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

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.