The Global Compact on Refugees and Burden Sharing: Will the Compact Address the Normative Gap Concerning Burden Sharing?

Ineli-Ciger, Meltem

doi:10.1093/rsq/hdz003

Cited by 9 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Walters (2010) has dubbed the proliferation of such international efforts as the development of the humanitarian border , where experts and authorities from the global North move across networks of refugee camps and aid agencies counting, quantifying and spreading medical, legal and spiritual knowledge to the ictimi ed populations of the global South. Although international agreements like the GCR ( 2018) purport to foster the development of solidarity and responsibility sharing during large-scale refugee movements, all of the elements of the agreements are explicitly voluntary and non-binding (Ineli-Ciger, 2019;Refugees International, 2018). While they are laudable for the ideals that they en ision, the remain in the domain of soft la , more in line with recommendations or guidelines than enforceable hard law.…”

Section: Constructing 'Refugeenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In other parts 1 Although responsibilit sharing has emerged as a less loaded term to describe the distribution of costs and benefits resulting from refugee situations bet een states, the term burden is used here to highlight the collective reluctance of nation states to exercise solidarity. For a discussion of terminology see Ineli-Ciger (2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Substance of Solidarity: What the Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic Says About the Global Refugee Regime

Perzyna¹

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The European migrant crisis of 2015 brought to light the urgent need for solidarity and responsibility-sharing in dealing with large influxes of people fleeing war, conflict and persecution. This spirit was captured in two subsequent international agreements: the Global Compact on Refugees (GCR) (2018) and the Global Compact for Safe and Orderly Migration (GCM) (2018). In the midst of a very different kind of crisis - the global COVID-19 pandemic - the need for solidarity and responsibility-sharing is all the more imperative as COVID-19 has become a 'risk multiplier' for asylum seekers, compounding existing drivers. By examining how Western nation states in the global North have responded to asylum seekers during the pandemic against the backdrop of existing international refugee law, practice, and policy, this essay seeks to evaluate the normative potential of the GCR and the GCM for the entrenchment of the principle of solidarity. Employing the theoretical framework of governmentality, it argues that despite the rhetoric of responsibility-sharing, the reactions of Western nation states reflect an existing trend toward exclusionary impulses, with countries reflexively reverting to patterns of state-centric, insular protectionism. Taking these issues into consideration, the essay goes on to focus on Canada's response to the COVID-19 pandemic in light of its proximity to and relationship with the United States to illustrate how biopower is being deployed to exclude in line with neoliberal rationalities, even in a country that is usually heralded as a beacon of humanitarianism. The essay concludes with a guarded diagnosis that warns of the potential for an international protection crisis should civil society fail to challenge prevailing biopolitics. Keywords: COVID-19, Asylum Seekers, Refugees, Solidarity, Responsibility-sharing, Governmentality, Biopower, Neoliberal, Canada, United States

show abstract

Section: Constructing 'Refugeenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Substance of Solidarity: What the Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic Says About the Global Refugee Regime

Perzyna¹

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On this issue, the Compact is both extremely wordy and devoid of concrete substance. 100 There is simply no willingness within the State community to live up to a common solidarity model and, even more substantially, there is not even a common understanding on what solidarity actually means. 101 The most glaring demonstration of this current lack of preparedness to take on a substantial solidarity commitment, at least in one of the most crucial areas, can be seen in the fact that EU Member States were not even able to implement a relocation plan for (originally) 160,000 refugees at the height of the asylum crisis.…”

Section: The Case For Normativity Of the Refugee Compactmentioning

confidence: 99%

Opening up a new chapter of law‐making in international law: The Global Compacts on Migration and for Refugees of 2018

Hilpold¹

2020

European Law Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The endorsement/affirmation of the Global Compact on Migration and the Global Compact for Refugees in December 2018 has been accompanied by an intense discussion about the need to introduce new norms in these fields and about the actual legal force of the respective provisions. There was and there persists an open contrast between the openly declared non-bindingness of these Compacts and the widespread fear that they would either severely constrain national sovereignty in highly delicate areas or dilute arduously achieved standards (especially with regard to refugee law).Eventually, this whole discussion leads to the question about the meaning and the status of soft law in international law. With regard to the European Union, the transformative impact of the Global Compacts will depend on whether the EU further proceeds on its path of "emancipation" from international law while internally finding no consensus on the values here at issue.

show abstract

“…As noted by Ineli-Ciger, the Convention did not explicitly deal with burden-or responsibilitysharing nor provide an enforcement mechanism for equitable compensation to over-burdened host countries. This has led to the unequal distribution of asylum-related burdens (the 'burden' of hosting refugees) among UN member states (Ineli-Ciger, 2019). This is echoed by Inder, who argues that in the Convention the burden-sharing principle's form (its confinement to the preamble) and its substance (limited scope and legal effects) laid the foundations for burden-sharing's 'ongoing ambivalence' in international refugee law (Inder, 2017).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yet they note that 'vision, ambition, and investment by States and other stakeholders will be required to help ensure that its provisions on climate change and disaster displacement can be fully realized'(Türk & Garlick, 2019, p. 399).What does the evolution of refugee burden-sharing cooperation in international agreements to date tell us? Its ambiguity under the 1951 Convention, revival with the New York Declaration and subsequent watering-down into the aspirational Refugee Compact framework shows us that 'political reality' is the primary obstacle to binding and enforceable refugee burden-sharing(Ineli-Ciger, 2019). As observed by Ineli-Ciger, 'today very few…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond burdens and climate refugees: a stocktake of international responsibility-sharing and South Pacific climate-induced migration

McElwain¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

<p>This paper provides a ‘stocktake’ of common responsibility-sharing principles and goals in international agreements on climate change and refugees/migration to date and investigates how these principles might inform an Oceania agreement to deal with the emerging issue of South Pacific climate-induced migration. Where international agreements on climate change and refugees/migration overlap I identify a set of responsibility-sharing principles and goals and investigate their compatibility with the needs and demands of Pacific communities facing the prospect of climate-induced displacement. In this paper, I tap into ongoing political and academic debates concerning if and how we ought to differentiate states’ environmental responsibilities. I ask whose responsibility is it to address climate-induced migration? And what exactly are they responsible for? I find that international agreements on climate change and refugees/migration sufficiently overlap with the needs of Pacific communities to provide us with five common responsibility-sharing principles and goals that are potentially useful in the South Pacific climate migration context: the ability to pay principle, polluter pays principle, prevention, emissions reduction and (funding) adaptation. Notwithstanding responsibility-sharing’s negotiation difficulties, these responsibility-sharing principles have significant congruence with Pacific communities’ needs and demands, and thus provide us with a valuable starting point for an Oceania agreement on climate-induced migration that is informed first and foremost by the needs of those who may have to leave their homes.</p>

show abstract

The Global Compact on Refugees and Burden Sharing: Will the Compact Address the Normative Gap Concerning Burden Sharing?

Cited by 9 publications

References 0 publications

The Substance of Solidarity: What the Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic Says About the Global Refugee Regime

The Substance of Solidarity: What the Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic Says About the Global Refugee Regime

Opening up a new chapter of law‐making in international law: The Global Compacts on Migration and for Refugees of 2018

Beyond burdens and climate refugees: a stocktake of international responsibility-sharing and South Pacific climate-induced migration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About