The New Zealand Government�s repatriation measures to assist Great War veterans have largely been considered a failure. This thesis examines repatriation through the experiences of Dunedin and Ashburton veterans, demonstrating that within the context of the 1920s pre-welfare state these provisions proved to be both generous and far more successful than is often suggested. The Government�s repatriation response to returning veterans reflected contemporary attitudes towards dependency and need. Belief in self-reliance underpinned repatriation policy, with a stated aim of restoring veterans to the civil position they held prior to enlistment rather than providing assistance to move up the occupational ladder. Fear of the morally corrosive effect of dependency, as well as economic concerns, meant the repatriation provisions were principally concerned with ensuring veterans regained financial independence through employment. To that end war pensions compensated for lost earning power, rather than providing a full living income, and repatriation provisions largely consisted of assistance in finding jobs or obtaining farms and businesses. The Government�s repatriation provisions also reflected contemporary medical knowledge. The repatriation legislation restricted war pensions and free medical care to veterans with disabilities directly attributable to military service. However the link between military service and disability remained unclear in many cases. Slightly more than half of those discharged unfit suffered from sickness rather than wounds, many from conditions common among the civilian population. Contemporary aetiological knowledge often did not support the war pension applications lodged by returned soldiers disabled as a result of non-contagious disease, and an absence of clinical evidence undermined claims of latent illness. In addition the medical profession�s failure to adopt psychological theory and practice meant that by the early 1920s shell shock sufferers were treated according to psychiatric medicine�s understanding of mental illness. Within the context of 1920s New Zealand the repatriation provisions were generous: the Repatriation Department�s work had no precedent; the war disabled were one of the few groups to receive state pensions and received more than other state pensioners; and the provisions of the soldier settlement scheme were available to all veterans, regardless of health, capital or farming experience. Despite the limited aims of the Government�s repatriation provisions many veterans did successfully re-establish themselves in civilian society. By the 1930s Ashburton soldier settlements had proved more successful than others in Canterbury, and compared well with other crown settlements in Ashburton County. More generally war service produced no dramatic change in the occupational structure of veterans: veterans generally retained their occupational status during the post-war decade, volunteers faring slightly better than conscripts but neither as well as their civilian counterparts. Although some veterans certainly did experience need and indigence after the war the majority of urban and rural men in the sample groups were financially stable, particularly after the boom and bust of the immediate post-war years. The men in the Dunedin and Ashburton sample groups represent the most successful of the returned soldier population nevertheless they show that a significant proportion of Great War veterans were successfully repatriated by the end of the post-war decade.

The New Zealand Government�s repatriation measures to assist Great War veterans have largely been considered a failure. This thesis examines repatriation through the experiences of Dunedin and Ashburton veterans, demonstrating that within the context of the 1920s pre-welfare state these provisions proved to be both generous and far more successful than is often suggested. The Government�s repatriation response to returning veterans reflected contemporary attitudes towards dependency and need. Belief in self-reliance underpinned repatriation policy, with a stated aim of restoring veterans to the civil position they held prior to enlistment rather than providing assistance to move up the occupational ladder. Fear of the morally corrosive effect of dependency, as well as economic concerns, meant the repatriation provisions were principally concerned with ensuring veterans regained financial independence through employment. To that end war pensions compensated for lost earning power, rather than providing a full living income, and repatriation provisions largely consisted of assistance in finding jobs or obtaining farms and businesses. The Government�s repatriation provisions also reflected contemporary medical knowledge. The repatriation legislation restricted war pensions and free medical care to veterans with disabilities directly attributable to military service. However the link between military service and disability remained unclear in many cases. Slightly more than half of those discharged unfit suffered from sickness rather than wounds, many from conditions common among the civilian population. Contemporary aetiological knowledge often did not support the war pension applications lodged by returned soldiers disabled as a result of non-contagious disease, and an absence of clinical evidence undermined claims of latent illness. In addition the medical profession�s failure to adopt psychological theory and practice meant that by the early 1920s shell shock sufferers were treated according to psychiatric medicine�s understanding of mental illness. Within the context of 1920s New Zealand the repatriation provisions were generous: the Repatriation Department�s work had no precedent; the war disabled were one of the few groups to receive state pensions and received more than other state pensioners; and the provisions of the soldier settlement scheme were available to all veterans, regardless of health, capital or farming experience. Despite the limited aims of the Government�s repatriation provisions many veterans did successfully re-establish themselves in civilian society. By the 1930s Ashburton soldier settlements had proved more successful than others in Canterbury, and compared well with other crown settlements in Ashburton County. More generally war service produced no dramatic change in the occupational structure of veterans: veterans generally retained their occupational status during the post-war decade, volunteers faring slightly better than conscripts but neither as well as their civilian counterparts. Although some veterans certainly did experience need and indigence after the war the majority of urban and rural men in the sample groups were financially stable, particularly after the boom and bust of the immediate post-war years. The men in the Dunedin and Ashburton sample groups represent the most successful of the returned soldier population nevertheless they show that a significant proportion of Great War veterans were successfully repatriated by the end of the post-war decade.

Après la Seconde guerre mondiale, plus de 6,5 millions de sujets japonais, dont la moitié était des civils résidant dans les territoires japonais d’outre-mer, ont été rapatriés au Japon. Le Japon n’avait pas prévu l’éventualité d’un rapatriement en cas de défaite, et les Alliés, s’ils avaient planifié le retour des soldats japonais, n’avaient pas préparé le retour des civils. Pourtant, le rapatriement des civils japonais fut, dans sa majeure partie, rapide et efficace. Entre octobre 1945 et décembre 1946, 5,1 millions de Japonais purent rejoindre le Japon. Pour d’autres, le processus put durer jusque la fin des années 1950. Une fois au Japon, les rapatriés, confrontés à un Japon en ruines, se virent imposer une nouvelle identité, celle de hikiagesha, personne rapatriée. La mémoire et l’identité des rapatriés, confrontés à l’hostilité et la méfiance de la population de métropole, connurent plusieurs mutations pour finalement se réintégrer au sein du mémoriel discours dominant sur la guerre. Après une analyse des processus de rapatriement, cette thèse se penchera donc sur la formation de l’identité des rapatriés en tant que groupe, leur mémoire, et comment ce groupe au départ marginalisé est parvenu à intégrer son récit mémoriel au sein du discourra officiel. / After the Second World War, Japan saw the return of more than 6.5 million Japanese nationals, of which about half were civilian overseas residents of Japan’s colonial empire. Japan had no plan for the evacuation of foreign territories in the event of defeat, and but although provisions had been made by the Allies for the repatriation of the military personnel, the return of civilians was initially outside their scope, and left to the Japanese. The Allies would later assign military transports to help with the task of ferrying millions of men, women and children back to the mainland. However, despite this lack of previous planning, the repatriation of Japanese nationals was fast and efficient: between October 1945 and December 1946; over 5.1 million Japanese were brought back to the mainland. Some, however, had to wait until the second half of the 1950s. Once in Japan, the returnees found that a new identity had been imposed on them, one that stemmed from their shared experience as returnees: that of hikiagesha, or repatriates. Joined by their war experiences, they found themselves part of a heterogeneous group with an identity that still awaited definition. The meaning of the memory of their experience was shaped by the very way in which they defined and re-defined themselves and their experience, as they encountered marginalisation, hostility and distrust as they reintegrated to mainland Japanese society. After analysing the process of repatriation, this thesis will attempt to map out the process by which this initially marginalised group became acceptable, by integrating its narrative within an official discourse.

abstract: The asylum seeking process in the United States is arbitrary in nature, many aspects of which have been well documented. The legal process rests the burden of proof upon the asylum seeker to demonstrate he or she is truly fleeing persecution to a legal system where asylum seekers are not eligible for free representation. This contributes to a lower rate of success and an uncertain future, due to the limited or no access to employment, education, and health benefits, within the country in which they seek asylum. However, the academic literature pertaining to the repatriation process of the failed asylum seeker in the United States remains relatively unexplored. Consequently, the true failure rate remains unknown. This paper contends that genuine asylum seekers may fall through the cracks, unable to show evidence of their persecution. Thus, repatriations result in a dual victimization of the failed asylum seeker resulting in situations where a genuine case can be exposed to the very same dangers he or she fled in the first place. This is a grave violation of their human rights and the principle of Non-refoulement. Therefore, this paper argues the theory of the Marginalized Other in Human Rights Law (Simmons 2011) can be extended to the repatriations process of failed asylum seekers in the United States. Using secondary data and reports this thesis breaks down the repatriations process into three components in order to demonstrate how the failed asylum seeker is treated as a Marginalized Other during each point of contact. By addressing the victimization that occurs during the repatriations process this paper concludes the threat posed to the human rights of failed asylum seekers can be minimized. / Dissertation/Thesis / Masters Thesis Social Justice and Human Rights 2016