LSE PRESENTATION
REFUGEE AND ASYLUM RIGHTS: 50 YEARS ON
Rachael Reilly
Forcible displacement: a global phenomenon
- global migration/ forcible displacement – are phenomena that touch all of our lives
- the refugee/ dispossessed/ exiled – is an enduring image of the 20 century/ the human fall-out from civil strife/ political conflicts/ and war
- as we enter 21st century – little looks set to change
Global refugee numbers – UNHCR estimates that approx. 50 million forcibly displaced persons world wide – figure includes 30 million IDPs
- in other words – one in every 120 persons world wide is forcibly displaced
- what is population of LSE? – sense of perspective/ last year the UK accepted less than 1% of the world’s total refugees/ Guinea – one of world’s poorest countries hosted 50 times more refugees than UK last year
The International Refugee Protection Regime - 50 Years on:
- 2000 – 50th anniversary of founding of UNHCR
- 2001 – 50th anniversary of 1951 Refugee Convention
- June 20 – first World Refugee Day
The right to seek and enjoy asylum
- core principle of human rights protection
- enshrined in Article 14 (1) of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights
- recognition that when all other forms of human rights protections have failed - individuals must be able to freely leave their own country and seek refuge elsewhere
- over the years – the institution of asylum has literally provided the difference between life and death for those whose lives are at risk
- the principle is not a new one – most religious faiths have incorporated the principle of asylum as part of their teaching – the principle of hospitality/ welcoming the stranger/ providing sanctuary – and most of the religious texts contain epic narratives of flight and exile
- today – the right of asylum can be seem as the ultimate litmus test of a state’s commitment to human rights – how will states welcome those to whom it owes nothing/ who have minimal political currency/ can’t vote and are likely to be more a source of domestic irritation/ those who have reached the state of last resort
UNHCR – established December 1950
- to respond to European refugee crisis in aftermath of World War II
- antecedents: UN Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA) – 1943
- IRO – 1947 – both set up to respond to WW II refugees
- HCR established with a limited 3 year mandate/ still renewed on a 5 yearly basis
- establishment corresponded with start of Cold War era and first refugees from Eastern communist bloc
- Hungarian refugee crisis 1956 – HCR’s first experience of dealing with mass outflow of refugees fleeing political repression – 180,000 – Austria/ 20,000 fled to Socialist Yugoslavia
- Since then HCR has remained in business – refugee crises unfortunately became human face of conflicts of 20 century/ looks unlikely to change in 21st century
1951 Refugee Convention – July 1951 came into force
- 1st attempt by states to codify protections for refugees
- ’51 Convention established the first ever working definition of a refugee as a person who due to fear of persecution on the grounds of their nationality, race, religion, membership of a social group or political opinion is unable, or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of their own country and is forced to flee and seek protection elsewhere
- it established the fundamental principle of non-refoulement/ the cornerstone of international refugee protection – that no refugee can be returned to a country where their life or freedom is threatened - this principle has since become an accepted principle of international customary law and has been reflected in subsequent international instruments – e.g. the 1984 Convention Against Torture / this means that even those states that have not ratified the Refugee Convention are bound by the principle of non-refoulement
- and it established some basic social, economic, legal rights that should be provided to refugees by the international community in the absence of national protection
- Human Rights Instrument
- ’51 Convention is significant because it was the first major international human rights instrument to be established after the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights
- some question whether the Refugee Convention constitutes a human rights instrument – geared more towards the interests of states than the interests of individuals
- but it provides some fundamental protections and principles that it is questionable whether states today would still endorse today
The erosion of the regime: industrialized states
- international refugee protection regime was established primarily by western states – with particular impetus from W. Europe and USA – in the aftermath of WW II
- indeed the regime has been criticized by states elsewhere (e.g. Asian states) for being too euro-centric and inapplicable to the realities of refugee movements in that region – although we can question the motivation for Asian states to hold this opinion – given the total absence of any national./ regional/ or international refugee protection regime in many Asian countries and their poor protection record
- nevertheless – western states were traditionally seen as the guardians of the refugee regime
- the reality 50 years on is that these same states are the ones leading the charge to erode and dilute the refugee regime
- nowhere is this trend more pronounced than in W. Europe
Refugee protection: the human rights perspective
NB: from human rights perspective – regressive trends in refugee protection over the past 10 – 15 years
- other areas of human rights (e.g. women’s rights/ children’s rights/ international justice/ land mines) – can chart progress over the past 2 decades
- in contrast states have regressed in commitment towards defending rights of refugees and forcibly displaced
- from an advocacy perspective – difficult to know how to appeal to state interests to protect refugees – return to moral obligations that guided states’ response to refugees 50 years ago
Human Rights Mechanisms
- NB: have to look to other mechanisms within HR’s system to hold governments to account for refugee and asylum policies
- no independent monitoring/ treaty body for Refugee Convention
- technically UNHCR is guardian of Convention – but HCR is a government-run/ government-funded body – degree of autonomy and independence is questionable
- increasingly other human rights treaty body (i.e. Human Rights Committee/ Committee on Economic and Social and Cultural Rights/ CAT/ CERD/ working group on arbitrary detention) are critically examining government’s asylum policies (e.g. UK’s asylum policies criticized by CERD in 2000/ HR’s Committee criticized Australia for mandatory detention policies in 2000/ and CAT intervened twice to delay return of rejected asylum seekers from Australia whom it feared could face torture in countries they had fled)
- refugee community should make greater use of these alternative HRs mechanisms to hold govs/ to account for shameful treatment of refugees and asylum seekers
- IDEAS???
The politics of refugee policies
- refugee policy is intrinsically political – essentially an anomaly in international relations – entails states providing protection and assistance to nationals of other states – in many ways it touches on some of most thorny aspects of state sovereignty – rights of states to control who it allows into their territories/ citizenship/ also inter-state relations
- this is why when establishing the international refugee regime states took great pains to ensure that the Preamble of the Convention and the Statute of HCR clearly state that providing protection to refugees should be viewed as a purely humanitarian/ non-political act and should not be the source of tension between states
- in reality – international response to refugee crises has hardly ever been purely humanitarian/ non-political – almost always motivated by domestic or international strategic/ political interests
Aftermath of WW II – states motivated by a sense of moral obligation/ shame and responsibility to meet the needs of refugees
Wars of independence in Africa
- sense of obligation amongst former colonial powers to provide protection to former colonies
- 1960’s/ ‘70’s – first major refugee crises in Africa
- wars of independence/ post-independence wars
- Algerian war of independence 1954 – 62 – hundreds of thousands displaced to Tunisia or Morocco
- Great Lakes – Tutsi Rwandans fled into neighboring Congo and Tanzania
- Ethiopia/ Sudan/ Mozambique
- 1969 OAU Refugee Convention – expanded refugee definition
Cold War Era
- motivated by geo-political strategic concerns – superpower rivalries/ proxy wars
- e.g. refugees from Soviet/ Communist bloc given refuge in W. Europe and US
- Mujahadeen from Afghanistan given refuge in Pakistan – effectively armed and trained in refugee camps
- Khmer Rouge from Cambodia – given refuge in Thailand (check facts)
- Horn of Africa – refugees from Ethiopia given refuge in Sudan
- Indo-Chinese refugee crisis – 1970’s/ 80’s – refusal by countries of first asylum in region to provide long-term refuge – western states (especially US because of pivotal role in destabilization in region) stepped in and resettled more than half a million refugee – mainly from Vietnam and Laos
End of Cold War – refugees lose geopolitical strategic and military value
- governments more concerned with establishing regional blocs/ friendly relations with neighbours – refugees viewed as potential irritant
- also faced with domestic economic crises/ diminishing resources – refugees seen as unneeded economic burden rather than political asset
- and blamed as scapegoat for domestic problems (unemployment/ rising crime/ social malaise/ degradation of environment)
- at same time civil conflicts and mass human rights abuse have not abated/ also growing economic deprivation and disparities in many regions of world
- coupled with globalization/ increasing access to global communication and transport networks – more people on the move
- politicians and media shamelessly manipulated and exploited xenophobic fears for short-term political gain – refugees/ asylum seekers and migrants easy target for irresponsible/ populist politics
- UK is quite an extreme example of how politicized whole refugee question can become/ also of very poor leadership of politicians who pander to perceived populist xenophobia for short-term political gain
- Kosovo:
- Kosovo refugee crisis was an anomaly in post Cold War approach to refugees – return to Cold War/ post WW II motivations – unprecedented (at least in past decade) international response to crisis – both in terms of public response and also political response
- several motivating factors:
a) geo-political significance: refugees regained central geo-political/ military strategic importance – direct correlation between NATO bombing offensive and mass refugee flows
b) media: media access meant that whole crisis was accessible to general public and sustained media focus – meant that didn’t disappear from TV screens/ news headlines – also CNN factor meant global coverage
c) public reactions: re-emergence of sense of public responsibility/ guilt/ shame – need to do something – public response was unprecedented – outpouring of funds/ concern – also global response – to a certain degree government response was in response to public response
d) self-interest: also self-interest – major refugee crisis in Europe – like Bosnia – fears of situation over-spilling/ mass outflows of refugees into W. Europe/ also de-stabilizing region – one of main reasons for intervention with HEP in Macedonia
e) racism: finally, racism – no doubt that images of white, European refugees clutching mobile phones in muddy fields captured public imagination – sense of identification/ that could be us/ guilt and shame
- Disparity in funding: Kosovo highlighted gross disparity in international responses to refugee crises
- Guinea comparison – in 1999 while HCR had budget of $10 million/ week to spend on Kosovar refugees – unable to raise one $ from a $4million appeal to move the refugee camps in Guinea away from the border where they were vulnerable to cross-border attacks
- 2 years later those same camps were under attack with grave consequences for the refugees – killed/ forced to flee back into rebel-controlled areas of S/ L
Developments in W. Europe
Globalization/ growth in asylum applicants
- convergence of effects of globalization/ economic disparity and deprivation/ and civil conflict and HR’s abuse – led to larger numbers of people on move in late 80’s and 90’s
- corresponded with closure of most legal migration channels into W. Europe in 1970’s
- numbers of asylum applications in W. Europe began to increase dramatically (e.g. 157,280 in 1985 – to 673,947 in 1992)
- perceived view by governments that people not in need of international protection were abusing asylum system to enter European countries for reasons of economic betterment
-
EU Harmonization
- E.U. growing and strengthening - European governments start to focus on harmonizing immigration and asylum policies – key focus of E.U. policy
- harmonization towards lowest common denominator – knock-on effect – as one E.U. country tightens policies – others feel that they have to do same – to prevent floods of people coming to their territory – seen as easy access
- Dublin Convention and Schengen Agreement – early 1990’s – both implemented common border policies and were foundation for harmonizing refugee policies- determining which country should assess asylum applications
- 1997 Treaty of Amsterdam – also dealt with harmonization of asylum policies
- 1999 Tampere Summit – on freedom/ security/ justice – reaffirmed centrality of 1951 Convention
- High Level Working Group on asylum and migration – Action Plans on countries of origin – integrated migration/ development/ conflict resolution – 6 countries (Somalia/ Afghanistan/ Albania/ Morrocco/ Iraq/ Sri Lanka)
- Presidency proposal – French Action Plan on immigration control/ Austrian proposal/ Iraq action plan/ German action plan etc.
Four main trends:
Underlying objective = restrict movement of people/ reduce numbers entering EU
- impact 2 fold:
a) shift responsibility back onto those states least able to cope and already bearing lion’s share of problem
b) force people to make use of illicit and criminal methods to leave their own country – with serious humanitarian consequence