Replacing the Persecution Condition for Refugeehood

IF 0.1 0 PHILOSOPHY
E. Beaton
{"title":"Replacing the Persecution Condition for Refugeehood","authors":"E. Beaton","doi":"10.25162/arsp-2020-0001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this article, earlier versions of which were presented at the IVR World Congress in 2019 and in graduate student workshops at the University of Pennsylvania, the author offers a critical look at the existing definition of a refugee in international law, in particular, in the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. The Convention recognizes a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion as a condition for a person to be granted refugee status. However, this leaves significant gaps in the protection of persons fleeing indiscriminate or generalized violence or harm, although such people today constitute a significant proportion of those forced to move from their country of nationality. The author emphasizes that within some regions and countries there are legal instruments capable of bridging these gaps (the 1969 Organization of African Unity Convention on the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa, the 1984 Cartagena Declaration on Refugees, as well as temporary protection in the EU and the US), but the UN Convention continues to be deficient in this regard. \nThe author proposes to correct these shortcomings by applying the “needs-first” approach, which understands refugees as all displaced persons fleeing sufficiently serious threats. The author presents her own definition of a refugee as “any person with a well-founded fear that their fundamental human rights are urgently threatened; who would have no recourse to their home government, even if appropriate international assistance were available; and whose interests can only or best satisfied by means of refugee – that is, by means of protection from a political authority that is not their own, usually in the form of asylum within the territory of that country.” \nThe author acknowledges that her proposed “needs-first” approach is not without its drawbacks, and the main challenge in its implementation is to avoid becoming a purely humanitarian measure and to preserve the political identity of the individuals who are fleeing the threat to countries not of their nationality.","PeriodicalId":41477,"journal":{"name":"Archiv fur Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archiv fur Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25162/arsp-2020-0001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this article, earlier versions of which were presented at the IVR World Congress in 2019 and in graduate student workshops at the University of Pennsylvania, the author offers a critical look at the existing definition of a refugee in international law, in particular, in the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. The Convention recognizes a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion as a condition for a person to be granted refugee status. However, this leaves significant gaps in the protection of persons fleeing indiscriminate or generalized violence or harm, although such people today constitute a significant proportion of those forced to move from their country of nationality. The author emphasizes that within some regions and countries there are legal instruments capable of bridging these gaps (the 1969 Organization of African Unity Convention on the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa, the 1984 Cartagena Declaration on Refugees, as well as temporary protection in the EU and the US), but the UN Convention continues to be deficient in this regard. The author proposes to correct these shortcomings by applying the “needs-first” approach, which understands refugees as all displaced persons fleeing sufficiently serious threats. The author presents her own definition of a refugee as “any person with a well-founded fear that their fundamental human rights are urgently threatened; who would have no recourse to their home government, even if appropriate international assistance were available; and whose interests can only or best satisfied by means of refugee – that is, by means of protection from a political authority that is not their own, usually in the form of asylum within the territory of that country.” The author acknowledges that her proposed “needs-first” approach is not without its drawbacks, and the main challenge in its implementation is to avoid becoming a purely humanitarian measure and to preserve the political identity of the individuals who are fleeing the threat to countries not of their nationality.
取代难民身份的迫害条件
本文的早期版本在2019年的IVR世界大会和宾夕法尼亚大学的研究生研讨会上发表,作者对国际法中现有的难民定义,特别是1951年《关于难民地位的公约》中的难民定义进行了批判性的审视。《公约》承认,有充分理由担心因种族、宗教、国籍、某一特定社会群体的成员或政治观点而受到迫害是一个人获得难民地位的一个条件。然而,这在保护逃离不分青红皂白或普遍暴力或伤害的人方面留下了重大差距,尽管这些人今天在被迫离开其国籍国的人中占很大比例。作者强调,在一些地区和国家有能够弥合这些差距的法律文书(1969年非洲统一组织关于非洲难民问题具体方面的公约,1984年关于难民的卡塔赫纳宣言,以及欧盟和美国的临时保护),但联合国公约在这方面仍然存在缺陷。作者建议采用“需要优先”的办法来纠正这些缺点,这种办法将难民理解为逃离严重威胁的所有流离失所者。作者提出了她自己对难民的定义:“任何有充分理由担心其基本人权受到紧急威胁的人;即使有适当的国际援助,他们也无法向本国政府求助;他们的利益只能或最好地通过难民的方式得到满足,也就是说,通过不属于他们自己的政治当局的保护,通常是在该国领土内的庇护形式。”发件人承认,她提出的“需要优先”的办法并非没有缺点,其执行的主要挑战是避免成为一项纯粹的人道主义措施,并保持逃离威胁到非其国籍国家的个人的政治身份。
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
21
×
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