Cosmopolitanism and Nationalism: A Critique of the Effectiveness of the International Refugee Regime

Authors

  • Ivan Ng Yan Chao Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18523/kmlpj220747.2020-6.159-176

Keywords:

refugees, migration, politics, international law, philosophy, nation-state

Abstract

The past few years have seen the issue of refugees rise in prominence, particularly in Europe but also in other parts of the world. It has been almost seven decades since the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was set up and the first international treaty regulating the issue of refugees signed. This article examines the international legal framework governing the issue of refugees and argues that it is ineffectual because refugees are inherently a matter of high politics – refugees are fundamentally a political issue subject to the vicissitudes of politics. The moral and economic justifications for the international refugee regime are also highly contested, and this contestation plays out in the political realm. The international refugee regime and legal regulation of the issue is unlikely to be effective for as long as the nation-state continues to be the primary actor in the international world order. This is because the international refugee regime requires enforcement by states to be effective – however, political, moral and economic vicissitudes across the states involved impede its ability to function in its ideal conception. 

Supporting Agencies

  • Professor Andrew Halpin
  • National University of Singapore

References

  1. Afilalo, Ari and Dennis Patterson. “Statecraft, Trade and Strategy: Toward a New Global Order.” In Theorising the Global Legal Order, edited by Andrew Halpin and Volker Roeben. Hart Publishing, 2009.
  2. Agren, David. “‘Bad hombres’: reports claim Trump spoke of sending troops to Mexico,” The Guardian, February 2, 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/02/bad-hombres-reports-claim-trump-threatened-to-send-troops-to-mexico.
  3. Almond, Brenda. “Border Anxiety: Culture, Identity and Belonging.” Philosophy 91, no. 4 (2016): 463–81.
  4. Altman, Matthew C. “The Limits of Kant’s Cosmopolitanism: Theory, Practice, and the Crisis in Syria.” Kantian Review 22, no. 2 (2017): 179–204.
  5. Ataner, Attila. “Refugee Interdiction and the Outer Limits of Sovereignty.” Journal of Law & Equality 3, no. 1 (2004): 7–29.
  6. Baban, Feyzi and Kim Rygiel, “Living with Others: Fostering Radical Cosmopolitanism through Citizenship Politics in Berlin.” Ethics & Global Politics 10, no. 1 (2017): 98–116.
  7. Bauder, Harald. “Understanding Europe’s Refugee Crisis: A Dialectical Approach.” Geopolitics, History and International Relations 8, no. 2 (2016): 64–75.
  8. BBC, “Trump Travel Ban Comes into Effect for Six Countries.” June 30, 2017, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40452360.
  9. Benjamin, Andrew. “Refugees, Cosmopolitanism and the Place of Citizenship.” Architectural Theory Review 7, no. 2 (2002): 101–16.
  10. Betts, Alexander, Gil Loescher, James Milner and Gilburt Damian Loescher. UNHCR: The Politics and Practice of Refugee Protection. New York: Routledge, 2012.
  11. Calloni, Marina. “Cosmopolitanism and the Negotiation of Borders.” Irish Journal of Sociology 20, no. 2 (2012): 153–74.
  12. Chang, Ruth. “Incommensurability (and Incomparability).” In The International Encyclopedia of Ethics, edited by Hugh LaFollette. Wiley, 2013.
  13. Chia, Joyce, Jane McAdam and Kate Purcell, “Asylum in Australia: ‘Operation Sovereign Borders’ and International Law.” Australian Yearbook of International Law 32 (2014): 33–64.
  14. Chimni, Bhupinder S. “The Geopolitics of Refugee Studies: A View from the South.” Journal of Refugee Studies 11 (1998): 350–74.
  15. Cindy Horst, “Forced migration: morality and politics.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 41, no. 3 (2018): 440–47.
  16. Dauvergne, Catherine. “The Dilemma of Rights Discourses for Refugees.” University of New South Wales Law Journal 23 (2000): 56–74.
  17. Gammeltoft-Hansen, Thomas and Nikolas F. Tan, “The End of the Deterrence Paradigm – Future Directions for Global Refugee Policy.” Journal on Migration and Human Security 5, no. 1 (2017): 28–56.
  18. Gerrard, Jessica. “The refugee crisis, non-citizens, border politics and education.” Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 38, no. 6 (2017): 880–91.
  19. Gibney, Matthew J. The Ethics and Politics of Asylum: Liberal Democracy and the Response to Refugees. Cambridge University Press, 2004.
  20. Gillespie, John. “Developing a Framework for Understanding the Localisation of Global Scripts in East Asia.” In Theorising the Global Legal Order, edited by Andrew Halpin and Volker Roeben. Hart Publishing, 2009.
  21. Grey, Colin. “Refugee Law and Its Corruptions.” Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 30, no. 2 (2017): 339–62.
  22. Guiraudon, Virginie and Gallya Lahav, “A Reappraisal of the State Sovereignty Debate: The Case of Migration Control.” Comparative Political Studies 33, no. 2 (2000): 163–95.
  23. Guy S. Goodwin-Gill, “The Politics of Refugee Protection.” Refugee Survey Quarterly 27, no. 1 (2008): 8–23.
  24. Halpin, Andrew. “Conceptual Collisions.” Jurisprudence 2, no. 2 (2011): 507–19.
  25. Halpin, Andrew. “Ideology and Law.” Journal of Political Ideologies 11, no. 2 (2006): 153–68.
  26. Hasegawa, Ko. “Incorporating Foreign Legal Ideas through Translation.” In Theorising the Global Legal Order, edited by Andrew Halpin and Volker Roeben. Hart Publishing, 2009.
  27. Hathaway, James C. “A Reconsideration of the Underlying Premise of Refugee Law.” Harvard International Law Journal 31 (1990): 129–84.
  28. Hathaway, James C. The Rights of Refugees Under International Law. Cambridge University Press, 2005.
  29. Hindess, Barry. “Divide and Rule – The International Character of Modern Citizenship.” European Journal of Social Theory 1, no. 1 (1998): 57–70.
  30. Hirvonen, Ari. “Fear and Anxiety: The Nationalist and Racist Politics of Fantasy.” Law Critique 28, no. 3 (2017): 249–65.
  31. Kattago, Siobhan. “The End of the European Honeymoon?: Refugees, Resentment and the Clash of Solidarities.” Anthropological Journal of European Cultures 26, no. 1 (2017): 35–52.
  32. Keyes, Elizabeth. “Unconventional Refugees.” American University Law Review 67 (2017): 89–164.
  33. Kim, Seunghwan. “Non-Refoulement and Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: State Sovereignty and Migration Controls at Sea in the European Context.” Leiden Journal of International Law 30, no. 1 (2017): 49–70.
  34. Kritzman-Amir, Tally and Thomas Spijkerboer, “On the Morality and Legality of Borders: Border Politics and Asylum Seekers.” Harvard Human Rights Journal 26, no. 1 (2013): 1–38.
  35. Kritzman-Amir, Tally. “Not in My Backyard: On the Morality of Responsibility Sharing in Refugee Law.” Brooklyn Journal of International Law 34 (2009): 355–93.
  36. Ku, Julian and John Yoo. “Globalization and Sovereignty.” Berkeley Journal of International Law 31 (2013): 210–35.
  37. MacCormick, Neil. Institutions of Law: An Essay in Legal Theory. Oxford University Press, 2007.
  38. Mansfield, James. “Extraterritorial Application and Customary Norm Assessment of Non-Refoulement: The Legality of Australia’s Turn-Back Policy.” The University of Notre Dame Australia Law Review 17 (2015): 18–58.
  39. Momin, Suman. “A Human Rights Based Approach to Refugees: A Look at the Syrian Refugee Crisis and the Responses from Germany and the United States.” Duke Forum for Law and Social Change 9 (2017): 55–80.
  40. Quah, Euston and Raymond Toh. Cost-Benefit Analysis: Cases and materials. Routledge, 2011.
  41. Raz, Joseph. “Why the State?,” King’s College London Law School Research Paper 2014-38, 2013.
  42. Ruist, Joakim. “The Fiscal Cost of Refugee Immigration: The Example of Sweden.” Population and Development Review 41, no. 4 (2015): 567–81.
  43. Schuck, Peter H. “Refugee Burden-Sharing: A Modest Proposal.” Yale Journal of International Law 22 (1997): 243–98.
  44. Singer, Peter. “Famine, Affluence, and Morality.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 1, no. 1 (1972): 229–43.
  45. Singer, Peter. Practical Ethics, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
  46. Trauner, Florian and Jocelyn Turton, ““Welcome culture”: The emergence and transformation of a public debate on migration.” Österreichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft 46, no. 1 (2017): 33–42.
  47. Twining, William. “Social Science and Diffusion of Law.” Journal of Law and Society 32, no. 2 (2005): 203–40.
  48. United Nations General Assembly, “Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.” 28 July 1951, accessed January 14, 2020, http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.pdf.
  49. United Nations General Assembly, “Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.” 31 January 1967, accessed January 14, 2020, http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.pdf.
  50. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. “Global Trends – Forced Displacement in 2016,” last modified 19 June 2017, accessed January 14, 2020, http://www.unhcr.org/5943e8a34.pdf.
  51. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. “Non-Governmental Organizations,” accessed January 14, 2020, http://www.unhcr.org/non-governmental-organizations.html.
  52. Waldron, Jeremy. “Are Sovereigns Entitled to the Benefit of the International Rule of Law?” European Journal of International Law 22, no. 2 (2011): 315–43.
  53. Walling, Carrie Booth. “Human Rights Norms, State Sovereignty and Humanitarian Intervention.” Human Rights Quarterly 37 (2015): 383–13.
  54. Wellman, Christopher H. “Freedom of Movement and the Rights to Enter and Exit.” In Migration in Political Theory: The Ethics of Movement and Membership, edited by Sarah Fine and Lea Ypi. Oxford University Press, 2016.
  55. Wellman, Christopher H. “Immigration and Freedom of Association.” Ethics 119, no. 1 (2008): 109–41.
  56. White, Stuart. “Freedom of Association and the Right to Exclude.” Journal of Political Philosophy 5 (1997): 373–91.
  57. William Twining, General Jurisprudence: Understanding Law from a Global Perspective. Cambridge University Press, 2009.
  58. Worster, William Thomas. “The Contemporary International Law Status of the Right to Receive Asylum.” International Journal of Refugee Law 26 (2014): 477–90.
  59. Yamagishi, Toshio, Yang Li, Haruto Takagishi, Yoshie Matsumoto and Toko Kiyonari. “In Search of Homo Economicus.” Psychological Science 25, no. 9 (2014): 1699–711.

Downloads

Published

2020-12-24

How to Cite

Ng Yan Chao, I. (2020). Cosmopolitanism and Nationalism: A Critique of the Effectiveness of the International Refugee Regime. Kyiv-Mohyla Law and Politics Journal, (6), 159–176. https://doi.org/10.18523/kmlpj220747.2020-6.159-176

Issue

No. 6 (2020)

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2020 Ivan Ng Yan Chao

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Kyiv-Mohyla Law and Politics Journal provides free access to original research without restriction barriers (i.e. subscription fees, licensing fees etc.).

Unless otherwise indicated, content is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license, which means you are free to:

distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your work, even commercially

...provided that any use is made with attribution to author(s) and Kyiv-Mohyla Law and Politics Journal.

The copyright in the article or any other submission to Kyiv-Mohyla Law and Politics Journal shall remain with the author(s).

The journal allows the author(s) to hold the copyright without restrictions and will retain publishing rights without restrictions.