The Non-Ratification of the 1951 Convention on Refugees: An Indian Paradoxical Approach to Human Rights

Q4 Social Sciences
Indira Boutier
{"title":"The Non-Ratification of the 1951 Convention on Refugees: An Indian Paradoxical Approach to Human Rights","authors":"Indira Boutier","doi":"10.7202/1079425ar","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The following paper explores the position of India on refugees and its resistance to signing the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. It first revisits the colonial frame in which a refugee policy was thrust upon the country. Secondly, it analyzes the geopolitical and internal constraints that determined India’s approach to the refugee question in the 1950s. Finally, it focuses on the current moment to discuss the implications of the recent amendment of the Citizenship Act for refugees in India. Such a long-term approach can open the door to a process of accommodation both by international organizations and by national governments around some universal humanitarian principles that must govern refugee policies. States remain sovereign in their international commitments. They choose to ratify a treaty or not, and to denounce it or not. In addition, human rights institutions are regularly criticized and attacked by States while their legitimacy is often questioned. It is this sovereign freedom of each State, which makes this matter difficult to grasp. We believe that understanding the factors influencing States in their choices is particularly crucial in this period of instability in international relations.","PeriodicalId":39264,"journal":{"name":"Quebec Journal of International Law","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quebec Journal of International Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7202/1079425ar","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The following paper explores the position of India on refugees and its resistance to signing the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. It first revisits the colonial frame in which a refugee policy was thrust upon the country. Secondly, it analyzes the geopolitical and internal constraints that determined India’s approach to the refugee question in the 1950s. Finally, it focuses on the current moment to discuss the implications of the recent amendment of the Citizenship Act for refugees in India. Such a long-term approach can open the door to a process of accommodation both by international organizations and by national governments around some universal humanitarian principles that must govern refugee policies. States remain sovereign in their international commitments. They choose to ratify a treaty or not, and to denounce it or not. In addition, human rights institutions are regularly criticized and attacked by States while their legitimacy is often questioned. It is this sovereign freedom of each State, which makes this matter difficult to grasp. We believe that understanding the factors influencing States in their choices is particularly crucial in this period of instability in international relations.
不批准1951年难民公约:印度对人权的矛盾态度
以下文章探讨了印度在难民问题上的立场及其对签署1951年《关于难民地位的公约》的抵制。它首先回顾了强加给这个国家的难民政策的殖民框架。其次,分析了决定印度在20世纪50年代处理难民问题的地缘政治和内部制约因素。最后,本文集中讨论了最近修订的《公民法》对印度难民的影响。这种长期办法可以为国际组织和各国政府围绕一些必须指导难民政策的普遍人道主义原则进行妥协的进程打开大门。各国在履行其国际承诺方面保持主权。他们可以选择是否批准一项条约,也可以选择是否谴责该条约。此外,人权机构经常受到各国的批评和攻击,其合法性经常受到质疑。正是每个国家的这种主权自由使这个问题难以掌握。我们认为,在这一国际关系不稳定时期,了解影响各国作出选择的因素尤为重要。
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
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信