Preserving Law and Order: How Institutions Implementing International Norms on Refugee Protection Can Restrict Asylum Outcomes

IF 3.5 2区社会学 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

International Political Sociology Pub Date : 2024-01-27 DOI:10.1093/ips/olae001

Angela Y McClean

{"title":"Preserving Law and Order: How Institutions Implementing International Norms on Refugee Protection Can Restrict Asylum Outcomes","authors":"Angela Y McClean","doi":"10.1093/ips/olae001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The international frameworks on refugee protection, including the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, are among the strongest norms to govern international mobility. Despite the salience and universality of these international norms, however, asylum outcomes, as indicated by refugee recognition rates (RRRs), vary extensively across state parties. The variation in RRR signals a critical normative gap between the institutionalization and implementation of international norms on refugee protection. In this article, I offer an explanation for this gap by examining the role of domestic institutions responsible for implementing relevant international (and domestic) laws on the ground. Through in-depth interviews, participant observation, and analysis of government, media, and non-governmental organization materials, I investigate the case of South Korea, a wealthy liberal democracy known for its exceptionally low RRR. I argue that South Korea’s low RRR is a result of the preexisting and prevailing ethos of the institutions responsible for refugee status determination, which is deeply rooted in the preservation of law and order and therefore fundamentally conflicts with the human protection principles underlying the Convention.","PeriodicalId":47361,"journal":{"name":"International Political Sociology","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Political Sociology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ips/olae001","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

The international frameworks on refugee protection, including the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, are among the strongest norms to govern international mobility. Despite the salience and universality of these international norms, however, asylum outcomes, as indicated by refugee recognition rates (RRRs), vary extensively across state parties. The variation in RRR signals a critical normative gap between the institutionalization and implementation of international norms on refugee protection. In this article, I offer an explanation for this gap by examining the role of domestic institutions responsible for implementing relevant international (and domestic) laws on the ground. Through in-depth interviews, participant observation, and analysis of government, media, and non-governmental organization materials, I investigate the case of South Korea, a wealthy liberal democracy known for its exceptionally low RRR. I argue that South Korea’s low RRR is a result of the preexisting and prevailing ethos of the institutions responsible for refugee status determination, which is deeply rooted in the preservation of law and order and therefore fundamentally conflicts with the human protection principles underlying the Convention.

查看原文本刊更多论文

维护法律和秩序：执行难民保护国际规范的机构如何限制庇护结果

关于难民保护的国际框架，包括1951年《关于难民地位的公约》和1967年《关于难民地位的议定书》，是规范国际流动性的最强有力的准则之一。尽管这些国际准则具有显著性和普遍性，但以难民确认率（RRRs）为标志的庇护结果在各缔约国之间却大相径庭。难民承认率的差异表明，在难民保护国际准则的制度化和实施之间存在着严重的规范差距。在本文中，笔者通过考察负责在当地执行相关国际（和国内）法律的国内机构的作用，为这一差距提供了解释。通过深入访谈、参与观察以及对政府、媒体和非政府组织材料的分析，我对韩国的案例进行了调查，韩国是一个富裕的自由民主国家，以其极低的难民遣返率而闻名。我认为，韩国的难民地位确定率低是负责难民地位确定的机构根深蒂固的维护法律和秩序的既有和普遍精神造成的，因此从根本上与《公约》所依据的人类保护原则相冲突。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

International Political Sociology Multiple-

CiteScore

4.80

自引率

12.50%

发文量

期刊介绍： International Political Sociology (IPS), responds to the need for more productive collaboration among political sociologists, international relations specialists and sociopolitical theorists. It is especially concerned with challenges arising from contemporary transformations of social, political, and global orders given the statist forms of traditional sociologies and the marginalization of social processes in many approaches to international relations. IPS is committed to theoretical innovation, new modes of empirical research and the geographical and cultural diversification of research beyond the usual circuits of European and North-American scholarship.