欧洲中心主义与国际难民制度

IF 0.3 3区 历史学 Q2 HISTORY
L. Madokoro
{"title":"欧洲中心主义与国际难民制度","authors":"L. Madokoro","doi":"10.1177/16118944221077423","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As refugees know, and scholars have demonstrated, there are many ways in which the international refugee regime is Eurocentric. This includes legal definitions of refugeehood, mental maps of who is a refugee, ideas about where refugees come from, and who takes the responsibility for receiving and caring for refugees. In the fields of Refugee Studies and Critical Refugee Studies there exists a robust literature on the question of Eurocentrism, particularly as regards the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, recognized as the cornerstone of the contemporary international refugee regime. There are many valid critiques. Yet the tendency to condemn existing practices on the basis of Eurocentrism alone occludes the generalized anti-refugee sentiment, or the generalized view of refugees as a problem, which influenced the shape and character of the 1951 convention. As this essay will demonstrate, the Eurocentric nature of the convention was partly the result of an effort to make the so-called ‘refugee problem’ more manageable, though as a solution it ultimately exacerbated other issues. The tensions inherent in the convention’s approach became clear in 2015 when a record 1.3 million refugees sought asylum in Europe. States and opponents resisted this movement by","PeriodicalId":44275,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Modern European History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Eurocentrism and the International Refugee Regime\",\"authors\":\"L. Madokoro\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/16118944221077423\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"As refugees know, and scholars have demonstrated, there are many ways in which the international refugee regime is Eurocentric. This includes legal definitions of refugeehood, mental maps of who is a refugee, ideas about where refugees come from, and who takes the responsibility for receiving and caring for refugees. In the fields of Refugee Studies and Critical Refugee Studies there exists a robust literature on the question of Eurocentrism, particularly as regards the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, recognized as the cornerstone of the contemporary international refugee regime. There are many valid critiques. Yet the tendency to condemn existing practices on the basis of Eurocentrism alone occludes the generalized anti-refugee sentiment, or the generalized view of refugees as a problem, which influenced the shape and character of the 1951 convention. As this essay will demonstrate, the Eurocentric nature of the convention was partly the result of an effort to make the so-called ‘refugee problem’ more manageable, though as a solution it ultimately exacerbated other issues. The tensions inherent in the convention’s approach became clear in 2015 when a record 1.3 million refugees sought asylum in Europe. States and opponents resisted this movement by\",\"PeriodicalId\":44275,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Modern European History\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Modern European History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/16118944221077423\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Modern European History","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/16118944221077423","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

正如难民所知,学者们已经证明的那样,国际难民制度在很多方面都是以欧洲为中心的。这包括难民身份的法律定义、谁是难民的心理地图、难民来自哪里的想法以及谁负责接收和照顾难民。在难民研究和关键难民研究领域,有大量关于欧洲中心主义问题的文献,特别是1951年《联合国难民地位公约》,该公约被公认为当代国际难民制度的基石。有许多有效的批评。然而,仅仅以欧洲中心主义为基础谴责现有做法的倾向,掩盖了普遍的反难民情绪,或将难民视为一个问题的普遍看法,这影响了1951年公约的形式和特点。正如本文所表明的那样,该公约以欧洲为中心的性质在一定程度上是为了使所谓的“难民问题”更易于管理,尽管作为一种解决方案,它最终加剧了其他问题。2015年,当创纪录的130万难民在欧洲寻求庇护时,公约方法中固有的紧张关系变得明显。国家和反对者通过
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Eurocentrism and the International Refugee Regime
As refugees know, and scholars have demonstrated, there are many ways in which the international refugee regime is Eurocentric. This includes legal definitions of refugeehood, mental maps of who is a refugee, ideas about where refugees come from, and who takes the responsibility for receiving and caring for refugees. In the fields of Refugee Studies and Critical Refugee Studies there exists a robust literature on the question of Eurocentrism, particularly as regards the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, recognized as the cornerstone of the contemporary international refugee regime. There are many valid critiques. Yet the tendency to condemn existing practices on the basis of Eurocentrism alone occludes the generalized anti-refugee sentiment, or the generalized view of refugees as a problem, which influenced the shape and character of the 1951 convention. As this essay will demonstrate, the Eurocentric nature of the convention was partly the result of an effort to make the so-called ‘refugee problem’ more manageable, though as a solution it ultimately exacerbated other issues. The tensions inherent in the convention’s approach became clear in 2015 when a record 1.3 million refugees sought asylum in Europe. States and opponents resisted this movement by
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
42
×
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