No description available.

In taking into account the vast body of literature that exists on the topic of international humanitarianism, this thesis aims to provide a contribution to the field by way of an analysis of the dubious manner in which states apply the principles of humanitarianism. It derives conclusions around the level of commitment and sincerity of the international humanitarian regime to the principles of humanitarianism by exploring the dynamic relationship between the two of the main areas of humanitarianism: humanitarian intervention and refugee protection. From this analysis stems the argument is that while the governments of the wealthy Western states are often amongst the loudest trumpeters of humanitarian principles, they fail to live up to their humanitarian obligations. For, rather than committing to humanitarian action on the basis of need, they are only willing to commit to humanitarian action in cases that serve in their own national interests; cases of human suffering from which they do not stand to benefit remain caught in the margins of the international humanitarian regime.

This doctoral dissertation examines the lived experiences of refuge in Denmark from the perspectives of Syrian refugees. Situated within feminist political geography, it moves beyond examining geopolitics merely from the perspective of the law, the state, and policy makers. Instead, it seeks to grasp the ways in which geopolitics are encountered, experienced, and negotiated on the ground – by the people who are most affected by state policies and practices. It draws on more than ten months of ethnographic fieldwork in Denmark with Syrian refugees, including semi-structured interviews, focus groups, and participant observations, as well as interviews with state and non-state actors providing assistance to Syrian refugees in Jordan. This dissertation brings insights from feminist political geography into conversation with those from critical refugee studies, border studies, geographies of law, and postcolonial studies in order to unsettle core ideas and terms of reference surrounding what refuge is and how it is practiced. This dissertation makes three distinct but closely related arguments. First, focusing on family reunification of refugees and how this form of protection became a target in the Danish state’s efforts to prevent refugee immigration, I argue that the geopolitics of refuge needs to be examined in a way that includes but also moves beyond the actual territorial border line as well as the legal border (i.e. the moment a person obtains protection and legal status). Second, through an examination of Syrian refugees’ everyday encounters with the Danish state, I draw attention to the disjunctures between idealized notions of refuge with its ostensible ‘humanitarian’ ethos and the practical articulations of refuge as manifested in the everyday lived experiences of refugees. This is what I term lived refuge. I argue, however, that the dissonances between idealized and actually existing refuge point to the persistent presence of governance within refuge, rather than a lack or an absence of ‘true’ humanitarianism - i.e. a promise of freedom, betterment, and prospect that did not fully materialize. Instead, the state practices, which refugees are subject to within refuge, are enabled and normalized through the asymmetrical relationships between the state and the refugee. Third, calling attention to how Syrian refugees experience, articulate and locate war, I trouble prevailing geographical imaginations of “Europe” and Denmark as spaces of peace, safety, and prosperity. Drawing on Syrians’ experiences of war, I argue that attending to everyday experiences of war in refuge prompts a re-articulation of where war is, what counts as war, and who decides.

Deportation due to criminal activity is often viewed as a neutral administrative practice and has to date received little research attention. This study views the phenomenon as part of a broader field focused on regulating people’s mobility. It also looks at the balance between the state’s interest in deporting non-citizens who commit crime and the goal of protecting refugees. Deportation due to criminal activity is first discussed from five perspectives: as alien control, as punishment and the spatial separation of criminal “others”, as migratory movement and forcible repatriation, in relation to human rights and as a “second asylum hearing”, and as border practice. The study then examines deportation in district courts between 1973 and 2003, via a quantitative study of all convictions involving deportation. Deportation practice differs between persons who are and are not registered as residents. Residents are deported for more serious offences than others and increasingly often over time for crimes against the person and drug crime. The number of non-residents deported increases greatly from 1985, which cannot be explained by an increase in convictions or by legislative changes. The study finally examines the reasoning of courts on possible impediments to deportation when the person convicted had refugee or equivalent status. The court collected an opinion from the Swedish Immigration Board in 80 percent of such cases. The opinions are very brief, often identical for different individuals and seem to be based on general guidelines for different countries rather than the individual’s fear of persecution at sentencing time. In the other cases the court makes its own assessment of impediments to deportation, but the risks faced by those convicted are rarely discussed in the court judgements. In 17 cases, the individual was deported despite the Board’s opinion noting a risk of persecution.

In October 2019, thousands of migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers took the streets in Cape Town and Pretoria to publicly express their dissatisfaction with their living and protection conditions in South Africa. The protests erupted one month after a series of xenophobic incidents in several urban areas. While Pretoria protests dissolved quickly, the Cape Town sit-in protests were only cleared in early 2020. In both cities, protesters claimed that poor living conditions, a lack of access to services and a constant fear of xenophobic violence and harassment had made it unbearable for them to sustain their lives in South Africa. Refugees and asylum-seekers therefore demanded improved protection and the resettlement to a safer third country. Third country resettlement forms one of the three durable solutions for refugee situation as defined by the UNHCR, besides local integration and voluntary repatriation. The South African government and the UNHCR, however, made it clear that third country resettlement could not be considered a solution for a majority of South Africa's refugees and asylum-seekers. With local integration equally failing the forced migrants in South Africa, voluntary repatriation may by default be their only option left. This study aims to explore the relation between xenophobia and voluntary refugee repatriation in a South African context. The fear of xenophobic violence that was expressed by the 2019 protesters raises doubt about South Africa's ability to meet the UNHCR's standards of refugee protection. At the same time, it compromises the protection measure of temporary local integration as outlined in the South African 1998 Refugee Act. This study will therefore explore he connection between conditions of asylum in South Africa and the decision-making process on repatriation by refugees and asylum-seekers. This study aims to contribute to better the understanding of conditions and dynamics that lead to spontaneous voluntary repatriation in refugee situations.

<p>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.</p>

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.

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