This thesis considers the question ‘who is a refugee’ and suggests how one might answer this in the context of international refugee law. The theories of Robert Alexy’s are adopted as a lens through which to reconstruct refugee law. The case for viewing human rights as worthy of special protection is put forward and the implications for refugee law are considered. It posits a special status for human rights that gives refugees’ claims high priority. This rejects the notion that states have absolute discretion to control borders. This claim is strengthened when one considers the nature of the claim to human rights protection made by refugees: protection from persecution. This ties refugeehood to political legitimacy, a concept evolving through notions such as Responsibility to Protect, to demand higher standards of human rights protection. This, in turn, requires the Refugee Convention to evolve to maintain its protective scope. This thesis will use notion of collective violence to demonstrate that article 1(2) is conceptually capable of supporting this required expansive notion of ‘refugee’ whilst retaining the boundary between ‘refugee’ and ‘refugee-like.’ It will show also how this reconstruction of refugeehood dismantles many of the obstacles to recognition facing female refugees.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:bl.uk/oai:ethos.bl.uk:633374 |
| Date | January 2014 |
| Creators | Slater, Rachel Helen |
| Publisher | University of Birmingham |
| Source Sets | Ethos UK |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Electronic Thesis or Dissertation |
| Source | http://etheses.bham.ac.uk//id/eprint/5509/ |
Page generated in 0.0024 seconds