Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.
  • Should approaches to post-conflict justice and reconciliation be determined globally, nationally or locally?

    13 December 2013

    This article responds to the normative question of whether post-conflict justice and reconciliation should be determined at the global, national or local level through an analysis of the tripartite judicial framework that has emerged in Rwanda in the aftermath of the 1994 genocide. It evaluates the experience of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), national courts and gacaca courts across two interdisciplinary theoretical debates: first, the anthropological and philosophical question of relativism versus universalism; second, the socio-legal question of retribution versus restoration. The article argues that these two theoretical debates, pervasive in the literature, represent false dichotomies and that, in the case of Rwanda, there has been a complex and dynamic relationship between approaches to justice adopted at each level. Although in practice political tensions and elite interests have created contradictions and undermined judicial credibility at every level, the experience points to how each level could potentially be complementary.

  • The international relations of the 'new' extra-territorial approaches to refugee protection

    13 December 2013

    During 2003 there was an immense amount of debate about the possibility of states adopting extraterritorial approaches to asylum processing and refugee protection, and about such policies’ compatibility with international refugee and human rights law. The debate has centred on two central policy initiatives: the so-called “UK Proposals” and UNHCR’s “Convention Plus.” It has so far focused primarily on the practical and legal consequences of these initiatives. What has been less clear is any explanation of the UK’s (and other supportive states’) motivation in aspiring to de-territorialize refugee protection and of UNHCR’s strategy in the evolving consultations. After clarifying the conceptual and political relationship between the two sets of proposals, the article explores the motivation and international relations underlying them, from the perspectives of the UK Government and UNHCR.

  • Public goods theory and the provision of refugee protection: the role of the joint-product model in burden-sharing theory

    13 December 2013

    Much of the existing forced migration literature on burden‐sharing implicitly or explicitly assumes humanitarian provision to refugees, whether in the form of asylum or contributions to international refugee agencies, to be an international public good. This assumption has profound implications because it is interpreted to imply that refugee provision is inevitably characterized by collective action failure in the absence of a highly integrated formal regime structure. However, the existing debate has yet to identify explicitly what those public benefits are or to distinguish between the range of benefits and their varying degrees of excludability between states. This paper attempts to address these shortcomings by introducing the notion of ‘joint‐products’ to the burden‐sharing debate, arguing that there are multiple benefits, varying in their degree of excludability, that accrue to the providing states. The policy implications for regime structure and the incentives required to induce provision are explored.

  • Citizenship, deportation and the boundaries of belonging

    13 December 2013

    Taking the growing use of deportation by many states, including the UK and the USA, as its point of departure, this article examines the implications of deportation for how citizenship is understood and conceptualised in liberal states. We follow scholars such as Walters (2002, Citizenship studies, 6 (2), 265–292) and Nicholas De Genova (2010, The deportation regime: sovereignty, space and freedom of movement. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 33–65) in seeing deportation as a practice that is ‘constitutive of citizenship’, one that reaffirms the formal and normative boundaries of membership in an international system of nominally independent states. However, we draw on the UK to show that, as a particularly definitive and symbolically resonant way of dividing citizens from (putative) strangers, deportation is liable to generate conflicts amongst citizens and between citizens and the state over the question of who is part of the normative community of members. Such conflict is, we show, a key and everyday feature of the many local anti-deportation campaigns that currently operate in support of individuals and families facing expulsion in liberal states. Although often used by governmental elites as a way to reaffirm the shared significance of citizenship, deportation, we suggest, may serve to highlight just how divided and confused modern societies are in how they conceptualise both who is a member and who has the right to judge who belongs.

  • Asylum Policy

    13 December 2013

    This policy primer examines some of the key questions underlying the UK’s asylum policy, focusing on the challenges and tensions between protecting human rights and ensuring that immigration controls are not undermined.

  • Who should be included? Non-citizens, conflict and the constitution of the citizenry

    13 December 2013

    Book description: Violent conflict in multiethnic societies in the developing world is a pre-eminent problem of the twenty-first century. Drawing on original quantitative and qualitative research, this book shows that horizontal inequalities among religious or ethnic groups, in political, social, economic or cultural dimensions, are an important catalyst of such conflicts. The contributors identify policies to reduce horizontal inequalities and argue that such policies should now be routinely incorporated into the development agenda. Providing a major contribution to current debates on the prevention of conflict, this book will interest all those concerned with policy in multiethnic societies.

  • Deportation

    13 December 2013

    Book description: For any reader needing a concise yet expert explanation of a subject in law The New Oxford Companion to Law is the ideal reference work. Providing greater depth than can be found in legal dictionaries but always accessible to the non-specialist, entries in the Companion cover all areas of law and legal systems and are extensively cross-referenced for ease of navigation. The Companion draws upon the expertise of over 700 scholars and practitioners, offering the widest possible range of perspectives on legal topics. Consisting in over 1700 alphabetically arranged entries, the Companion features: The fundamentals of all the major areas of law such as criminal law, tax and social security law, human rights law, family and employment law, education law, sports law, international and EU law; The role and workings of legal institutions such as parliaments, courts, law schools, and international bodies such as the EU and the UN; Leading cases, famous trials and distinguished lawyers, past and present; Major events in legal history and major debates in legal theory; Twenty pages of rich illustrations, bringing the content to life. The Companion will appeal to the interested citizen, students applying for law courses at university, law students, and also to advanced readers who are already familiar with the law who will enjoy reading the engagingly written accounts of areas that they know as well as many that they don't.

  • Introduction

    13 December 2013

    This special issue presents scholarly research which, in distinctive ways, explores the intersection of political theory, comparative politics, international relations and the study of forced migration. The outcome of an international workshop hosted by the Refugee Studies Centre at the University of Oxford in May 2007, this volume features individual research trajectories focused on a range of important issues, including asylum and deportation, migration control and regional cooperation, internal displacement and sovereignty, in productive encounters with theory and method. Read together, the scholarly articles collected here also span the traditional divide between ‘North’ and ‘South’, including case studies from Australia, Canada, and Europe, as well as from South Africa, Guatemala, and Malaysia.

  • Special Issue: Government and Opposition

    13 December 2013

    This special issue presents scholarly research which, in distinctive ways, explores the intersection of political theory, comparative politics, international relations and the study of forced migration. The outcome of an international workshop hosted by the Refugee Studies Centre at the University of Oxford in May 2007, this volume features individual research trajectories focused on a range of important issues, including asylum and deportation, migration control and regional cooperation, internal displacement and sovereignty, in productive encounters with theory and method. Read together, the scholarly articles collected here also span the traditional divide between ‘North’ and ‘South’, including case studies from Australia, Canada, and Europe, as well as from South Africa, Guatemala, and Malaysia.

  • Asylum and the expansion of deportation in the United Kingdom

    13 December 2013

    Deportation has traditionally been seen as a secondary instrument of migration control, one used by liberal democratic states relatively infrequently and with some trepidation. This secondary status has been assured by the fact that deportation is both a complicated and a controversial power. It is complicated because tracking individuals down and returning them home are time-consuming and resource-intense activities; it is controversial because deportation is a cruel power, one that sometimes seems incompatible with respect for human rights. In the light of these constraints, how can one explain the fact that since 2000 the United Kingdom has radically increased the number of failed asylum seekers deported from its territory? I argue in the article that this increase has been achieved through a conscious and careful process of policy innovation that has enabled state officials to engage in large-scale expulsions without directly violating liberal norms.