The twentieth century has birthed a contentious political figure: the refugee, defined as “any person who, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his or her nationality and is unable to [provide him or herself] the protection of that country” (Brown, McLean, McMillan, 2018: 473). With their condition arises the question of the influence they have on a nation-wide level- where certain aspects of nations’ founding characteristics are potentially being threatened by the presence of refugeehood. This characteristic takes the form of national sovereignty, which “is the claim by the state to full self-government, and the mutual recognition of claims of sovereignty is the basis of international society” (Brown, McLean, McMillan, 2018: 519).
This is fundamental in understanding international relations today, as it fundamentally changes how we perceive current global dynamics. However, it can be argued that the figure of the refugee has positively shifted our comprehension of sovereignty and nationhood, despite how contested its influence may be. With that, we must ask ourselves if the figure of the refugee does upturn understandings of such political concepts in international relations. We will begin by explaining how refugees contest the national sovereignty of their home-states through their pursuit of safety, which could be challenging their countries’ political objectives. We will continue however by analyzing how sovereignty and nationhood are not significantly upturned due to the work of international actors to preserve such concepts within nation-states. Finally, we will find how international law has represented the figure of the refugee where such concepts are inevitably challenged due to the power international rule withholds over sovereign states.
Refugees have changed the notions of sovereignty and nationhood by challenging the political aspects of these concepts through which nation-states are able to determine themselves on a global scale. The refugee has become “an essentially contested concept” according to Conolly (Haddad, 2008: 26). Over the course of the years, many organizations and political figures have attempted to define it, although never coming to a clear consensus. As stated previously, refugeehood is founded upon the element of persecution; implicating that the refugee in question is fleeing a form of violence.
Refugees have been defined as individuals “whose government fails to protect their basic needs” (Shacknove, 1985: 284). When a government becomes responsible for this threat - meaning the violence is a deliberate and calculated act on the part of the state as a means of control over its population – this is what tends to be considered persecution on a much more severe level. This cements the role the state has in provoking the phenomena of refugeehood, as it is the government’s responsibility to ensure the safety and protection of its citizenry against persecution.
This is particularly relevant to the issue of sovereignty as the government utilizes this concept as a way to assert itself on a global scale: it is the means through which a state defines itself, not only its territorial integrity but through its socio-political and cultural integrity as well. It is the foundation of a nation’s identity, making this concept of fundamental importance in world politics. However, sovereignty and nationhood have been heavily contested by the presence of refugees in international relations – more specifically political refugees, as they present a threat to the nations from which they are fleeing. There are numerous examples found throughout history that display the apparent link between totalitarianism and refugeehood, the former leading to the latter.
During World War II, victims of ethnic genocide and war have attempted to flee Europe to escape the growing influence of Nazi Germany. These victims include “Russians [escaping] the Russian Revolution, Armenians fleeing genocide, and Jews fleeing persecution across Europe” (Bretts, Loescher, 2011: 7). Today, we find that many of the refugees today originate from countries where religious extremism is rampant, leading to violent conflicts, as seen in “Libya…and Turkey” (Stierl, 2018: 705). Authoritarian regimes are rooted in the constant threat of violence against their respective populations if they do not comply with their political projects.
As we have established previously, refugeehood is mainly determined by persecution, made all the more severe if this is perpetrated by governments inherently designed to protect their people.
However, when the populations in question flee their respective countries to no longer be subject to discrimination, they present a threat to their nation’s sovereignty as they directly challenge their government’s political ideals. Dictatorships have ensured to make refugees’ escape as difficult as possible in order to preserve an image to the international community that would not hinder at its legitimacy on a global scale: democracy having now been mostly accepted as an ideal model in world politics, countries today that do not abide by a democratic ideal are condemned by societies, organizations and political figureheads alike; resulting in backlash so severe that these undemocratic states could even be sanctioned.
In addition, we must understand how the experience of the refugee no longer belongs to the refugee in question: because states are internationally linked through processes of globalization, this means that the refugee’s escape is made public through reports from international organizations and media alike. They reflect their country of origin’s mistreatment of its population, as no one would choose to flee their home if they did not have a logical incentive in doing so. Refugeehood is an “inevitable consequence of the state system” (Bretts, Loescher, 2011: 15). As a result, the plight of the refugee can be easily interpreted as a criticism of a state’s political objectives and undemocratic incentives; making the state in question a target of international criticism, which significantly hinders at its sovereignty. We may infer through these points that the figure of the refugee does indeed upturn understandings of sovereignty in international relations as they challenge their countries of origins’ political ideals through their desire for safety; openly displaying how refugeehood is a consequence of undemocratic and discriminatory politics.
That being said, it may be argued that refugeehood has not challenged sovereignty and nationhood as much as one could initially think: international organizations have aimed to preserve territorial sovereignty of nation-states by ensuring that refugee flows are controlled and managed across the globe in a way that would not hinder at the nationhood of these countries.
The regulation of refugee flows is key in ensuring stability and order within the nations that accept these individuals: according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (or UNHRC), a study in 2019 revealed there are today 70.8 million forcibly displaced people in the world today, including 25.9 million refugees. The countries that enharbour high levels of refugee density – from Lebanon to Sweden (Wood, 2019) - face significant socio-political issues that can harm a country’s nationhood. It is essential to keep refugee flows at a stable level so as to not compromise the sovereignty of nation-states that accept these refugees.
This leads us to the following question: how is this concept managed in the context of a refugee crisis? International organizations and institutions have attempted to control refugee flows in a way that would maintain a regulated ratio between citizens of a given state and the refugees that desire to inhabit it.
The institution in question is the Refugee Convention, which was drafted following World War II as a response to the refugee crises that stemmed from the amount of ethnic and religious minorities that had attempted to flee Nazi influence: its goals were to successfully rehabilitate refugees. The Convention adopts a principle entitled “refoulement”, a provision that “translates into an effective right to remain in a host state” (Dauvergne, 2003: 4) in order to avoid persecution in their home-states. This means that any nation-state that is a part of the Refugee Convention must undertake a certain number of refugees into its care as a means of protection.
It may appear that the Convention displays little consideration for the sovereign integrity of the countries involved in this organization; seeing as any state that does not abide to the rule of the organization would instead opt to refuse “those who are not their nationals” (Dauvergne, 2003: 4). However, the sovereignty and nationhood of the nations involved are not as compromised as one may initially believe.
Despite the seemingly contradictory relationship between the Refugee Convention and national sovereignty, we must take into account the following points which prove that the figure of the refugee does not upturn understandings of sovereignty and nationhood as much as one may initially believe.
First and foremost, all nation-states belonging to the Refugee Convention have willingly decided to commit themselves to this organization as an act of sovereignty. By doing so they fully comprehend the implication of their participation in such an institution and must abide by its principles and provisions regarding refugeehood, including the “permission to remain” (Dauvergne, 2003: 5).
As a result, “this commitment does not redefine or challenge sovereignty as traditionally understood” as it is “commonplace in international law” (Dauvergne, 2003: 5). In addition, the nation-states committed to the Convention still impose “target or quota numbers for domestic refugee determinations” (Dauvergne, 2003: 5), meaning they still possess a certain amount of independence from the institution as they can determine the exact number of refugees to accept into their care.
Moreover, the national sovereignty of Western states has not been deeply affected by the principles of the Convention, as many of them have directly gone against these provisions, despite being member-states of the organization. An example of this is Canada, which despite being a member of the Convention has enacted the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, “which includes more stringent exclusions on the basis of criminality than the exclusions or reasons for expulsion in the Refugee Convention” (Dauvergne, 2003: 5). As a result, many member-states are unwilling to yield their sovereign privileges despite having agreed to cede them to the Convention.
The compromise of national sovereignty is not the goal of the Convention as much as it is an inevitable consequence of refugee protection. If the figure of the refugee is represented through international institutions, such as the Refugee Convention – aiming to protect the interest and wellbeing of these individuals – then we may affirm that it does not upturn understandings of sovereignty and nationhood in international relations as we have seen that these concepts are not heavily impacted by the presence of these organizations.
As a matter of fact, they aim to regulate refugee flows to preserve ideals of national sovereignty to the best of their ability, all the while providing them safety from persecution.
However, it can be argued that the figure of the refugee has fundamentally changed international law as a whole as entire categories of forcibly displaced peoples are now legally represented and supported worldwide, which in turn does affect nation-states’ understanding of their national sovereignty as they must abide by the rule of such law.
Refugees are inherently international figures, seeing as they migrate from one country to another, which means that any legal framework designed to represent them will be of international nature as well. International law has declared that “the refugee is not illegal” (Haddad, 2008: 28), much to the disapproval of numerous nation-states, who have sought to challenge the integrity and legitimacy of international law by arguing that national sovereignty should prevail over international rule as individual countries have each their own set of laws they believe should be applied.
However, through the creation of international organizations that have amassed considerable influence over the past decades- as seen with the example of Watch the Med, a “hotline for people in distress at sea” (Stierl, 2018: 706), which also has amassed legitimacy in international spheres. Refugee law has become a powerful current that has now upturned understandings of national sovereignty as it has been challenged by the presence of these international actors that are at the center of much political contention. They constitute “a significant part of the emerging international focus on state fragility” (Bretts, Loescher, 2011: 10).
Refugees have progressively established their status as mainstream actors in international law as over the course of history: as globalization became more a powerful phenomenon, refugees were able to assert themselves globally on a more profound level. An example of such assertion took place during one of the first refugee crises, as World War II was taking place: as hundreds of thousands fled persecution across Europe, a specific identification form called the “Nansen card” was introduced, “which were internationally recognized identity cards entitling hundreds of thousands of stateless people and refugees to travel to a country that would allow them to integrate” (Bretts, Loescher, 2011: 8).
Another example can be found in that of the humanitarian crises during the 1990’s, where the internal conflicts involving “the First Gulf War and the break-up of the Former Yugoslavia” had presented – according to the UN Charter – “a threat to international peace and security” (Bretts, Loescher, 2011: 9), hence its intervention in the conflicts. Here, we find how international law prevails over the actions of sovereign states through the presence of international actors that fight for the rights of the refugee.
However, the representation of refugees in such prestigious legal framework has been heavily contested: following the War on Terror and the rise of religious extremism, they have also been subject to much discrimination and hostility from nation-states, particularly in the West (Connolly, 2018).
Political actors and members of the population alike feel deeply threatened by foreigners; enharbouring xenophobic and insular discourse as a response to the presence of refugees. To them this is justified, as they believe that their ideal of national sovereignty has been tampered by the figure of the refugee. Despite the efforts of right-wing movements to discredit this, refugees are being recognized as “an important element of successful reconstruction and peace-building” (Bretts, Loescher, 2011: 10), meaning they are not represented merely as victims but also as active solutions to world conflict, seeing as they “contribute to explaining the behavior of states and other actors towards forced migration” (Bretts, Loescher, 2011: 11).
The nature of the refugee is that of an “insider and outsider” (Bretts, Loescher, 2011: 15) which is what allows them to upturn understandings of sovereignty and nationhood: they have challenged the foundation of nation-states by redefining the basis of nationality in world politics, which in turn has shifted international law’s focus on national sovereignty.
We may conclude with the understanding that the figure of the refugee has overall upturned our comprehension of national sovereignty in international relations, as this political actor has deeply shifted the course of world politics through its ability to have challenged political ideals, the nature of sovereign power and international law as a whole. Refugees reflect an everchanging political system that is constantly evolving: there is much room for development concerning the treatment of such individuals, however today there is no doubt that “sovereignty and refugees are mutually constituted” (Bretts, Loescher, 2011: 15) as both concepts are now interlinked in the context of a deeply interconnected world where the figure of the refugee is allowed to prosper.
Bibliography
Bretts, A. Loescher, G. 2011, Refugees in International Relations, Cambridge University Press, p. 7-15
Brown, G. McLean, I. McMillan, A. 2018, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics and International Relations, Fourth Edition, p. 473-519
Connolly, K. 2018, 'Merkel Muss Weg': far-right protests target German chancellor in Chemnitz, The Guardian, p. 1-2
Dauvergne, C. 2003, Challenges to sovereignty: migration laws for the 21st century, Faculty of Law University of British Columbia, United Nation High Commissioner for Refugees, p. 4-5
Haddad, E. 2008, The Refugee in International Society: Between Sovereigns, Who is not a Refugee?, Cambridge University Press, p. 26-28
Shacknove, A. 1985, Ethics, Who is a Refugee?, The University of Chicago Press Journals, p. 283-284
Stierl, M. 2018, A fleet of Mediterranean Border Humanitarians, Antipode: a radical journal of geography, p. 705-706
Wood, J. 2019, These countries are home to the highest proportion of refugees in the world, World Economic Forum, p. 1-2
Comments