Can There be a Right of Return?

Journal of Refugee Studies 33:1-12 (2020)
  Copy   BIBTEX


During long-term refugee displacements, it is common for the refugees’ country of origin to be called on to recognize a right of return. A long-standing tradition of philosophical theorizing is sceptical of such a right. Howard Adelman and Elazar Barkan are contemporary proponents of this view. They argue that, in many cases, it is not feasible for entire refugee populations to return home, and so the notion of a right of return is no right at all. We can call Adelman and Barkan’s view the feasibility objection. Many defenders of rights will deny that empirical facts such as the kind to which Adelman and Barkan appeal are relevant to determining whether a moral entitlement amounts to a right. In contrast, I offer a response to the feasibility objection that does admit the relevance of facts. In my view, considerations of feasibility do matter when determining what rights human beings possess. Nevertheless, the feasibility objection is undone by its failure to acknowledge a distinction between two different kinds of feasibility constraints. ‘Hard’ constraints include logical, nomological and biological considerations. ‘Soft’ constraints include political, cultural and institutional factors. A necessary condition of a moral entitlement achieving the status of a right, I argue, is that it be feasible in the hard sense. Crucially, however, a right need not always be feasible in the soft sense. Refugees can have rights that it is not currently possible to implement politically.



External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Justice for Jerks.Brian Carey - 2016 - Social Theory and Practice 42 (4):748-766.
Misinformation as Immigration Control.Mollie Gerver - 2017 - Res Publica 23 (4):495-511.
The importance of defining the feasible set.Tyler Cowen - 2007 - Economics and Philosophy 23 (1):1-14.
Towards a ‘Non‐Ideal’ Non‐Ideal Theory.Brian Carey - 2014 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 32 (2):147-162.
Global Democracy and Feasibility.Eva Erman - 2020 - Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 23 (3):1-21.
The Appeal and Danger of a New Refugee Convention.Luara Ferracioli - 2014 - Social Theory and Practice 40 (1):123-144.
No Space. Nowhere. Refugees and the Problem of Human Rights in Arendt and Ricœur.Hille Haker - 2018 - Études Ricoeuriennes / Ricoeur Studies 8 (2):22-45.
The Palestinian Right of Return and the Justice of Zionism.Chaim Gans - 2004 - Theoretical Inquiries in Law 5 (2):269-304.
Political Ideals and the Feasibility Frontier.David Wiens - 2015 - Economics and Philosophy 31 (3):447-477.
The feasibility issue.Nicholas Southwood - 2018 - Philosophy Compass 13 (8):e12509.


Added to PP

262 (#62,185)

6 months
90 (#27,055)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Andy Lamey
University of California, San Diego

Citations of this work

An institutional right of refugee return.Andy Lamey - 2020 - European Journal of Philosophy 29 (4):948-964.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Rescuing Justice and Equality.G. A. Cohen (ed.) - 2008 - Harvard University Press.
A Political Theory of Territory.Margaret Moore - 2015 - New York: Oxford University Press.

Add more references