No description available.

This dissertation considers how refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) are conceived in international relations, and how they are understood in relation to the global refugee regime complex. This research explores how cognitive frames are impeding fair/democratic governance of IDPs/refugees and employs two case studies to investigate how the practice of critical reflexivity can lead to the creation of democratic spaces for refugees/IDPs to enact protection preferences. The first case analysis argues that Sarvodaya Shramadana's Deshodaya initiative in Sri Lanka has enabled IDPs in that nation to embrace critical reflexivity to re-constitute/reimagine themselves as governing agents who can redefine state and international organization-based definitions of their protection. The second case examines asylum adjudications at the Department of Homeland Security and is an exploration of how that agency's responsible officials can employ critical reflexivity to recognize seemingly hidden governance structures that condition their decision-making and limit refugee choices. Finally, this inquiry offers a new, organic model for conceptualizing both refugee/IDP governance and strategies for democratization of refugee/IDP governance institutions and systems. / Ph. D.

La Bosnie-Herzégovine est sous supervision internationale depuis 1995. Les principaux acteurs de cette communauté internationale soit l’Union Européenne (UE) et le Bureau du Haut-Représentant à la Communauté Internationale (OHR) ont exprimé à de nombreuses reprises leur intention de transformer la mission internationale en s’éloignant du pouvoir discrétionnaire du OHR en le remplaçant par la perspective d’intégration offerte par l’UE. Malgré les bonnes intentions, cette transition semble être dans une impasse. Depuis 2006, l’organisation et la distribution des responsabilités au sein de la communauté internationale sont restées inchangées. Ce mémoire s’intéresse à ces deux principaux acteurs et à leur rôle dans l’impasse. L’objectif est de tester trois cadres d’analyse soit le rationalisme, le constructivisme et la complexité des régimes pouvant expliquer cette impasse. En se basant sur des interviews avec des experts et des représentants des deux institutions, ce mémoire explore dans quelle mesure et dans quels contextes chaque cadre d’analyse est apte à expliquer le comportement des acteurs. / Bosnia and Herzegovina has been under international supervision since 1995. Key actors in the international community namely the Office of the High Representative (OHR) and the European Union (EU) have expressed a desire to change the focus of this mission from one led by the OHR to one led by the EU. Despite the strong will of the international community to carry out this transition, it seems to have reached a deadlock. In the last few years, the arrangement of the international community has remained unchanged. This thesis focuses on these two main actors in this transition and their responsibility in the deadlock. This thesis tests three frameworks in order to explain this deadlock, specifically rationalism, constructivism, and regime complexity. Drawing on interviews with experts and officials working in the European Union and in the Office of the High Representative, this thesis explores the suitability of these frameworks for explaining these actors’ behaviours.