Suchergebnisse

Temporariness has become the norm in contemporary refugee protection. Many refugees face extended periods of time waiting for permanent status, either in camps or living among citizens in their state of asylum. Whilst this practice of keeping refugees waiting is of benefit to states, I argue that not only is it harmful to refugees but it also constitutes an injustice. First, I outline the prevalence of temporary assistance in the refugee protection regime. Second, I outline the orthodox view on temporary refugee protection – it is acceptable as long as it is not indefinite. I then spend the remainder of the article considering four arguments against temporary refugee protection: the plan argument, the reciprocity argument, the domination argument, and the compounding injustice argument. I contend that the first two arguments, which already feature in the literature, merely show that temporary protection is harmful to refugees. My own arguments on domination and compounding injustice show, instead, that giving refugees temporary protection constitutes an injustice. The domination argument allows us to critique the current practice of temporary refugee protection, whereas the compounding injustice argument shows that temporariness in any form constitutes an injustice.

This research note argues that political theorists of refuge ought to consider the experiences of refugeesafterthey have received asylum in the Global North. Currently, much of the literature concerning the duties of states toward refugees implicitly adopts a blanket approach, rather than considering how varied identities may affect the remedies available to displaced people. Given the prevalence of racism, xenophobia, and homophobia in the Global North, and the growing norm of dissident persecution in foreign territory, protection is not guaranteed after either territorial or legal admission. This research note considers the case of LGBTQ refugees in order to demonstrate the analytical potential of more inclusive and diverse normative approaches. Taking the origin and extension of harm seriously requires a conceptualization of sanctuaryafterasylum that accurately reflects the experiences of the displaced. In doing so, questions arise regarding the nature and efficacy of territorial asylum.

AbstractOver the past decade, the refugee protection regime has supposedly become more inclusive of queer and trans* people. Much literature has focused on the expansion of refugee status determination and the inclusion of LGBTQ asylum seekers. However, there are many areas of refugee policy that remain dependent on cisheteronormative assumptions and therefore exclude the queer and trans* forcibly displaced. This paper considers the concept of 'the family' and how it is used and understood in refugee protection. We make the normative argument that queer and trans* family units ought to qualify for refugee family reunion and group status determination. We do so by considering the concept of queer and trans* 'chosen families', arguing that these queer articulations of kinship are functionally and morally comparable to cisheteronormative conceptions of the family. We contend that considering the cisheteronormative underpinnings of the family in this way opens up the potential to queer other areas of refugee policy, and therefore paves the way to a more inclusive refugee protection regime.

The idea that refugees should be grateful is pervasive in popular culture and is also evident in political theory, most notably in discussing whether refugees have an obligation to obey the law in their state of asylum. We examine the normative argument that refugees have a duty to be grateful to their host society, arguing that when the workings of the system of refugee protection are examined, it becomes clear that no such duty exists. Our main concern is that state-imposed barriers and hardships that refugees must endure to access asylum undermine any gratitude to the asylum state. Indeed, if any gratitude duties are owed by refugees, it is to those social actors who help them evade state restrictions. We conclude by suggesting that, once we take account of those features, resentment rather than gratitude often seems a more apt response by refugees to their asylum state.