Asylum Theory for a Non-Ideal World

Programme group Challenges to Democratic Representation

The international refugee protection regime, which came about in the aftermath of the Second World War with the drafting of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, has helped protect the lives of millions.

By affirming that states have a legal obligation not to return refugees to where they could suffer persecution (non-refoulement), the Convention has induced member-states to provide asylum to persons fleeing arbitrary arrest, torture, execution, and other gross human rights violations. Indeed, had so many states not signed up to this Convention, vulnerable people around the world would still lack a legal claim of asylum and would be dependent on the charity of the international community when confronted with the harmful effects of political persecution.

The problem

Notwithstanding its achievements, there are good grounds for thinking that the refugee regime built around the 1951 Convention is in need of improvement so as to adequately protect all persons who are morally entitled to protection. The reason is the growing mismatch between the legal norms that still regulate the regime, and various ethical considerations. As a response to this gap between what justice requires vis-à-vis refugees and the lack of political will on the part of states to better align their legal and moral obligations, this research aims to provide a non-ideal theory of asylum that makes progress on the following questions:

1. What counts as a refugee?
2. What are the grounds, scope, and content of the obligations states have towards refugees?
3. What kind of global regime is best able to protect refugees without unfairly burdening states?

Academic relevance

By addressing these questions, this project contributes to broader academic debates on the ethics of immigration and global justice. There is a great degree of consensus that the moral claims of refugees should be prioritized by states, but more needs to be said about the foundations of such duties and how they sit with other moral obligations that states have towards foreigners in need. In light of this, a theory of asylum would be a timely contribution to these wider and important philosophical debates.

Furthermore, this project will strengthen the need for more research by political scientists in the area of refugee studies. After all, once we know which institutional arrangement would be desirable under non-ideal conditions, we need answers to questions such as how to best measure the capacity of states to integrate refugees so that burden-sharing can be made possible. The answer to empirical questions of this sort are not only important in their own right but they can assist political philosophers to further specify the content of the duties owed to refugees. 

Funding: NWO Veni 

Published by  AISSR

26 November 2014