The thesis examines the international refugee protection system in order to discover whether or not the system constitutes an international regime, as defined by international relations literature. To do so, it formulates a theoretical framework combining neoliberal and constructivist approaches to regime theory. It closely examines the legal documents that provide the normative and procedural framework of the protection system (such as the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, various regional agreements, as well as certain human rights documents) and discusses the legal, political, and moral obligation that these documents instill upon the member states of the protection system. It evaluates the principles, norms, rules, and decision- making procedures provided by the system, and compares them to the necessary criteria of an international regime in neoliberal theory. The purpose of trying to discover whether the refugee system constitutes an international regime is to show that if it is a regime, states are no longer afforded the full freedom of action and decision-making under the doctrine of sovereignty and that they have a certain level of obligation to abide by regime rules and help in the upkeep of the regime. After showing that the system constitutes a ‘strong promotional’ international regime, it discusses the importance of the regime within the international state system. It evaluates how it brings about cooperation and increasedstability within the regime, and lowers the costs of bargaining in order to bring about mutual gains for regime members. The thesis then examines the pre- and post-entry restrictive measures used by countries and attempts to prove whether or not the use of the measures constitutes a change in, or of, the regime, or a potential weakening of the regime. The thesis concludes that while the refugee regime itself is not changing, there is increasing incoherence between the proscribed behaviour of the regime and state action, which translates into a weakening of the regime. The regime analysis discusses the role the refugee protection regime plays within the international system as a whole and how this role is evolving through the use of restrictive measures.

This dissertation investigates regime-based efforts by states to cooperate in providing assistance and protection to refugees since 1648. It argues from a constructivist perspective that state interests and identities are shaped both by other actors in the international system - including norm entrepreneurs, non-governmental organizations, and international organizations - and by the broader normative environment. Refugees are a by-product of this environment. Fundamental institutions - including territoriality, popular sovereignty, and international law - formed a system in which exit was one of the few mechanisms of survival for those who were religiously and politically persecuted. This led states to recognize that people who were so persecuted were different from ordinary migrants and had a right to flee their own state and seek accommodation elsewhere. States recognized this right to leave, but did not recognize a requirement that any given state had a responsibility to accept these refugees. This contradiction creates a dilemma in international relations, one which states have sought to solve through international cooperation. The dissertation explores policy change within the United States and Great Britain at the international and domestic levels in order to understand the tensions within current refugee protection efforts. Three regimes, based in different normative understandings, have framed state cooperation. In the first, during the 19th century, refugees were granted protections under domestic and then bilateral law through extradition treaties. The second, in the interwar period, saw states taught by norm entrepreneurs that multilateral organizations could successfully assist refugees, though states remained unwilling to provide blanket assistance and be bound by international law. These issues led to the failure of states to accommodate Jewish refugees fleeing from Germany in the 1930s. The third, since the Second World War, had a greater consistency among its norms, especially recognition by states of the need for international law. Once again, this process was shaped by other actors, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). This regime has been challenged by increased refugee numbers and restrictions on the part of states, but its central purpose remains robust due to the actions of actors such as the UNHCR.

This dissertation investigates regime-based efforts by states to cooperate in providing assistance and protection to refugees since 1648. It argues from a constructivist perspective that state interests and identities are shaped both by other actors in the international system - including norm entrepreneurs, non-governmental organizations, and international organizations - and by the broader normative environment. Refugees are a by-product of this environment. Fundamental institutions - including territoriality, popular sovereignty, and international law - formed a system in which exit was one of the few mechanisms of survival for those who were religiously and politically persecuted. This led states to recognize that people who were so persecuted were different from ordinary migrants and had a right to flee their own state and seek accommodation elsewhere. States recognized this right to leave, but did not recognize a requirement that any given state had a responsibility to accept these refugees. This contradiction creates a dilemma in international relations, one which states have sought to solve through international cooperation. The dissertation explores policy change within the United States and Great Britain at the international and domestic levels in order to understand the tensions within current refugee protection efforts. Three regimes, based in different normative understandings, have framed state cooperation. In the first, during the 19th century, refugees were granted protections under domestic and then bilateral law through extradition treaties. The second, in the interwar period, saw states taught by norm entrepreneurs that multilateral organizations could successfully assist refugees, though states remained unwilling to provide blanket assistance and be bound by international law. These issues led to the failure of states to accommodate Jewish refugees fleeing from Germany in the 1930s. The third, since the Second World War, had a greater consistency among its norms, especially recognition by states of the need for international law. Once again, this process was shaped by other actors, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). This regime has been challenged by increased refugee numbers and restrictions on the part of states, but its central purpose remains robust due to the actions of actors such as the UNHCR.

The aim of this study is to investigate the dossier and delegation selections’ pros and cons and examine how the Swedish Migration Agency, in collaboration with UNHCR, work to ensure impartiality and efficiency. The study is based on two theories: the main one is Lennart Lundquist’s theory of democratic and economic values, which we combine with Michael Lipsky’s theory of “street-level bureaucrats” with the bottom-up perspective. By interviewing six people, differently involved in the selection of quota refugees - experts as well as administrators and managers - we arrive at the result that there are both positive and negative parts of the selections and both methods are needed. Democratic and economic values make the foremost sense and we have found that the Swedish Migration Agency works in a way to find a balance between them. This study provides practical knowledge concerning challenges the people working within this area might meet and how they work to solve them. Hopefully, it will inspire people to do more research within this area of interests for a more effective, democratic and equitable selection of quota refugees in the future.

This dissertation investigates regime-based efforts by states to cooperate in providing assistance and protection to refugees since 1648. It argues from a constructivist perspective that state interests and identities are shaped both by other actors in the international system - including norm entrepreneurs, non-governmental organizations, and international organizations - and by the broader normative environment. Refugees are a by-product of this environment. Fundamental institutions - including territoriality, popular sovereignty, and international law - formed a system in which exit was one of the few mechanisms of survival for those who were religiously and politically persecuted. This led states to recognize that people who were so persecuted were different from ordinary migrants and had a right to flee their own state and seek accommodation elsewhere. States recognized this right to leave, but did not recognize a requirement that any given state had a responsibility to accept these refugees. This contradiction creates a dilemma in international relations, one which states have sought to solve through international cooperation. The dissertation explores policy change within the United States and Great Britain at the international and domestic levels in order to understand the tensions within current refugee protection efforts. Three regimes, based in different normative understandings, have framed state cooperation. In the first, during the 19th century, refugees were granted protections under domestic and then bilateral law through extradition treaties. The second, in the interwar period, saw states taught by norm entrepreneurs that multilateral organizations could successfully assist refugees, though states remained unwilling to provide blanket assistance and be bound by international law. These issues led to the failure of states to accommodate Jewish refugees fleeing from Germany in the 1930s. The third, since the Second World War, had a greater consistency among its norms, especially recognition by states of the need for international law. Once again, this process was shaped by other actors, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). This regime has been challenged by increased refugee numbers and restrictions on the part of states, but its central purpose remains robust due to the actions of actors such as the UNHCR. / Arts, Faculty of / Political Science, Department of / Graduate

Inspired by the Kratochvíl, Cibulková and Beník´s model of actorness, the thesis explores the framing power of UNHCR. The critical discourse analysis introduced by Norman Fairclough is applied in order to analyze the textual, contextual and sociocultural dimension of the UNHCR framing power. The case of Turkey was chosen for this study due to the current situation and the fact that Turkey is one of the biggest hosting country in the refugees´ crisis. Through the critical discourse analysis, the thesis explores whether UNHCR is considered as a framing actor in the case of asylum seekers, refugees and stateless people in Turkey. The analysis shows that UNHCR is globally respected and takes important part in the issue. However, not all of the international organizations refer to UNHCR as the lawmaker and the initiator of debates in the issues mentioned above.

In recent years, humanitarian organisations increasingly embraced biometric technologies to respond to refugee crises. Therefore, this thesis studied the features and effects of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ (UNHCR) biometric cash transfer programme in Jordan. The method that has been used is an analysis of relevant academic literature, reports, policies, and news articles examining biometric tools and the varying uses of biometrics in humanitarian contexts. In particular, attention has been paid to the effects of biometrics on refugee management, as well as on UNHCR and its beneficiaries in Jordan. The analysis uses the concepts of accountability, humanitarian neophilia, and humanitarian technology governance to improve understanding of what the use of biometrics means for the humanitarian sector and those dependent on it. The analysis shows that UNHCR’s biometric cash transfer programme has improved downward accountability by speeding up registration processes, thereby ensuring quicker financial inclusion of refugees. Biometrics also improve upward accountability by providing instant metrics regarding beneficiaries, distributions, and other audit trails. Yet, the analysis also reveals serious concerns about experimentation with new technologies in humanitarian settings, a lack of informed consent and data safeguards for refugees, and UNHCR’s increasing dependence on the private sector. UNHCR’s use of biometrics also improves the reputation of these technologies, generates new protection challenges, and increases exclusion risks for non-registered refugees.

No description available.

This paper investigates the growing concerns surrounding the utilisation of biometric technology within humanitarian organisations, with a specific focus on the Biometric Information Management System (BIMS) operated by UNHCR. The study is based on a literature review in which themes of concern are first identified in theoretical literature followed by an examination of empirical literature (here termed ‘refugee-including literature’) to see if the concerns are shared. The primary aim is to offer a comprehensive understanding of biometric concerns by amalgamating previous research, while at the same time bringing to light the specific concerns voiced directly by refugees themselves. Using Michel Foucault’s biopolitics and Michael Barnett’s humanitarian governance, the findings reveal two overarching themes shared between the theoretical and refugee-including literature: Concerns of Power (agency, data-access, and the testing of new technologies) and Concerns of Policy (function creep, fraud prevention, and technosolutionism). The study also finds that refugee-including literature presents an additional concern not seen in the theoretical literature: limitations on economic agency, while excluding another: concerns about private company data-access. The refugee-including literature is also found to offer some remarks in support of biometric registration. In conclusion, this study not only sheds light on concerns surrounding humanitarian biometrics, it also highlights the distinctive insights provided by refugees themselves. The paper concludes with a set of recommendations aimed at addressing the identified concerns and promoting responsible and ethical use of biometric technology in humanitarian operations.

No description available.