国家可以在难民中进行选择吗?

IF 0.5 3区 哲学 Q4 ETHICS
M. Cherem
{"title":"国家可以在难民中进行选择吗?","authors":"M. Cherem","doi":"10.1080/16544951.2020.1735018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article argues that there is no general ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer to the question of whether states may permissibly use group-based criteria to permanently resettle refugees from certain contexts. Indeed, I argue that this question only makes sense with respect to a range of narrowly circumscribed scenarios. And, even though it may appear that states have wide discretion with respect to refugees in these scenarios, the way that these scenarios have arisen and continue to be maintained casts doubt upon even this limited conclusion Nevertheless, consulting both the history and practice of international refugee law can help us understand why some particular forms of group-based prioritizations are foreclosed. Such attention to practice based details also sensitizes us to the solution structure (and historic interest constellation) behind refugee law, as well as those institutional tweaks and patches that could actually stand a chance of making a marked difference.","PeriodicalId":55964,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & Global Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"May states select among refugees?\",\"authors\":\"M. Cherem\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/16544951.2020.1735018\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This article argues that there is no general ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer to the question of whether states may permissibly use group-based criteria to permanently resettle refugees from certain contexts. Indeed, I argue that this question only makes sense with respect to a range of narrowly circumscribed scenarios. And, even though it may appear that states have wide discretion with respect to refugees in these scenarios, the way that these scenarios have arisen and continue to be maintained casts doubt upon even this limited conclusion Nevertheless, consulting both the history and practice of international refugee law can help us understand why some particular forms of group-based prioritizations are foreclosed. Such attention to practice based details also sensitizes us to the solution structure (and historic interest constellation) behind refugee law, as well as those institutional tweaks and patches that could actually stand a chance of making a marked difference.\",\"PeriodicalId\":55964,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ethics & Global Politics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ethics & Global Politics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/16544951.2020.1735018\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics & Global Politics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/16544951.2020.1735018","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

本文认为,对于国家是否可以允许使用基于群体的标准来永久安置来自某些背景的难民这个问题,没有一般的“是”或“否”的答案。事实上,我认为这个问题只在一系列狭窄的限定情况下才有意义。而且,尽管在这些情况下,国家似乎对难民有广泛的自由裁量权,但这些情况出现并继续维持的方式使人们对这一有限的结论产生了怀疑。然而,咨询国际难民法的历史和实践可以帮助我们理解为什么某些特定形式的基于群体的优先次序被取消了。这种对基于实践的细节的关注也使我们对难民法背后的解决方案结构(和历史利益群)敏感,以及那些制度性的调整和补丁实际上可能有机会产生显著的不同。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
May states select among refugees?
ABSTRACT This article argues that there is no general ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer to the question of whether states may permissibly use group-based criteria to permanently resettle refugees from certain contexts. Indeed, I argue that this question only makes sense with respect to a range of narrowly circumscribed scenarios. And, even though it may appear that states have wide discretion with respect to refugees in these scenarios, the way that these scenarios have arisen and continue to be maintained casts doubt upon even this limited conclusion Nevertheless, consulting both the history and practice of international refugee law can help us understand why some particular forms of group-based prioritizations are foreclosed. Such attention to practice based details also sensitizes us to the solution structure (and historic interest constellation) behind refugee law, as well as those institutional tweaks and patches that could actually stand a chance of making a marked difference.
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
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
审稿时长
22 weeks
×
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