection in Turkey

By analyzing the case of Turkey as a refugee-receiving country, chapter 5 allows a comparison with the more typical Egyptian case laid out in chapter 4. One of only a handful of countries that retains a geographical limitation to the 1951 Refugee Convention, Turkey has experienced several mass refugee influxes and boasts one of the largest refugee resettlement programs. The conventional wisdom in this “extreme” case emphasizes a dichotomy between European and non-European refugees. This chapter establishes that Turkish policies are more nuanced than this conventional wisdom expects. Once again, it draws on a range of sources to examine how Turkey responded to Bulgarians, Iraqis, Iranians, refugees from the former Yugoslavia, and refugees from Soviet and post-Soviet states. This analysis reveals that even seemingly general policies that exist on the books were applied selectively, a pattern that betrays the influence of foreign policy and ethnic politics on Turkey’s asylum policies.