This thesis examines the administration of justice within the Karen refugee community on the Thai-Burma border. Often supposed to be absent jurisdictional oversight, in reality refugee camps operat~ at an intersection of multiple forms of regulation, including the law ofthe host state, international frameworks of human rights and refugee law, structures of legal informalism, cultural practices, attitudinal norms and religious traditions. There are nine refugee camps along the Thai-Burma border. Camp populations are subjected to extensive restrictions imposed by the Royal Thai Government, and the denial of freedom of movement and income generation has left refugees dependent on humanitarian assistance agencies for food and other basic resources. However, day to day camp management is largely handled by a refugee-led camp administration which, among other functions, has responsibility for justice delivery. The impressive level of internal autonomy within the Thai- Burma border camps has attracted international recognition but no comprehensive analysis. This thesis details the work of the camp governance system, its historical origins and its relationships with other normative orders. Key themes are the camp as community, the production of order beyond the state, and justice as a contested site. A struggle for normative control is identified between the three primary sets of actors engaged in camp governance - the Thai authorities, international humanitarian organisations and the refugee leadership. The struggle to define justice is particularly pronounced between international agencies and the camp leadership and has had real practical impact in transforming social norms within the Karen refugee community. This thesis highlights the agentic capacity of refugees but also highlights similarities between the refugee camp and other conflict-affected communities: a local population asserting agency, confronted by competing discourses of statehood and sovereignty from national governments and transnational relief agencies.

No description available.

This thesis explores the political dimensions of development-induced displacement and resettlement (DIDR) in the context of oil extraction in Sudan. It provides a detailed perspective on the experience of displacement of the local people in the oil-rich areas of Southern Sudan. It also offers an important insight into the local politics of this much-publicized dimension of Sudan’s political crises. The analytical frameworks common to the field of DIDR, mostly developed through studies of the impact of dams, mainly deal with economic and social aspects of displacement. These frameworks are inadequate for explaining oil-induced displacement, because they largely ignore the political contexts of DIDR: the focus of this thesis. Sudan’s oil project is carried out in the name of the “national interest.” But in reality, it serves the interests of the main beneficiaries: Sudan’s Northern “Arab” and Muslim elites and their supporters. Many Southern Sudanese have had to resort to arms, partly to protect their interests in oil development, and in order to contest the purported “national interest” championed by the government. This thesis problematizes the idea of a “national interest” in Sudan in order to question who benefits from development projects that cause human displacement. It argues that conflicts of interests between central government elites and local peoples best explain why displacement connected to natural resource development occurs in weak states, such as Sudan. As a result, ethnic, religious, linguistic, regional and other identities are often exploited by elites in such states in an “instrumentalist” way so as to gain, or retain, power and access to resources. This is, at the expense of local people adversely affected by development projects.

La Turquie forme un cadre exceptionnel pour l’étude de la question d’asile dans le sens où les politiques mises en œuvre concernant ce sujet ne correspondent pas à la complexité de la réalité sur ce territoire. C’est l’un des rares pays au monde qui applique – encore aujourd’hui - la Convention de Genève avec deux réserves, géographique et temporelle. Cette version de la Convention indique que seuls les réfugiés et demandeurs d’asile « européens » fuyant des événements antérieurs au 1er Janvier 1951 peuvent demander le statut de réfugiés auprès de l’Etat turc. En conséquence, aujourd’hui, l’Etat turc ne délivre pas le statut de réfugié aux demandeurs d’asile non-européens mais fournit seulement un statut temporaire. Les personnes, qui obtiennent le statut de réfugié d’après la définition internationale, sont autorisées à rester dans le pays uniquement jusqu’à ce que leur réinstallation dans un pays tiers soit organisée par le Haut Commissariat des Nations Unies pour les Refugiés (HCR).Basée sur des recherches effectuées sur les demandeurs d’asile iraniens à Van, une ville frontière de l’est de la Turquie, cette étude analyse le fonctionnement du processus de légalisation des personnes dans un contexte transitoire en se concentrant sur la relation entre les différents acteurs : les Etats, le HCR, les acteurs informels et les demandeurs d’asile. Elle explore la relation simultanée entre la légalité, la temporalité et le statut de réfugié à trois différents niveaux : local, national et transnational. Cette étude examine comment le statut transitoire du demandeur d’asile structure la relation de l’individu avec la légalité et comment il oriente la personne dans ses stratégies politiques et l’organisation de sa (sur)vie pendant cette période. Ainsi sont étudiées les conséquences des notions de légalité et temporalité sur l’expérience des demandeurs d’asile en Turquie. / Despite the increasing number of people entering Turkey as asylum seekers, the Turkish state has maintained the “rule of geographical reservation” that does not allow non- European asylum seekers to remain in Turkey as refugees. Accordingly, the on-going asylum system does not offer refugee status for non-European asylum seekers, but merely provides a temporary status. So-called “Temporary Guest”, these individuals are only allowed to stay within the country until their resettlement in a third country has been arranged by the United Nations for High Commissariat of refugee. This research concerns itself with the study of the experiences of Iranian asylum seekers and refugees residing in Van, a border satellite city in Eastern Turkey, currently in the process of transition. It analyzes the experience of being a refugee and being “in transit” in a country geographically proximate to the country of one’s origin. It examine individuals’ legalization struggle within transitory, local, national and transnational context by focusing on interacted/intersected relationship between states, international refugee regime, informal actors and asylum applicants. In so doing, it suggest exploring the ways in which legality and temporality come to be so intricately related as to form one’s refugee experience in Turkey.

L’Unité Populaire (1970-1973), comme expérience fondatrice, et la répression sous la dictature militaire (1973-1989) sont à l’origine de l’exil chilien. Cet exil a largement été étudié sous ses aspects politiques et la figure du réfugié le plus souvent traitée au neutre masculin. Les engagements des Chiliennes dans l’action collective, leur entrée sur le marché du travail ou encore leur participation au processus migratoire restent le plus souvent occultés.Les femmes de l’exil chilien traversent des situations particulières parce qu’elles sont des femmes. Cependant, selon leurs différentes appartenances sociales, les expériences vécues ne sont pas identiques. Ce travail doctoral se propose d’analyser leurs parcours familiaux, professionnels et militants, au Chili jusqu’à leur arrivée en France, en articulant à la fois le niveau subjectif (leur vécu, leurs expériences personnelles et leurs perceptions) et le niveau objectif (le contexte et les différents rapports sociaux en jeu). L’attention est particulièrement portée sur les rapports sociaux structurants (classe sociale, génération, sexe et « race ») ainsi que sur les stratégies et les ressources que ces femmes mobilisent. / The Chilean exile stemmed from two major episodes: the Popular Unity (1970-1973), as a founding experience, and the repression orchestrated by the military dictatorship (1973-1989). The political aspects of this exile have been extensively addressed with the figure of the refugee generally perceived as masculine-neutral. Consequently, the involvement of Chilean women in collective action, their entry into the labour market or their participation in the migratory process are often ignored.The Chilean women in exile went through experiences specific to their gender. However, these experiences differed depending on their various social affiliations. This doctoral work endeavours to analyse these women’s familial, professional, and militant paths from their situation in Chile to their arrival in France, expounding both the subjective level of their personal experiences and perceptions and the objective level of the context and various social relations at play. This work focuses specifically on structuring social relations (social class, age, gender, and race) as well as the varying strategies and resources employed by women.

Cette étude sociologique propose une analyse comparée de l’institution française (l’OFPRA) et allemande (le BAMF) chargées de l’instruction des demandes d’asile. L’enquête de terrain réalisée en leur sein a permis une description détaillée des pratiques administratives encadrant le processus d’élaboration des décisions sur les dossiers de demande. Des différences notables s’observent tant au niveau du profil socioprofessionnel des agents instructeurs de chacune des deux institutions nationales qu’à propos des attitudes générales de ces derniers face à la problématique de l’asile. Au-delà de ces différences, une remise en doute et une profonde méfiance face aux déclarations des demandeurs d’asile constituent une constante dans leur pratique professionnelle. L’importance que l’institution attribue à la question de la crédibilité des récits d’asile confère un pouvoir discrétionnaire significatif aux agents administratifs et laisse une place importante à l’intime conviction dans le processus décisionnel. La délicate communication avec les demandeurs et l’application parfois malaisée des textes de loi nationaux et internationaux aux problématiques présentées par ces derniers imprègnent l’instruction des dossiers d’une grande incertitude. L’analyse de la relation administrative entre demandeurs et décideurs permet finalement d’identifier la méfiance réciproque et le décalage entre les catégories juridiques et la réalité des migrations contemporaines comme deux problèmes centraux des dispositifs d’asile français et allemand. / This sociological study is a comparative analysis of the French (OFPRA) and German (BAMF) institutions in charge of processing asylum claims. Fieldwork on their premises enabled a detailed description of the administrative practices that frame the application-based decision-making process. Notable differences were observed between the two national institutions regarding the socio-professional profiles of the instructing agents but also the latter’s general attitudes towards the asylum issue. Beyond these differences, a constant in their professional practice can be found in an attitude of doubt and deep mistrust towards asylum seekers. In the evaluation of the applicant’s asylum accounts, institutions give great importance to the issue of credibility. This bestows a considerable discretionary power to the administrative agents. It also introduces a strong element of subjectivity in the decision-making process. Because of the delicate nature of communication with the applicants and the sometimes difficult application of national and international legislation to each particular case, the administrative decision-making process is imbued with great uncertainty. The analysis of the administrative relationship between applicants and decision-makers enables to identify the mutual mistrust and the gap between legal categories and the reality of contemporary migration as two central problems in the French and German asylum systems.

Cette recherche porte sur la politique d’asile en Suisse, appréhendée sous l’angle de la force du droit et de sa production sociale. Elle part du constat d’une inflation normative et d’une sophistication du droit, consécutives à de nombreuses révisions législatives et à une importante judiciarisation depuis l’entrée en vigueur de la loi sur l’asile en 1981. Cette thèse s’appuie sur une enquête ethnographique menée sur plusieurs terrains auprès du Secrétariat d’Etat aux Migrations et de services d’aide juridique aux migrants. Elle analyse, d’une part, les effets de la sophistication du droit sur les pratiques des acteurs de terrain et, d’autre part, les effets de ces pratiques sur le droit. In fine, elle montre que le droit et la politique d’asile sont produits par les pratiques de l’administration en interaction avec celles de la défense juridique des migrants qui les conteste et du Tribunal administratif fédéral qui juge les recours en matière d’asile. / This research analyzes the Swiss asylum policy, focusing on the force of the law and on its social production. The study starts from the observation of an increase of the rules regulating asylum and of the sophistication of law. These latter are related to the numerous legislative revisions and to an important judicialization since the enforcement of the Swiss Asylum Act in 1981. This thesis is based on an ethnographic research combining fieldwork in the State Secretariat for Migrations and in legal defense organizations in different Swiss cantons. The author analyzes, on the one hand, the effects of the sophistication of law on the practices of the street-level actors (administration, lawyers and organizations of the legal defense of the asylum seekers) and, on the other hand, the effects of theses practices on law. Finally, the thesis shows that asylum law and policy are produced by the practices of the administration in interaction with those of the legal defense of asylum seekers opposing administrative decisions, and of the Federal Administrative Court judging asylum appeals.