Toward a reformulation of international refugee law
| Abstract | This article examines the humanitarian premise on which refugee law rests and finds it tragically inadequate for our time. It observes that contemporary refugee law is primarily human rights law and was designed to relieve victims of defunct regimes. Today, however, the persecutors are existing governments, able to insist on the prerogatives of sovereignty while creating or helping to generate refugee crises, and likely to castigate as politically motivated the human rights claims made against them. Censuring these governments as persecutors often exacerbates a refugee crisis because it diminishes the opportunity to gain their necessary cooperation.This article promotes the more traditional concept of international law (as dealing with inter-state rights and obligations) as a key to the problem of the refugee. Its thesis is that the humanitarian premise of refugee law seriously limits, and even undermines, constructive response to the problem of the refugee, and that the problem becomes more manageable the more it is treated as a problem of relations and obligations among states. This article calls for a new foundation for refugee law built upon the fundamental principle of international law that every state is obligated to respect the territorial integrity and rights of other states. Territorial sovereignty includes both a state's right to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over its own territory and its legal obligation to prevent its subjects from committing acts which violate another state's sovereignty. Mass expulsions clearly run against the principle of territorial sovereignty because of the burden cast on receiving states. This article's new formulation of refugee law is designed to take advantage of the politics of sovereignty and articulates inter-state obligation as the basic foundation for international refugee protection and relief, replacing human rights principles at center stage. The goal is not to eliminate the humanitarian aspect, but to identify mass exodus as a matter of international legal responsibility, not just a violation of human rights ideals that states can denigrate on the basis of national sovereignty. This approach would avoid the moral judgments of humanitarianism and preserve and advance opportunity for negotiated resolution. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,701 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Only published papers are available at libraries |
Similar books and articlesPatrick Macklem (2008). Humanitarian Intervention and the Distribution of Sovereignty in International Law. Ethics and International Affairs 22 (4):369-393.
Robert McCorquodale (2009). Corporate Social Responsibility and International Human Rights Law. Journal of Business Ethics 87:385 - 400.
A. John Simmons (2001). On the Territorial Rights of States. Noûs 35 (s1):300-326.
Andy Lamey (2012). A Liberal Theory of Asylum. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 11 (3):235-257.
Cara Nine (2010). Ecological Refugees, States Borders, and the Lockean Proviso. Journal of Applied Philosophy 27 (4):359-375.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads15 ( #78,648 of 549,093 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,317 of 549,093 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
