Chapter 25. Refugees and Forced Migration

Chapter 25 Refugees and forced migration ariadna estévez Framing Questions ● What are the main institutions and principal characteristics of the international regime governing refugees and forced migration? ● What are the political and policy implications of the shift from ‘refugee’ to ‘forced migration’ studies? ● What is the relationship between refugee law and racism? Reader’s Guide This chapter introduces students to the international politics of refugees and forced migration, examining how forced migration and refugees are produced and managed in the context of contemporary globalization. It characterizes forced migration as the compulsory mobility of people due to existing and potential threats, mostly in the global South and East. These threats are related to a variety of international issues, and there is debate concerning the underlying causes, including on-going colonial legacies and existing power relations. Forced migration can occur nationally (internal displacement) or internationally (asylum seekers and refugees who cross borders). Although both internal and international 27-Baylis Smith and Owens-Chap25-v1.indd 404 forced migration relate to global political forces, only refugees are protected by legally binding international humanitarian law. In order to discuss forced migration, with an emphasis on the international politics of refugee legislation and law, this chapter first locates the subject within the field of International Relations (IR). It goes on to provide an overview of the conceptual debate, presenting a critical discussion of new ways of characterizing forced migration, along with their analytical and policy implications. It then examines how policy-makers classify various types of forced migration. Finally, it examines the institutions informing the international regime that governs refugees, their specific definitions of the term, and subsidiary categories. 8/12/19 1:28 PM Chapter 25 Refugees and forced migration 405 Introduction In legal terms, refugee is the status granted to forced migrants who cross borders seeking international protection in the event of political persecution. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), refugee status is declaratory. This means that any person who qualifies as a refugee is by that very fact a refugee, regardless of the formal recognition of the host country. However, in a world where state sovereignty is so crucial, as discussed elsewhere in this book, the reality is a far cry from the UN ideal. In reality, asylum seekers only become refugees, and acquire related rights in the host country, when they can prove to an asylum judge or official that political authorities in their own country are unable or unwilling to protect them from persecution based on race or ethnicity, nationality, religion, political opinion, or belonging to a specific social group. International forced migration due to political-economic crises, global development, criminal violence, or environmental degradation is not automatically protected by refugee law and international organizations, since these were issued and designed long before the appearance of widespread phenomena that now lead to a surge of massive forced displacement. This is not to say that violence or the political economy are new. Rather, it is that many of their contemporary expressions— generalized criminal violence, drug/human trafficking, and climate change—fall outside the parameters of core legal instruments and the mandate of specialized multilateral organizations. Furthermore, the forced migrant is not a legal category with related rights or international protection. ‘Forced migrant’ is increasingly used as a social and political term for people who leave their countries for reasons other than economic necessity or persecution; the former is often termed an ‘economic migrant’ and the latter an ‘asylum seeker’, who may apply for refugee status. That international law related to contemporary forced migration seems outdated raises important questions for the study of international relations. Why has there been no change to international refugee law to include other causes of displacement beyond individual persecution? Should it be modified? This chapter draws attention to the relationship between the lack of legal protection for the vast majority of forced migrants and refugees and how forced migration is produced and managed in, and by, globalization. The global issues leading to forced migration are discussed 27-Baylis Smith and Owens-Chap25-v1.indd 405 elsewhere in this volume and include war (see Ch. 14), international and global security (see Ch. 15), global political economy (see Ch. 16), gender (see Ch. 17), race (see Ch. 18), environmental issues (see Ch. 24), poverty, hunger, and development (see Ch. 26), global trade and finance (see Ch. 27), terrorism (see Ch. 28), and human rights violations (see Ch. 31). These are all problems with root causes in colonial and postcolonial relations (see Ch. 10). Moreover, the policies designed for the management of refugees and forced migration are defined by many of the core concepts and theories examined in other chapters in this book, such as sovereignty, security, international law (see Ch. 19), international organizations (see Ch. 20), and regions (see Ch. 23). The consequences of forced migration are globally managed through international law, and policy is designed and enforced by international institutions, particularly the United Nations (see Ch. 21), international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) (see Ch. 22), and through humanitarian interventions, all discussed in this book. The study of forced migration as such—and not just political asylum—emerged as a topic in the 1980s, when people started to flee their home countries for reasons other than political persecution, which is the cornerstone of the international refugee regime. Like the field of IR, forced migration has a multidisciplinary research agenda that incorporates the international or global dimensions of disciplines such as sociology, economics, and human geography. For instance, global sociology focuses on the agent–structure problem, North–South inequality, and transnational flows facilitating or impeding mobility (Stepputat and Sorensen 2014). Global political economy looks at how trade and investment practices create forced labour, and how multilateral and regional institutions rely on and process migrant labour and remittances. However, international law is the discipline most closely associated with Refugee Studies, establishing the categories and parameters used to define who is and who is not a refugee. According to Alexander Betts (2009), the field of IR came late to the study of refugees due to the lack of interest by the once dominant theories of realism and liberalism. It is the increasing influence of theories focusing on the role of subjects, institutions, and other non-state actors—such as constructivism, feminism, and postcolonialism—that has changed this. 8/12/19 1:28 PM 406 ariadna estévez Concept production and the politics of international protection Determining who qualifies as a refugee—who is worthy of international protection—is an essentially political decision made by nation-states. Certain countries, especially hegemonic and even neo-colonial powers, have frequently used refugee status to punish, harass, or pressure their political and economic enemies. For example, from 1966 to 2017, as part of the Cuban Adjustment Act, the US famously granted immediate asylum to Cuban and Chinese citizens, mostly activists, in an effort to punish communist regimes (RamjiNogales, Schoenholtz, and Schrag 2008). The scope of this political decision has nevertheless been influenced by international law. The UN has argued that sovereignty should not be used as an excuse to refuse legal protection to people suffering from persecution and other threats, although in practice it often is. For example, in 2017 Donald Trump’s administration abandoned negotiations for a Global Compact for Safe, Regular, and Orderly Migration. The American ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, claimed the global management of refugees and migration was a ‘subversion of American sovereignty’ (Wintour 2017). Then in 2018, during his annual address to the UN General Assembly, President Trump stated that global governance and trade were contrary to the interests of American sovereignty, especially with regard to such issues as migration and the environment (Terminski 2018). Some scholars have argued that from the very beginning the term ‘refugee’ was enshrined in law and produced for policy purposes, without any critical content. Today, ‘refugee’ does not describe the social, political, and economic conditions of a subject seeking refuge, but rather prescribes a series of legal requirements—the burden of proof for someone claiming asylum (R. Black 2001). This is clear in the definition of refugees in the international regime, which refers exclusively to people who fled their countries before 1951; the time frame does not describe a condition—that of the refugee—but rather a time limit for legal and policy purposes. Others have argued that the lack of analytical content in the term ‘refugee’ makes people invisible and privileges the worldview of policy-makers, who are often guided by political agendas (Polzer 2008; Bakewell 2008). Indian legal scholar B. S. Chimni (2009) has argued that the legal category of refugee has been used for political purposes throughout the four phases of its evolution. During the first phase (1914–45), when the 27-Baylis Smith and Owens-Chap25-v1.indd 406 international community witnessed the fall of the Ottoman and Habsburg empires, the First World War, and the Armenian genocide, the incipient refugee regime was led by practical interests, such as attracting professional refugees, including medical doctors and scientists. The second phase (1945–82) was marked by the political interests of the West in the immediate post-Second World War period (the split between capitalist and socialist countries) and cold war politics (in support of dissidents in one bloc or the other). The third phase (1980–2000) was marked by the proliferation of countries producing refugees in the Third World due to military coups d’état and interventions sponsored by Western democracies (Chimni 1998, 2009: 13). For example, the civil war in Guatemala shows how Western military intervention led to an exodus of thousands of people. In 1954 the US helped the Guatemalan military overthrow democratically elected president Jacobo Arbenz to protect corporate interests and to prevent the spread of communism in Guatemala, where guerrilla groups fought the government. After a 20-year civil war, Guatemalan General Efraín Ríos Montt took power in 1982, and received military aid from the CIA for the enforcement of counter-insurgency operations to eliminate guerrillas. Ríos Montt infamously believed that the Maya indigenous groups were ‘naturally’ prone to communism, so counter-insurgency aimed to eliminate Mayans as a group. American president Ronald Reagan sponsored counter-insurgency operations with arms and expertise, actively contributing to the killing of over 200,000 indigenous peoples. One million indigenous people were internally displaced, while another 200,000 fled to Mexico. Only a quarter of these refugees were housed in UNHCR camps (Jonas 2013). In a trial, Gomez Montt was found guilty of genocide in 2012. The fourth, and most recent, period in the evolution of the legal category of refugee corresponds to the current post-9/11 era. This period is marked by the threat of terrorism and criminal violence, as well as the intensification of climate change. Internal and international forced migration has continued to increase. Forced migration studies, and greater interest within IR, emerged during these last two periods (Chimni 1998, 2009: 13). A focus on refugees as part of the wider topic of migration studies only emerged in the 1980s, in the context of increasing numbers of refugees. According 8/12/19 1:28 PM Chapter 25 Refugees and forced migration to Zetter (2007), by the late 1980s there was a ‘fractioning’ of the refugee label within forced migration studies—that is, the multiplication of related labels used to manage intense migration flows and increasingly exclude more people from the legal protection of refugee status. These labels are referred to in this chapter as ‘types of forced migration’ (see ‘Types of forced migration’). Zetter (2007) regrets this shift from refugee studies to forced migration studies since it has negative consequences for policy, given that the refugee regime allowed for real protection from persecution. He claims that globalization is reshaping the refugee regime, and therefore the concept of the refugee itself, since the original objective of determining how humanitarian assistance is distributed and accessed is replaced by an interest in distinguishing who is and who is not a refugee (Zetter 2007: 174). This means that the politics of international protection is no longer focused on state obligation, but rather on restricting refugee status according to who is considered a desirable migrant and who is not (Squire 2009: 7). Discussing voluntary/involuntary migration, or forced migration, is a form of fractioning the refugee label, and some scholars seek to ground these new labels in human rights law and rhetoric, for both analytical and policy objectives. Certain academics, some of them from the global South, believe that forced migration should in fact become a legal category subsuming both internal and international displacement, while also including other types of forced mobility, such as deportation and qualified migration, which are often ignored (Riaño-Alcalá 2008; De Génova 2002; Gzesh 2012; Delgado-Wise 2014). From a postcolonial perspective (see Box 25.1), Estévez (2018c) claims it is necessary to incorporate the reasons for forced migration and the policies and law designed to tackle it, in order to analyse it as an on-going process initiated both by the international community and private actors ranging from multinational corporations to organized crime groups. Estévez argues that forced migration is a process that starts with structural and accumulation projects—often facilitated by law enforcement or organized crime activities—that displace or ultimately kill people. The forcibly displaced are further exposed to gangs, organized crime, and sexual violence while on their way to a new home. The lives of those who survive the first two stages of the process are managed by legal and administrative apparatuses such as migration and asylum systems. From this perspective, the 27-Baylis Smith and Owens-Chap25-v1.indd 407 407 Box 25.1 Colonial powers and forced migration Today, people who are forced to leave their home countries are not necessarily threatened by political forces linked to international conflict. The situation has changed to such an extent that if forced migration was defined by this type of political conflict, it would not be such a pressing issue. Mainstream literature argues that forced migration is produced by problems of governance and the legitimacy of ‘fragile states’ (Stepputat and Sorensen 2014). In mainstream approaches, there is no assessment of the productive nature of these ‘causes’. From a decolonial and postcolonial perspective, however, forced migration is not an innocent consequence of structural forces or evil tyrannies. For instance, war and conflict are frequently linked to colonial relations or sponsorship—such as mercenaries involved in Syria. Furthermore, transnational corporations involved in development projects are usually based in the West. Human traffickers exist because people cannot afford papers to migrate ‘legally’ or need to re-enter a Western country after deportation or denial of refugee status. Finally, the environment would not be a threat without global warming or devastation, which are generally the result of corporate activities. From a geopolitical and non-Western perspective, forced migration is a desired outcome of a series of policies, laws, and omissions intended to create extreme deprivation, violence, and deadly forms of life in poor or middle-income countries subordinated to the hegemonic and colonial power of the West. For instance, Mexican scholar Guadalupe CorreaCabrera (2017) has established empirically the link between killings, forced disappearances, femicides, displacement, and hydrocarbon extraction. Correa-Cabrera argues that in the case of north-eastern Mexico, violence has been produced by elites to force corporations to hire private security. She claims that there is a spatial coincidence between global fluxes (the global mobility of people, capital, and crime) and economic inequality. In this particular geographical area, she identifies at least four such global fluxes: the maquila industry (sweatshops), extraction and sale of hydrocarbons, migration, and transnational organized crime. The impact of these fluxes has led to increased income inequality in the region, since the internal dynamics broaden the gap between rich and poor, while reinforcing social inequality. (Source: Correa-Cabrera 2017) production of forced migration is determined by three elements: 1) geographical specificity along the international lines of race, gender, and class; 2) a process starting with structural and accumulation projects that displace people, who are in turn further exposed to the threats represented by gangs, organized crime, and sexual violence; and 3) the management of people by legal and administrative apparatuses such as migration and asylum systems, which expel people to 8/12/19 1:28 PM 408 ariadna estévez places of extreme deprivation where they may eventually be killed by criminal gangs or forced to live on the streets. Others believe that new categories are necessary in order to eliminate the arbitrary distinctions made between refugees and people fleeing generalized violence, environmental threats, and crime. Alexander Betts, for example, proposes the term ‘survival migration’ for ‘persons who are outside their country of origin because of an existential threat for which they have no access to a domestic remedy or resolution’ (A. Betts 2010: 362). In addition, Michel Foucault’s idea of asylum as the right of the governed is little known, although it is fundamental for understanding the subjective impact of changing forms of political power. Foucault (1977), some of whose ideas are discussed in Chapter 11, believed that the right of asylum was essential for resisting oppression. Key Points Determining who is and who is not a refugee—who is • worthy of international protection—is an essentially political decision made by nation-states. The scope of this political decision has been marked by • the legal categories established in international human rights and humanitarian law. There are two positions as to the meaning of the recent • shift from ‘refugee’ to ‘forced migrant’ in law and policy: 1) a new humanitarianism that makes categories more inclusive (forced migration) while making borders stronger; and 2) the multiplication of categories for forced migrants to restrict their access to refugee status. Certain scholars—including some in the global South—are • working to include human rights content in the category ‘forced migration’; some see it as a process of production and management, while others believe new concepts are needed. Types of forced migration Policy and legal discourses of migration establish two basic types of migration: voluntary and forced. Voluntary migration implies a voluntary decision that is usually based on economic calculations—the subject seeking better opportunities abroad. In contrast, forced migration, also known as displacement, implies the subject’s involuntary response to existing political, environmental, and violence-related threats (Reed, Ludwig, and Braslow 2016). However, Stephen Castles (2003) believes the line dividing these two types is increasingly blurred, since the decision to leave somewhere in search of better opportunities is usually linked to poverty, environmental hazards, generalized criminal violence, international or internal conflict, or failed development projects. For policy purposes, forced migration is defined as ‘migratory movement in which an element of coercion exists, including threats to life and livelihood, whether arising from natural or man-made causes’ (International Organization for Migration (IOM) in Reed, Ludwig, and Braslow 2016: 605). Forced migration has subsumed the definition and the policy of the so-called international refugee regime (S. Martin 2010) (see Box 25.2), which is part of the modern system of sovereign territorial states (Stepputat and Sorensen 2014). The core of the refugee regime is within the UNHCR and is ruled by its Statute and the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. 27-Baylis Smith and Owens-Chap25-v1.indd 408 There are also regional refugee systems with wider mandates in accordance with their conventions. In the refugee regime, policy-makers classify forced migrants according to: 1) geographical boundaries and 2) the causes of displacement. This classification has implications for both policy and protection (see Fig. 25.1). Classification according to geographical boundaries Asylum seekers These are individuals who cross international borders seeking protection, but whose claim for refugee status is still pending. Asylum seekers are often subjected to forms of detention, such as those arriving in Australia by boat, or people who claim asylum in the United States while not holding a valid visa. Refugees Asylum seekers who have proved before a judge or immigration officer (depending on the country) a well-founded fear of persecution receive refugee status under the terms of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, its 1967 Protocol, the African Convention, and the UNHCR Statute (see Box 25.2). Even though states have no obligation to grant asylum or admit refugees, they do have the obligation not to 8/12/19 1:28 PM Chapter 25 Refugees and forced migration 409 Box 25.2 Chronology of international law in the refugee regime 1928 Havana Convention on Asylum 1933 Montevideo Convention on Political Asylum 1939 Montevideo Treaty on Political Asylum and Refuge 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 13 on freedom of movement and Article 14 on the human right to asylum) 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 1966 Bangkok Principles on the Status and Treatment of Refugees 1967 Protocol to Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (eliminating time restrictions) 1969 Organisation of African Unity Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa 1984 Cartagena Declaration on Refugees (in the context of the Organization of American States) 1991 Guidelines on the Protection of Refugee Women 1995 Sexual Violence Against Refugees: Guidelines on Prevention and Response 1998 UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement 2000 UNHCR Position Paper on Gender-Related Persecution 2001 Global Consultations on Refugee International Protection (resulting in complementary protection) 2002 Guidelines on International Protection: Gender-Related Persecution Within the Context of Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention and/or its 1967 Protocol 2015 New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants 2018 Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration Global Compact on Refugees 3.1 millions 40 millions 68.5 millions 25.4 millions Total forced migrants, comprising: Refugees, persons in refugee-like situations, and returnees Internally displaced persons and returnees Asylum seekers Figure 25.1 Number of forced migrants, 2017 Source: Migration Data Portal (2019). Reproduced with permission from Forced migration or displacement. Migration Data Portal. https://migrationdataportal.org/themes/forced-migration-or-displacement. © International Organization for Migration. 27-Baylis Smith and Owens-Chap25-v1.indd 409 8/12/19 1:28 PM 410 ariadna estévez Opposing Opinions 25.1 The criteria used to define ‘persecution’ and establish refugee status should be expanded For Against The persecution criterion was devised to address a particular problem at a particular time. The persecution criterion was originally developed for the case of refugees from the Second World War in Europe. It was not meant to be normative or for general application (Gervase Coles). The persecution criterion is not arbitrary. Rather, it is a way to choose ‘the most deserving among the deserving’ in migratory flows, because they are unlikely to find protection in their home country due to political exclusion ( James Hathaway). Contemporary international politics is concerned with constraining refugee status rather than providing protection on a moral basis. However, the causes should be irrelevant vis-à-vis the moral obligation to protect ( Joseph Carens). Refugee status should be granted on the basis of a wide interpretation of serious harm. This is the underlying criterion in persecution. A refugee should be any person whose basic rights are unprotected. When a person’s home country fails to protect their rights to physical security and subsistence, that person has no choice but to seek international protection (Andrew Shacknove). Generalized political, criminal, or gender violence are serious forms of harm. Therefore, they should be considered forms of persecution in the sense of the 1951 Convention. Today, asylum seekers are not only political activists, as in the past. They also include targets of genocide and victims of generalized violence, and policy and law should change accordingly (Aristide Zolberg). Asylum seekers need a new political membership or citizenship. By contrast, other forced migrants could do with temporary protection when affected by disasters, generalized violence, or famine (Matthew Price). Political asylum based on persecution is a way of morally condemning a repressive regime. Political persecution exposes a totalitarian or repressive government. Therefore, granting asylum to citizens of such states sends a strong message of rejection of human rights abuses. Keeping persecution as the basis for an asylum claim does not prevent other refugees from receiving international protection. However, other categories should be used, such as temporary protection, military intervention, and resettlement programmes. Persecution on the grounds of religion, nationality, ethnicity, political opinion, or membership in a special group makes an argument about the legitimate state use of the means of coercion. Granting asylum to people persecuted on these grounds shows that it is morally wrong to use force against minorities. Addressing the rights to physical security and subsistence of all those seeking asylum is inefficient. There are too many people whose basic rights are systematically violated. Therefore, using the legal procedure of granting asylum would be an inefficient way to address an evidently larger and more complex problem. 1. Is it fair to say that if violations of physical security and the threat to subsistence serve as the basis for refugee status, any migrant could be classed as a refugee? 2. Should the persecution criterion be eliminated from refugee status altogether? 3. Instead of debating who is more deserving of international protection, should policy-makers and academics encourage open borders for all? For advice on how to answer these questions, see the pointers www.oup.com/he/baylis8e forcibly return asylum seekers to the countries where they are facing persecution. This is known as the right to non-refoulement. States may relocate people to countries where they are safe and states are willing to accept them. These are known as safe third countries. The Convention allows states to establish their own terms for admitting refugees. 27-Baylis Smith and Owens-Chap25-v1.indd 410 Some countries have a very limited interpretation of the Convention, and grant asylum to people who have a well-founded fear of persecution based only on the five protected categories and if the state is unwilling or incapable of protecting them (see Opposing Opinions 25.1). Asylum seekers who are granted refugee status by a sovereign state according to the Convention 8/12/19 1:28 PM Chapter 25 Refugees and forced migration 411 Case Study 25.1 Illegalizing refugees: the case of the Rohingya Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh © Hafiz Johari / Shutterstock.com The Rohingya are currently believed to be the most persecuted ethnic group in the world. They are a Muslim minority in a Buddhist country, Myanmar, but only because the political boundaries imposed by a colonial understanding of the nation-state give that impression. This group speaks Bengali, like most of the population in Bangladesh, a largely Muslim country bordering their home state of Rakhine. Due to this cultural affinity, Myanmar considers them ‘illegal immigrants’ from Bangladesh, while Bangladesh does not recognize them as citizens since they have always inhabited territory in what is now Myanmar. The Rohingya refugee crisis began in 2015 when the Myanmar government retaliated after an armed Muslim group allegedly raped a Buddhist girl. The Muslim Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) was set up in 2012 as a response to increasing exclusion of the Rohingya from political participation and restrictions on their liberties—they had no representation during elections and interethnic marriages were prohibited. Since they were have several rights that other forced migrants do not, including the same civil rights and liberties as citizens, the right to work, and access to social services for themselves and their children (including education and health). In some countries, such as New Zealand, Canada, and Australia, refugees may become citizens. People in refugee-like situations These are ‘groups of persons who are outside their country or territory of origin and who face protection risks similar to those of refugees, but for whom refugee status has, for practical or other reasons, not been ascertained’ (UNHCR 2013). These groups include stateless persons and those who have been denied protection in their own country, like the Bidoon in Kuwait and the Rohingya in Myanmar (see Case Study 25.1). 27-Baylis Smith and Owens-Chap25-v1.indd 411 also excluded from the national census in 2014, in 2015 tension was at its height. In 2017, the Myanmar government, headed by Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, tacitly condoned the mass killings of the Rohingyas perpetrated by the army. As a consequence, over a million Rohingyas have since sought refuge in Bangladesh, Malaysia, and Thailand; over 7,000 of them have been killed in what some call a ‘slow genocide’, while almost all of their 200 villages in Rakhine have been destroyed. Refugee camps have been established in Bangladesh to host 932,204 of the 1,156,732 total Rohingya refugees. Bangladesh is a very poor country and can barely cope with the burden of almost a million refugees. In late 2018, the government tried to ‘voluntarily’ return 2,000 refugees but the Rohingyas refused, fearing further massacres. In June 2018, the World Bank announced up to $480 million in grant-based support for health, education, water, sanitation, social protection, and disaster risk management. This support comes through a partnership between the Canadian government and the World Bank’s International Development Association (IDA). Even though the World Bank Group is behind forced displacement in Asia (see ‘Development-induced’), this model is still the one the world is expected to accept as a means to prevent refugees reaching the West, in accordance with the recently approved Global Compact for Safe, Regular and Orderly Migration and the Global Compact on Refugees. (Source: The Refugee Project 2019) Question 1: Consider Zetter’s (2007) claims about forced migration as a term ‘fractioning’ our idea of the refugee. Is this vague idea of forced migration actually ‘illegalizing’ Rohingya refugees? Question 2: Who should help Bangladesh with the burden: poor neighbour countries (such as India and Nepal) or the international community and the West? Internally displaced persons (IDPs) In 1998, the UN issued the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, which define IDPs as ‘persons or groups of persons who have been forced or obliged to flee or to leave their homes or places of habitual residence, in particular as a result of, or in order to avoid, the effects of armed conflict, situations of generalized violence, violations of human rights or natural or human-made disasters, and who have not crossed an internationally recognized State border’ (UN Commission on Human Rights 1998). IDPs remain in their home country and have the same rights and duties as other citizens. For example, they enjoy the right to health but are also responsible before the law if they commit crimes. More importantly, IDPs, especially women, children, and the elderly, have the right to enjoy civil liberties and receive 8/12/19 1:28 PM 412 ariadna estévez humanitarian aid. The Guidelines recommend that governments ban ‘arbitrary’ displacement such as that caused by war, conflict, or forced displacement, and that affecting indigenous peoples. It should be noted that environmental and development-related displacements are not banned, although governments are called on to protect peasants and indigenous people in cases where development projects evict local communities. Groups or people of concern These include refugees and IDPs who have returned to their home countries spontaneously or in an ‘organized fashion’ that guarantees safety and dignity, with the help of the UNHCR (UNHCR 2018b). People who have been denied asylum and need humanitarian assistance are also included in these groups. Classification according to the causes There are at least four types of forced migration as determined by the causes of displacement. Conflict-induced This is the typical kind of forced migration, and the most studied in International Relations, since it is displacement (national or international) caused by international or civil war, or other political or social processes that lead to persecution under the categories protected by the 1951 Convention. Most UNHCR efforts concentrate on this type of displacement, which produces the type of refugee protected under the 1951 Convention. However, in new types of conflict such as drug and gang wars (that often entail widespread sexual violence against women), the terms of refugee status according to international law may be insufficient for individuals who have a well-founded fear of persecution, either because they do not belong to any of the Convention’s five protected categories or because conflict is assessed as ‘generalized violence’. An example of this type of conflict is in Mexico, where drug cartels and law enforcement officials sometimes collude in cases of forced disappearance, kidnapping, execution, torture, persecution, femicide, rape, and massacre. While the government claims criminal gangs are solely responsible for these brutalities and invests important resources in security, as well as in judicial and constitutional reform among other normative changes, it has failed to tackle impunity and corruption. Despite the fact that the Mexican government claims to have taken measures to combat these crimes, 27-Baylis Smith and Owens-Chap25-v1.indd 412 they continue to occur. As a consequence, by 2018 there were 329,917 people internally displaced in 25 violence episodes, with 60 per cent of this number represented by women and 92 per cent by families (CMDPDH 2018). As for asylum seekers, from 2006–16 there were 98,547 claims (Estévez 2018b, 2018c). In recent years, criminal, gang, and sexual violence (see Case Study 25.2 and Box 25.3) have become so serious and widespread in some regions that they have led to humanitarian crises and large-scale national and international displacement. Those who flee conflict or generalized violence could be ‘specially’ designated refugees by the UNHCR (S. Martin 2010), or as part of geographically specific legal instruments like the African Convention and the Cartagena Declaration (see Box 25.2). Policy for refugees recognized by the UNHCR in these terms is intended to address a temporary crisis since it is considered an emergency movement of people, who are placed in temporary camps. However, after years of displacement, these camps develop into cities, with economic activities dependent on international aid. One such example is the Kakuma camp in Kenya, which was established in 1992 for people fleeing the war in Sudan. By 2017, it was populated by over 164,000 people—a population slightly larger than that of Curacao Island (160,000). There is a local paper-based economy, since people live on vouchers that can be exchanged for access to schools and meals, among other things (Anzilotti 2017). When the crisis is resolved, people return to their homes, although sometimes the seriousness of the crisis leads to people being resettled. For example, Hartisheik camp, in eastern Ethiopia, closed in 2004 after its 230,000-strong refugee population returned to Somalia, where an on-going civil war had expelled thousands of people since 1988 (Healy and Bradbury 2010). Environmental or natural disaster-induced This type of displacement includes the forced mobility of people affected by natural or human-made disasters related to climate change, environmental degradation, and other natural forces such as hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, and drought. By 2017, there were 18.8 million people internally displaced in 135 countries as a consequence of natural disasters. The most affected nations are in Asia, the Caribbean, and, more disproportionately, small Pacific islands (Small Island Developing States, or SIDS). There is no specific legal protection for people who cross international borders fleeing human-caused environmental problems 8/12/19 1:28 PM Chapter 25 Refugees and forced migration 413 Case Study 25.2 Geographies rich in resources, and forced migration in Central America © Vic Hinterlang / Shutterstock.com In October 2018, an estimated 3,500-strong migrant caravan from Honduras marched through Mexico towards the US. The group included entire families, single women with their children, gay and transsexual men fleeing homophobia, and women escaping sexual violence and trying to save their male children from forced enrolment in gangs. US President Donald Trump threatened to further militarize the US–Mexico border if the Honduran migrants reached the frontier. Rancher militias also prepared their guns to receive the caravan. According to testimonies, the exodus was caused by a mixture of extreme poverty, violence, and even the legacy of cold war politics in the region. The Central American exodus is indeed multicausal, produced by different economic, social, and political forces converging in a specific territory that happens to be rich in natural resources. Recent reports claim that gang- and drug-related violence is the major motivation behind forced displacement in the Americas region known as the Northern Triangle, which comprises Southern Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Belize, and Honduras. Indeed, homicide rates related to criminal violence and conflict in the region indicate that the Northern Triangle is the most violent place on Earth, with Honduras ranked second globally (only behind Syria). In addition, four of the most violent cities in the world are in Central America, and ten are in Mexico. Furthermore, the Honduran city of San Pedro Sula has the highest homicide rate in the world. Although these reports do also consider natural disasters and development projects as displacing forces, the bulk of (including climate change, disasters, or degradation). Protection for ‘environmental refugees’ depends on sovereign states, who have no binding obligations to take them in or to grant them basic rights. For example, in 2017 the Immigration and Protection Tribunal of New Zealand ruled against two families from Tuvalu, a 2.5-square kilometre SIDS in the Pacific, who claimed protection under the 1951 Convention because the island’s exposure to rising sea levels and storms makes life unsustainable (Bonnett 2017). 27-Baylis Smith and Owens-Chap25-v1.indd 413 displacement is said to be related to drug cartels and gangs. As far as the reports are concerned, the ‘bad guys’ are to blame for this humanitarian crisis and regional tragedy. However, these reports overlook two important facts: this region is also very rich in biodiversity, minerals, and other valuable natural resources, and it is plagued by other types of violence: femicide, killings of environmental activists, political murders, and forced disappearances. The displacement pattern in Honduras suggests that criminal violence is not necessarily such a determining factor in forced displacement in Central America. According to a 2016 report by the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, while there were only 29,000 displaced persons in 2014, by 2015 the figure had increased by almost 600 per cent to 174,000. However, it was precisely in 2014 that homicide rates decreased, showing that criminal violence could hardly be the main displacing force. The report’s explanation for this paradox is vague, saying the increase may be related to the worsening of economic conditions. However, there is a competing account, or at least hypothesis, for this: increasing repression of environmental activism. Honduras is rich in natural resources, with 41.5 per cent of its territory covered with forests. However, it is also the third poorest country in the Americas, and the second poorest in Central America. The greatest poverty is in the rural areas, which are also the forested areas, where long-standing agricultural, logging, and livestock activities have intensified, leading to widespread deforestation, environmental degradation, water deterioration, and soil erosion. This environmental deterioration has negative consequences on local economies, but also makes communities prone to natural disasters, which is why in forested areas farmers and indigenous groups are organizing themselves against corporate interests. (Sources: ACNUR 2018; Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre 2016; EU, Eurostat 2018; UNHCR 2018a) Question 1: Corporations and American interests are involved in both Mexico and Central America, leading to forced migration in the area. In this case, is there justification for the Honduran migrant caravan trying to reach the US, and would this justification give them the right to enter the country? Question 2: In your opinion, what are the key factors producing forced migration in the region? Development-induced According to Reed, Ludwig, and Braslow (2016), economic development projects are the most important cause of displacement in the contemporary world, even though the UNHCR focuses on conflict-displacement. Projects include population redistribution, urban development, mining, dams, irrigation schemes, transport, expansion of agricultural areas, and even conservation projects. These are often funded by the World Bank, but also by corporations. In this type of 8/12/19 1:28 PM 414 ariadna estévez Box 25.3 Gender-blindness in asylum systems The original refugee convention did not include gender considerations, and women’s experiences of violence were totally ignored. Although policy-makers have since addressed this shortcoming, there are still practical consequences for women. Although neither the US nor the UNHCR keep track of gender by nationality in their asylum statistics, the cross-referencing of displacement figures, qualitative information, and case litigation databases helps formulate an informed guess of the patterns of persecution for men and women. The Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) reports that by 2013, 21,500 young people from the Northern Triangle (Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras) and Mexico had been forcibly displaced for reasons of rape, gender-based violence, and sexual trafficking; 18,800 of them were women, and 23 per cent of these women were girls aged 12–17. Women in the region are also victims of drug-related violence; they are targeted as a means of revenge against rival cartels or used as merchandise in the criminal sex market. Therefore, in the context of the drug wars, women are the victims of execution, torture, rape, forced disappearance, and trafficking, but also of a different kind of violence that specifically violates women’s rights: gender violence. The review of asylum cases in general and of specific genderbased persecution databases shows that Mexican women are persecuted for their activism against femicide or because they are the victims of drug-related and gender-based violence, frequently involving partners or relatives connected to the drug wars or law-enforcement officials. Gender-based violence claims include abuse from an intimate partner, including sexual violence; non-domestic sexual violence; repressive social norms; child abuse; and incest. Perpetrators are mostly husbands and fathers, who in some cases are also law-enforcement officials working for cartels or who are protected by corrupt or macho culture-driven civil servants. In all the reviewed cases, when women sought justice, they did not find it. While the Convention did not cover specific forms of persecution suffered by women in their home country, and neither did US domestic law, in 1995 the UN corrected this omission by issuing gender guidelines for assessing sexual violencebased persecution. In the same year, the US responded by issuing its own guidelines. In line with these new standards, in 1996 the American Board of Immigration Appeals established that the threat of female genital mutilation constituted a form of persecution against women. Shortly after this, a judge applied the same rationale and granted asylum to Rody Alvarado, a Guatemalan woman who suffered extreme domestic violence at the hands of her husband (a gang member) in her home country. The attorney representing the US government filed an appeal, and the Board subsequently reversed its initial decision to grant asylum to Alvarado. It took 13 years to reinstate Alvarado’s asylum status, in a process that involved the US Attorney General and other trials. (Source: Estévez 2018a) 27-Baylis Smith and Owens-Chap25-v1.indd 414 displacement, forced mobility is the result of land and territory becoming contested spaces, leading to people being evicted, losing their property, jobs, shelter, and even their sense of community. Development projects are often justified in terms of economic progress (Terminski 2012). From 2004 to 2013, 3.4 million people were displaced by 7,200 World Bank projects, and 97 per cent of these are in Africa, Vietnam, China, and India (Chavkin et al. 2015). For example, in India, 388,794 people have been displaced by 24 projects alone; one of these projects is the coal-power Tata Mundra Ultra Mega Power Project in Gujarat state, where entire fishing communities have lost their main economic activity as a result of the plant’s heated wastewater (Yeoman 2015). In Honduras, where thousands of people fled the country in late 2018 as an immediate consequence of rampant and widespread violence (see Case Study 25.2), World Bank Group-sponsored palm oil producer Dinant is suspected of ordering its private guards to kill a local activist and preacher, Gregorio Chávez, who complained against the corporation that was disputing land ownership with a farming community in Panama Village. Another 132 activists have been killed in a civil war between farmers and corporations disputing ownership of land. The Honduras case shows that development-induced displacement also occurs in the form of conflict and violence generated by corporate interests (Chavkin 2015). Human trafficking According to the United Nations Trafficking in Persons Protocol (Article 3, Paragraph a), trafficking means the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs. It is evident in the ‘transfer’ and use of ‘force’ for exploitation purposes. Victims of trafficking are not simply displaced, and may claim asylum because they belong 8/12/19 1:28 PM Chapter 25 Refugees and forced migration to a particular social group and face persecution for this reason (Andersen 2014). Sexual trafficking victimizes mostly women and children, who are exploited in developed countries where consumers are often males from the developed world (sex tourism). For example, Dubai is known as the capital of human trafficking since over 100,000 people are trafficked into the country every year. The victims are from Asia and Africa, and are lured from their home countries with the promise of jobs as domestic servants. Once they are in Dubai, criminals retain their passports and force them to work as prostitutes or domestic servants in conditions of slavery and sexual and physical abuse (Boycott UAE Team 2017). 415 Mixed migration Mixed migration refers to the flux of voluntary and involuntary migrants who take the same routes to the same destinations (Mix Migration Hub 2018). A good example of mixed migration is the Honduran caravan that marched across Mexico to the US (see Case Study 25.2), but also migrants arriving in Europe every year from Africa and Asia. From 2015 to 2017, 68 per cent of the 1.5 million refugees and economic migrants arriving in Europe landed in Greece, another 29 per cent arrived in Italy, while the remaining 3 per cent arrived in Spain. Most of these refugees and migrants were from Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq (Borton and Collinson 2017). Key Points There are two types of migration: voluntary and forced migration. The former is what we usually refer to as economic migration. • The latter refers to international and national displacement caused by existing or potential threats such as global warming, labour and sexual trafficking, and development projects, among others. • Forced migrants are classified according to geographical boundaries and the causes of their displacement. according to geographical boundaries includes asylum seekers, who become refugees if they are granted that status • byClassification a national migration court or office. People who cannot comply with the legal requirements of refugee status are considered to be in a refugee-like situation. Those who stay in their country are internally displaced persons (IDPs), and those who are deported or return to their homes of their own will are returned refugees and IDPs. Classification by cause includes migration that is conflict-induced, environmental or natural disaster-induced, development• induced, human trafficking-induced, and mixed. The international refugee regime and institutionalized racism The refugee regime, as it is known, was established in the early twentieth century by the League of Nations, which founded the High Commission for Refugees, the first organization designed to address displacement, caused at that time by the Russian Revolution, the First World War, and the disintegration of the Ottoman and Habsburg empires (S. Martin 2010). The Commission was replaced by a number of other offices before the modern UNHCR was established in 1950 to deal with mass displacement from communist countries (S. Martin 2010). In 1951, the UN issued the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. Neither the Convention nor its 1967 Protocol, which removed the Convention’s temporal limitation, imposed on states the obligation to grant refugee status to every person claiming asylum. It provides the core international definition of the refugee, as a person who: 27-Baylis Smith and Owens-Chap25-v1.indd 415 As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to 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 nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it (Article 1(A2)). Note that the Convention lacks a gender perspective. It was not until 1995 that the UNHCR recognized that ‘women’s rights are human rights’ and issued guidelines stating that sexual and gender violence were considered persecution. The 2002 Guidelines go beyond this, stating that while perpetrators of persecution are mostly state agents, in the case of discrimination and 8/12/19 1:28 PM 416 ariadna estévez sexual and gender violence, perpetrators could be nonstate actors often tolerated by the state (see Boxes 25.2 and 25.3). Furthermore, only the 1969 Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa and the 1984 Cartagena Declaration on Refugees consider generalized violence as a valid cause for seeking asylum; the 1951 Convention does not. However, the Convention did establish persecution as the main cause for asylum; eventually, persecution as the core criterion for granting refugee status became problematic because of the complexities of the phenomenon. Almost 70 years after the regime was established, and with multiplying refugee crises around the world, international policy and law are failing to broaden the scope of protection for refugee status. Recent legal and policy changes seem to confirm the scholarly hypothesis that ‘fractioning’ the term refugee serves the racist objective of keeping Third World nationals out of rich countries, since nine out of ten refugees live in poor countries. The European Union (EU) is a good—or terrible— example of this. For policy and legal purposes, the EU adopts the UN definition of a refugee as its regional instruments do not include the right to seek asylum. This failure to recognize asylum at the regional level has allowed anti-immigrant groups and parties to impose their views on the EU’s approach to the issue. In 2004, the EU issued a directive establishing temporary ‘subsidiary protection’ for people who are not Convention refugees but would face a real risk of suffering serious harm if returned to their country of origin. Nevertheless, the EU’s response to ever increasing refugee crises in its areas of influence—Asia and Africa—is becoming increasingly repressive, with a series of measures intended to prevent third-country nationals from entering the Schengen Area. These measures include removing legal alternatives for reaching Europe (i.e. overseas embassies no longer accept asylum claims), preventing ships from setting sail for Europe, and imposing penalties on transport companies that allow people to travel without documents. The EU’s racist approach to migration and refugees became institutionalized (in other words, bureaucracies are used to enforce racist policies) with the Dublin III Regulation, which entered into force in 2014 and builds on the Dublin Convention of 1990, or Regulation I, and the Dublin II Regulation of 2003. The Dublin III Regulation requires asylum seekers to request asylum in the first European nation they arrive in, preventing them from choosing the country they wish to go to, which is often determined by colonial ties, previous migration, family networks, and cultural affinity. 27-Baylis Smith and Owens-Chap25-v1.indd 416 In addition to placing most of the burden on border countries—usually Greece and Italy—the Regulation is inefficient since it clogs the asylum claim processing system. Sadly, racist institutional approaches to refugee crises help to determine European attitudes towards migrants and asylum seekers, with Brexit being a good example of this. European refugee policy has also generated a backlash from populist anti-immigrant and even neo-fascist political parties. Institutionalized racism towards migrants and asylum seekers is becoming an international trend, taking over the UN system as shown by the process for the adoption of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration and the Global Compact on Refugees, a process started in 2001. To mark the 50th anniversary of the refugee convention, and due to the increasing number of refugees and the multiplication of causes leading to national and international forced displacement, the UNHCR called for Global Consultations on International Refugee Protection (2001). This process led to the UNHCR issuing guidelines that recommended that governments define ‘refugee’ in a broader sense and use protection mechanisms in addition to those of the 1951 Convention, also known as ‘complementary protection’. Complementary protection covers ‘non-Convention refugees’, who receive ‘non-Convention protection’—this includes UN General Assembly resolutions and also regional declarations, conventions, and jurisprudence expanding the definition of the refugee and the scope of protection. Complementary protection also includes human rights and humanitarian law that helps to support non-refoulement measures. While extending refugee protection to include core human rights treaties aided recognition of the complexities of contemporary forced migration, the process took a turn towards institutionalized racism with the 2015 New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants. As a result of the consultation process and adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in 2015, the UN General Assembly adopted the New York Declaration. In this Declaration, state parties ‘invite the private sector and civil society, including refugee and migrant organizations, to participate in multistakeholder alliances to support efforts to implement the commitments we are making today’ (Preamble, 15). The Declaration shifts the regime’s focus from state responsibility to the cooperation of non-state actors. Also, while emphasizing the UN commitment to human rights, the Declaration calls for policy designed to prevent refugees from fleeing to or seeking asylum in rich countries. This can clearly be seen in calls to 8/12/19 1:28 PM Chapter 25 Refugees and forced migration ‘ease pressure on host countries; enhance refugee selfreliance; expand access to third-country solutions; support conditions in countries of origin for return’. While the Declaration was supposedly intended to tackle the shortcomings of hard-core refugee laws, it called on governments and civil society to work together while trying to prevent refugees from reaching rich countries rather than doing anything to save lives. This racist perspective was finally reinforced with the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration and the Global Compact on Refugees, both adopted in December 2018. The goal of these 417 non-binding instruments is to prevent asylum seekers and migrants from reaching the West. Third World countries are requested to receive asylum seekers; in exchange, rich countries and the private sector will invest in services and infrastructure. There is no indication of how this responsibility will be shared with regard to the economic, political, and ethnic roots of international displacement, such as climate change, development, and crime. Rich countries will only accept refugees and undocumented migrants through ‘legal’ and limited means such as family reunification, student scholarships, or humanitarian visas. Key Points According to the UN definition, a refugee is a person who has a well-founded fear of persecution because of their political • opinions, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or membership of a social group with specific characteristics. Africa, the Americas, and Europe have included indiscriminate violence and threats to life and security either as legitimate causes • of persecution, or as the basis for granting subsidiary protection. While states have legally binding obligations when they become party to international and/or regional instruments of the regime, • they are not obligated to grant refugee status to every individual claiming asylum; state sovereignty allows them to establish national institutions and criteria for processing asylum claims individually and for making decisions. Recent legal approaches, especially the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration and the Global Compact on • Refugees, are non-binding instruments intended to prevent asylum seekers and undocumented migrants from reaching the West, while transferring the responsibility for refugee crises to Third World countries and ensuring benefits for international business. Conclusion Mainstream discourse constructs migration as a phenomenon that is either voluntary or involuntary. Involuntary migration has been grounded on the legal category of the refugee, which describes people who have a well-founded fear of persecution because of their political opinions, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or membership of a specific social group. Those who claim protection under international refugee law, in a given country other than their own, are asylum seekers. Nevertheless, because the refugee definition is a response to the political context of specific international wars and conflicts, such as the First and Second World Wars, many now argue that the category has become insufficient to grasp the policy and legal needs of contemporary involuntary migration, the causes of which range from environmental and development phenomena to new types of conflict such as widespread criminal violence and sexual trafficking. Today, involuntary migration also includes internally displaced persons, people in refugee-like situations, and people receiving subsidiary protection. This trend also has implications for how we study the phenomena, so there has been a recent shift from refugee studies to forced migration studies. However, there are different opinions regarding the extent to which it is convenient to replace a muscular legal category such as the refugee with a social and generic concept such as forced migration. Questions 1. What is the political advantage of differentiating between voluntary and involuntary migration? 2. What are the policy and power implications of the shift from refugee studies to forced migration studies? 3. Who benefits from fractioning the refugee label? 4. How does the forced migration typology (asylum seekers, refugees, people in need of protection, mixed flows, people of concern, etc.) fail to protect people fleeing for their lives? 27-Baylis Smith and Owens-Chap25-v1.indd 417 8/12/19 1:28 PM 418 ariadna estévez 5. How are the causes of forced migration linked to economic interests? 6. How are the institutions informing the international refugee regime related to postcolonial power relations? 7. What are the most important international legal instruments addressing forced migration today and tackling its root causes? 8. How are the Global Consultations on International Refugee Protection institutionalizing racism at the international level? 9. Why are most refugees from Third World countries? 10. If nine out of ten refugees live in developing countries, why is the West so reluctant to take refugees at all? Test your knowledge and understanding further by trying this chapter’s Multiple Choice Questions www.oup.com/he/baylis8e Further Reading Betts, A., and Loescher, G. (eds) (2010), Refugees in International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press). The most complete study of the refugee phenomenon from an IR viewpoint. It examines the phenomenon from the perspectives of IR theory, security, sovereignty, regions, and international cooperation. Castles, S., and Miller, M. (2009), The Age of Migration: International Population Movements in the Modern World (New York: Guilford). Looks at the phenomenon from a global perspective and with a focus on causality; it addresses climate change, ethnic conflict, racism, and labour by region. Cornelius, W. A., Tsuda, T., Martin, P. L., and Hollifield, J. F. (eds) (2004), Controlling Immigration: A Global Perspective, 2nd edn (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press). Looks at migration policy from an IR viewpoint. This comparative study of immigration policies in 15 industrialized countries offers a regional comparison and provides an important corrective to the tendency to consider immigration policy to be a domestic practice. Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, E., Loescher, G., Long, K., and Sigona, N. (2016), The Oxford Handbook of Refugees and Forced Migration Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press). The most complete study on forced migration as such, this book provides an overview of how different disciplines have addressed the phenomenon. It looks at the different types of forced migrants, the problem of camps, institutional and legal responses, social issues (gender, race, children, health, religion, etc.), and possible solutions. Gattrell, P. (2015), The Making of the Modern Refugee (Oxford: Oxford University Press). A historical view of the phenomenon from a social constructivist perspective, looking at the causes, consequences, and meanings of the phenomenon internationally. Gibney, M. J. (2004), The Ethics and Politics of Asylum: Liberal Democracy and the Response to Refugees (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). A study of how liberal democracies should understand international obligations regarding human rights and towards people fleeing abuse and harm. McAdam, J. (2007), Complementary Protection in International Refugee Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press). An overview of international legal obligations that countries have towards people who do not meet the legal definition of the refugee, but are in similar situations. Sassen, S. (2014), Expulsions: Brutality and Complexity in the Global Economy (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, Harvard). A critical approach to the causes of contemporary forced migration that helps us to locate international responsibility beyond political persecution. To find out more, follow the web links www.oup.com/he/baylis8e 27-Baylis Smith and Owens-Chap25-v1.indd 418 8/12/19 1:28 PM