Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
In Gammeltoft-Hansen and Tan’s (2017) article, ‘The End of the Deterrence Paradigm? Future Directions for Global Refugee Policy’, three principles are put forward which are proposed as being essential in adopting an effective and durable system of refugee protection. These principles are discussed and outlined as, ‘respect for international refugee law’, ‘meaningful burden-sharing’, and a broader notion of refugee protection (Gammeltoft-Hansen and Tan, 2017: 30), each of these are important considerations if we are to move forward and effectively address and resolve the issues within our current system when it comes to refugee protection. The following essay will discuss and critically assess these three principles in hopes of achieving a tenable starting point for a framework by which future adjustments and changes in the current system can be attained.
Firstly, respect towards current international refugee law is a very important factor when looking to attain a sustainable regime of refugee protection, especially when we look towards the 1951 Convention and the increased scrutiny regarding it over the past few decades, leading some to argue for its removal. A prominent issue with the 1951 Convention is that its definition of what a refugee is does not go far enough, according to the convention, a refugee is outside the country of nationality and unable to return due to a well-founded fear of being persecuted because due to their religion, nationality, race, political views or social group (Goodwin-Gill, 2014), but this definition has been insufficient in some cases, for example the Organization of African Unity had to extend this definition so that it would cover those who flee due to aggression from foreign occupation, this extension made the definition more reflective of the reality of the nation’s climate (Goodwin-Gill, 2014). As well, the definition does not cover those who are forced to flee due to extreme weather conditions despite this being an increasing area of concern in particular, as a result of the climate crisis (Quinn, 2011). Other issues concerning the 1951 Convention include issues about its reliability due to the unanticipated institutional assessment of the refugee status process (Goodwin-Gill, 2014); and mass migration with the burden that individual assessment of refugees puts on states, especially when many of the states receiving these mass influxes are poor and have unsteady political climates and are thus, overburdened, while the application of prima facie can be applied, issues remain about the determination of who is to be excluded and furthering this uneven share of burdening in nations bordering countries with large amounts of people fleeing (Quinn, 2011). While these issues are not to be ignored, they can be addressed and resolved while keeping the 1951 Convention in place. We must respect this convention as it provides us with a framework through which there is a congruent acknowledgment of the international responsibility we have in offering protection to refugees who are unprotected by their state. It sets out principles of non-discrimination, non-refoulment and others which are fundamental to refugee protection. As well the Convention is important by virtue that it provides standards for the treatment of refugees and uses a human rights-based approach, the 1951 Convention and other international refugee laws need to be respected as they provide a framework that sets the foundation for the protection of refugees and not just on a nationwide level.
Secondly, Gammeltoft-Hansen and Tan (2017), propose ‘meaningful responsibility and burden-sharing’ as one of the tenets of a sustainable regime of international refugee policy. The current distribution of refugees across countries is entirely uneven, Turkey hosts the most refugees in the world, with a figure of 3.7 million according to the UNHCR (2021). The maldistribution of responsibility sharing is unjust, countries are left with very little support and the majority of the responsibility, as well the countries that receive the most refugees are often in the developing world, meaning they lack the financial and political stability required for effective refugee protection (UNHCR, 2021). One possible solution to this problem is a distribution model within the EU in which there is a framework by which there is a fair and thus, more manageable distribution of responsibility for and protection of refugees throughout our international community. A distribution model would be more cost-efficient as it will result in decreased costs of humanitarian aid, it would also counter the current problem of increasingly stricter asylum policy in some states, forcing others to follow such policy patterns in an attempt to prevent an overburdening of responsibilities as a result of the stricter policies from neighboring states, a successful distribution model would increase coordination and would be beneficial to the labor market (Altemeyer-Bartscher et al., 2016). The key for this model needs to take into account each country’s GDP, and macroeconomic health taking into consideration factors such as the unemployment rates, but for a general model such as this to be attainable and successful, we need to take into account the preferences of refugees, as without such considerations, it is likely that we will see a secondary migration of people (Gammeltoft-Hansen and Tan, 2017). As well we must provide financial compensation and investment in countries that have been overburdened, hosting huge amounts of refugees and to states for the initial added costs of accepting refugees, compensations should be calculated based on a country’s economic position and capacity, such as funding for compensation should be conducted via a reallocation of within the budget of the EU (Altemeyer-Bartscher et al., 2016). While this is an ambitious solution and will be faced with many challenges along the way, if the appropriate measures are put in place to combat and overcome these financial, and thus political issues, it is a solution that would be an overall improvement for both refugees and their hosting countries, and would be beneficial in terms of cost efficiency, sustainability and coordination throughout the EU.
The third tenet of a more sustainable regime proposed by Gammeltoft-Hansen and Tan (2017) is a broader notion of refugee protection. We must look beyond the very basic human rights refugees are entitled to, refugee protection needs to provide for more than physical protection, and the many other needs that refugees have when it comes to protection need to be considered. This is because currently many refugees are provided the bare minimum in terms of their human rights, and to achieve a durable refugee regime a more holistic approach to refugee protection needs to be implemented, without which refugees will be pushed to flee the conditions they are put in. In many systems, people are put in detention centers located in rural areas with little access to public transport, as a result, they lack opportunities for employment and integration into the community leaving a higher likelihood of marginalization. Often living conditions are overcrowded with strangers having to share rooms, processing times are also exhausting, thus they are stuck in poor conditions for years. With such systems, refugee protection isn’t fully provided, with unmet social needs, and very little independence. The provision of mental health support is vital, as many have faced traumatic experiences, to gain independence people need to be provided employment opportunities in a fast manner so people have a chance to support themselves (Gammeltoft-Hansen and Tan, 2017). Own-door accommodation and accessible public transport are integral in making connections with people in the community and in building a life. Affordable healthcare, transferable education, and access to the justice system are essential, it is vital to ensure families are united and that social benefits are afforded to refugees. For such provisions to be implemented, there will be many financial obstacles, to overcome this, work visas should be provided to all refugees to grant independence and as a result, greater contributions will be made towards the labor market, as well language support should be provided so that adaptation is possible. It’s important to put an end to detention centers as they go directly against the protection of refugees, for this to happen a provisional legal status should be given to asylum seekers while they await approval, the eradication of detention centers would be a benefit as they are inhumane, and very costly (Hoffstaedter and Riva, 2019). For broader refugee protection to be implemented, coordination and organization are essential, states need to implement in-depth organizational measures and infrastructures so they are prepared to take in refugees. Without broadening our notion of refugee protection, a durable refugee regime cannot be attained.
In conclusion, a tenable and long-lasting regime of refugee protection can be obtained by firstly taking on board the three proposals of ‘respect for international refugee law’, ‘meaningful burden-sharing’, and a broader notion of refugee protection (Gammeltoft-Hansen and Tan, 2017: 30). Each is essential, as without respect for international refugee law the framework by which we can develop from will be lost, the framework provided by the 1951 Convention, while certainly not unproblematic, is an essential starting point; meaningful burden-sharing is a core necessity, the uneven distribution of responsibilities and hosting of refugees is unsustainable and unjust; and finally without the acknowledgment of a broader notion of refugee protection, the human rights that refugees are entitled to, will not be met, resulting in secondary movement as people are placed in poor conditions within detention centers.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.