Suchergebnisse

Abstract
As a non-signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, Saudi Arabia is often portrayed as a State that refuses engagement with the global legal norms and supporting institutions focused on the protection of refugees. This article contends that this is not the case, and closely examines Saudi Arabia's relationship with the international refugee regime by asking what was Saudi Arabia's role in the drafting of the main refugee protection instruments, and what is its approach – past and present – to acceding to the 1951 Convention? How does Saudi Arabia engage with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) – on the global plane but also through UNHCR's activities in the country?
Drawing on hitherto unresearched material from the UNHCR archives pertaining to the years 1962–94, as well as interviews with key government and UNHCR actors, this article argues that Saudi Arabia engages substantively with the international refugee regime. It discusses how Saudi Arabia participated in the drafting processes of the main refugee protection instruments and shows that accession to the 1951 Convention appears to have been seriously considered at certain junctures.
The article also explores Saudi Arabia's relationship with UNHCR. In addition to focusing on Saudi Arabia's role in the UNHCR Executive Committee, it looks more closely at UNHCR's activities in the country, identifying three phases of UNHCR involvement – establishment (1987–97), expansion (1998–2005), and consolidation (2005–). It finds that UNHCR's approach to Saudi Arabia is characterized by pragmatism rather than by principle, and that Saudi Arabia has been able to influence the way UNHCR implements its mandate in the country, as well as beyond. Importantly, Saudi Arabia is a gatekeeper for UNHCR operations in the Gulf region and in Muslim-majority countries more generally. Similarly, UNHCR is an important vessel for Saudi Arabian humanitarianism.

This article examines the role of the United States in the international refugee regime. It argues that the United States generally leads in assistance and protection of refugees and displaced persons when three conditions are present: a strong link to US foreign policy; clear and highly visible humanitarian needs and important domestic constituencies in support of action; and strong congressional support. The United States manifests its leadership through its financial contributions, as the largest donor to the array of international organizations with responsibilities in this area; resettlement of the refugees; and the use of the convening power of the US government. Nevertheless, there are reasons to be cautious about US leadership. While it is unlikely that the United States will soon lose its status as principal donor and principal strategist on tackling displacement, its ability to generate new resettlement offers is less clear, as is its ability to increase its own resettlement levels. The asylum system still has significant gaps, making it difficult for the United States to lead by example. ; Cet article examine le rôle que jouent les États-Unis (É.-U.) vis-à-vis du régime international des réfugiés. Il défend l'idée que les États-Unis jouent généralement un rôle de leader actif en matière d'assistance et de protection apportées aux réfugiés et aux personnes déplacées quand trois conditions sont remplies: l'existence d'un lien solide avec la politique étrangère des É.-U., un solide soutien du Congrès, et la coexistence de besoins humanitaires manifestes et particulièrement visibles et d'importantes parties prenantes nationales pour soutenir leur action. En tant que principal donateur des organismes internationaux responsables dans ce domaine, les É.-U. expriment leur leadership par leurs contributions financières, mais aussi en réinstallant les réfugiés et en faisant appel au pouvoir de mobilisation de leur gouvernement. Il existe néanmoins des raisons d'être vigilant vis-à-vis de leur leadership. Même ...

The international refugee regime is fundamentally broken. Designed in the wake of World War II to provide protection and assistance, the system is unable to address the record numbers of persons displaced by conflict and violence today. States have put up fences and adopted policies to deny, deter, and detain asylum seekers. People recognized as refugees are routinely denied rights guaranteed by international law. The results are dismal for the millions of refugees around the world who are left with slender prospects to rebuild their lives or contribute to host communities. T. Alexander Aleinikoff and Leah Zamore lay bare the underlying global crisis of responsibility.The Arc of Protection adopts a revisionist and critical perspective that examines the original premises of the international refugee regime. Aleinikoff and Zamore identify compromises at the founding of the system that attempted to balance humanitarian ideals and sovereign control of their borders by states. This book offers a way out of the current international morass through refocusing on responsibility-sharing, seeing the humanitarian-development divide in a new light, and putting refugee rights front and center.

Abstract
When and how does a state become a part of the international refugee regime, and how does a state's role within the regime change over time? Using South Korea as a case study, this article highlights the significance of Cold War politics as a main cause of the expansion of the international refugee regime. South Korea was first entered into the international refugee regime during the US-led Korean War. And it was due to the neocolonial relationship between South Korea and the US that South Korea participated in the Vietnam War, and consequently, South Korea received its first internationally recognized refugees. Pressure from the US largely explains the burden-sharing role that South Korea played during the Indochinese refugee crisis. However, repositioning itself as a subempire in Asia and seeking enhanced international stature, South Korea signed the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, finally becoming an official member of the international refugee regime.

Discussion opens with a brief historical overview of nongovernmental organization (NGO) refugee protection involvement. Attention then turns to detailing the current NGO activity & their place in the international refugee regime. Civil society development & increasing public financial support for emergencies are noted before distinguishing between international & indigenous NGOs. NGOs' growing reliance on government funding requires professionalism & accountability on their part; the relationship between the UNHCR & NGOs is touched on. Noting the crisis in international refugee protection, the context in which these NGOs operate is described, particularly in terms of contemporary warfare & NGO responses to emergencies in light of the UNHCR's inability to protect refugees in all situations. Their impact is seen in their assistance & presence in crisis situations, awareness raising, advocacy, & role in conflict resolution. UNHCR-NGO collaboration is developing around five areas, but strengthened NGO-NGO, NGO-UNHCR, & NGO-government partnerships remain a necessity. J. Zendejas