Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Asylum As Reparation Refuge and Responsibility For The Harms of Displacement James Souter Full Chapter PDF
Asylum As Reparation Refuge and Responsibility For The Harms of Displacement James Souter Full Chapter PDF
https://ebookmass.com/product/refuge-beyond-reach-how-rich-
democracies-repel-asylum-seekers-fitzgerald/
https://ebookmass.com/product/morality-and-responsibility-of-
rulers-european-and-chinese-origins-of-a-rule-of-law-as-justice-
for-world-order-anthony-carty/
https://ebookmass.com/product/sanctuary-cities-the-politics-of-
refuge-loren-collingwood/
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-bilateral-mind-as-the-mirror-
of-nature-a-metaphilosophy-james-blachowicz/
Syria: The Making and Unmaking of a Refuge State Dawn
Chatty
https://ebookmass.com/product/syria-the-making-and-unmaking-of-a-
refuge-state-dawn-chatty/
https://ebookmass.com/product/wrongs-harms-and-compensation-
paying-for-our-mistakes-adam-slavny/
https://ebookmass.com/product/ethics-and-professional-
responsibility-for-paralegals-6th-edition-ebook/
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-age-of-culpability-children-
and-the-nature-of-criminal-responsibility-gideon-yaffe/
INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL THEORY
SERIES EDITOR: GARY BROWNING
Asylum as Reparation
Refuge and Responsibility for
the Harms of Displacement
James Souter
International Political Theory
Series Editor
Gary Browning, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK
The Palgrave International Political Theory Series provides students and
scholars with cutting-edge scholarship that explores the ways in which
we theorise the international. Political theory has by tradition implic-
itly accepted the bounds of the state, and this series of intellectually
rigorous and innovative monographs and edited volumes takes the disci-
pline forward, reflecting both the burgeoning of IR as a discipline and the
concurrent internationalisation of traditional political theory issues and
concepts. Offering a wide-ranging examination of how International Poli-
tics is to be interpreted, the titles in the series thus bridge the IR-political
theory divide. The aim of the series is to explore international issues in
analytic, historical and radical ways that complement and extend common
forms of conceiving international relations such as realism, liberalism and
constructivism. This series is indexed by Scopus.
Asylum as Reparation
Refuge and Responsibility for the Harms
of Displacement
James Souter
School of Politics and International Studies
University of Leeds
Leeds, UK
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Acknowledgements
I have accumulated many debts as this work has made its long journey
from MSc dissertation, to doctoral thesis, to its current form a decade
later. First and foremost, my supervisor throughout my postgraduate
studies, Matthew Gibney, has deeply shaped my understanding of the
ethics and politics of asylum and refugee protection, and I am grateful
for his invaluable support, guidance and encouragement. During these
studies, I was fortunate to receive very helpful written and/or oral feed-
back on my work in progress from Jenny Allsopp, Megan Bradley, Roger
Duthie, Marcus Carlsen Häggrot, Rob Heimburger, Diletta Lauro, Susan
MacDougall and Jonathan Seglow, as well as from audiences at confer-
ences and seminars in Oxford, Copenhagen, Sibiu and Cairo. My exam-
iners at various stages of the doctorate—namely Alexander Betts, Daniel
Butt, Dawn Chatty, Katy Long and David Miller—also really helped me
to develop my work. My postgraduate studies were only made possible by
a full scholarship from the Economic and Social Research Council.
As the manuscript gradually made its way to completion, I have bene-
fited from further feedback and support. I would like to thank Blair
Peruniak, who has offered me very valuable input and encouragement
throughout this project, providing challenging comments during long
conversations not only on my draft doctoral thesis, but also on the book
manuscript. Since moving to Leeds, I have been glad of discussions
with and support from colleagues, particularly Laura Considine, Derek
Edyvane, Josh Hobbs, Jason Ralph and Kerri Woods. Members of the
v
vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
“How should the role of external states in generating refugee flows inform
our understanding of obligations to refugees? In this book James Souter
provides a lucid and compelling response to this question that elaborates
the place of reparations within the moral functions of asylum. Working
through a range of cases, Souter demonstrates the scope and significance
of this reparative function for state responsibilities and its important role
in strengthening the international refugee regime. This is a vital contri-
bution to the political ethics of asylum that significantly develops the
field.”
—Professor David Owen, Politics and International Relations, School of
Economic, Social and Political Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences,
University of Southampton
“In this excellent book, James Souter explores the urgent question of
state responsibility for asylum. Which countries should be responsible for
refugees, and why? He provides an original, compelling, and nuanced case
for viewing asylum as reparation for states’ role in the causes displacement,
whether due to military intervention, climate change, or colonial legacies.
Asylum as Reparation is a significant contribution to Political Theory and
Refugee Studies, which will be of great interest to students, researchers,
and practitioners interested in the design of more just refugee policies.”
—Alexander Betts, Professor of Forced Migration and International
Affairs, University of Oxford
vii
viii PRAISE FOR ASYLUM AS REPARATION
1 Introduction 1
Foregrounding the Causes of Forced Migration 2
Military Intervention and Displacement 3
Climate Change and Displacement 4
Colonial Legacies and Displacement 4
A Reparative Approach to Asylum 5
Structure of the Argument 11
References 16
ix
x CONTENTS
Introduction
Refugees face the stark threat of serious harm. They escape dangers such
as war, generalised violence, persecution, severe poverty and damaging
environmental change, whether these ills have been created partly or
wholly by their own states, non-state actors or other states. Refugees flee
in very large numbers: at the end of 2020, there were around 82 million
displaced persons in the world, of whom around 26 million had crossed
an international border as refugees (UNHCR, 2021: 2).1 Yet very many
do not find the protection they seek. Given the policies of a range of
states, they endure frequently perilous journeys only to be trapped in inse-
cure camps or to lead precarious lives in urban settings throughout the
developing world for years, or even decades, on end (see Parekh, 2020).
In particular, the variety of measures that wealthy states use to exclude
refugees ensures that only a relatively small number reach their borders
to claim asylum, although this does not prevent loud declarations of ‘cri-
sis’ in response by politicians, publics and sections of the media in those
states (see FitzGerald, 2019; Gibney, 2004).
The plight of refugees is now one of the most urgent moral and polit-
ical issues in the contemporary world. Indeed, the sheer magnitude of
2 While there are also a number of vital ethical questions surrounding the proper
response to refugees by non-state actors—from the role of multinational corporations in
creating displacement, to the proper response of civil society organisations to the arrival
of refugees—my focus in this book is on the responsibilities of states. This is because
the state generally remains the central actor with the capacity to respond to the plight of
refugees in the contemporary world, given their control of access to territory that refugees
need to enter in order to avoid serious harm.
1 INTRODUCTION 3
some have argued that the prevailing models of the colonial state ‘set
the stage’ for postcolonial refugee movements, by deploying strategies
such as ‘divide and rule’, which involved the privileging of certain ethnic
groups over others, and thereby creating the conditions in which post-
independence conflict and displacement would result (Anthony, 1991:
574; see also Hovil, 2019). It is also frequently observed that the imposi-
tion of arbitrary boundaries that were insensitive to local social and ethnic
groupings also sowed the seeds of such conflict (e.g. Adepoju, 1982:
24), and that the leaders of former colonies perpetuated the repressive
apparatus of the colonial administration that they inherited upon inde-
pendence in order to consolidate and maintain their control (Hovil &
Lomo, 2015: 41; Otunnu, 1992: 18).
More specifically, there are cases in which particular former colonial
powers may have created conditions ripe for contemporary displacement.
One example here is the role of Belgium in creating the conditions that
made the Rwandan genocide possible, as well as its attendant refugee
crisis, in which three million Rwandans had become refugees by the end
of July 1994 (Klinghoffer, 1998: 3). Although the genocide has been
framed as a form of almost primordial ethnic violence (see Chimni, 1998:
360–361), Belgian colonial policies can be seen as largely responsible
for ossifying the distinction between Hutu and Tutsi, and privileging
the latter, thereby laying the ground for the subsequent acrimony and
violence between them (see e.g. Prunier, 1995: 37).
with its heavy focus on meeting refugees’ immediate and pressing needs,
generally views the capacity of each state to protect refugees, and not any
special responsibility it may have for the creation of those refugees, as
morally decisive when determining the correct distribution of responsi-
bilities to refugees among states. It does not ultimately matter for this
distribution, on the humanitarian view, whether or not Syrians were
forced to flee partly given Russia’s actions or purely due to those of
their own government, whether some may be displaced as a consequence
of other states’ excessive carbon emissions, or whether ethnic conflict
that produces refugees is rooted in ongoing colonial legacies. It would
follow from this that Russia has no greater responsibility to protect Syrian
refugees than any other state, that the world’s highest-emitting states
bear no more responsibility for hosting the environmentally displaced
than the lowest emitters, and that Belgium was no more responsible for
protecting Rwandan refugees in 1994 than, say, Thailand. Yet, intuitively,
these conclusions are highly implausible. The reason they are implausible,
or so I shall argue, is that the humanitarian impulse sits alongside another
widespread and deeply rooted conviction which, very roughly, asserts that
those who cause harm, and especially unjustified harm, bear a special obli-
gation to make amends for it. This, in very basic terms, can be described
as a principle of reparation. In many other contexts—from legal settings to
interpersonal relationships—we routinely apply something like this prin-
ciple, so a key question facing the humanitarian and other theoretical
accounts of asylum is: why not in the context of asylum?
Acknowledging both the frequently external causes of forced migra-
tion and the intuitive force of the principle of reparation should lead us
also to recognise an additional moral function that asylum may possess:
as a form of reparation for the unjustified harms of displacement. This
potential reparative function, I shall argue, stems from a special obliga-
tion on the part of states to offer asylum to refugees for whose flight they
are responsible, whether through their military interventions, support for
oppressive regimes or imposition of damaging economic policies. Asylum
needs to be partly re-conceptualised in order to reflect fully the range
of moral obligations that states bear towards refugees; it should also be
conceived as potentially offering a means by which states that have caused
or contributed to refugees’ flight can rectify the unjustified harms that
they have imposed on them. In ethical theorising on states’ responsibili-
ties to refugees, I aim to show, it is of great moral import that states of
asylum are often implicated in the flight of the refugees to whom they
1 INTRODUCTION 7
may go on to offer protection, even while they more often than not go
to great lengths to debar those refugees from their territory.4
The idea that states bear a special responsibility to offer asylum to
refugees for whose flight they are responsible has been politically salient
in the modern era in light of military interventions by Western and other
states, such as the Vietnam War, NATO’s bombing of Kosovo in 1999,
the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and Russia’s military role in the Syrian civil
war. In response to these cases, some politicians, citizens and academics
have asserted that the intervening powers bore a special obligation to
protect the refugees whom they generated (e.g. Carens, 2013: 195;
Walzer, 1983: 49). While clear examples of states explicitly using their
asylum policies for reparative ends are not plentiful, the United States’
resettlement of Vietnamese refugees can be seen as implicitly reparative
in character (Carens, 2003: 100), and the legislation passed in the US
promising admission to Iraqi interpreters and translators was explicitly
framed as fulfilling a special responsibility to them.5
In contrast, this reparative approach to asylum has not received detailed
theoretical treatment, as political theorists have often engaged with
this idea only in passing.6 Reflecting the dominance of the humani-
tarian approach, ethical theorising on asylum has instead tended to be
synchronic and ahistorical in character, focusing upon the rights and
duties of refugees and states that stem from the current situations of both
parties, rather than from pre-existing relationships among them. Work
4 In this respect, my argument has parallels with theoretical work that seeks to challenge
the framing of global issues as causally unconnected with Western actions, such as global
poverty (Pogge, 2002) and humanitarian intervention (e.g. Dunford & Neu, 2019; Nili,
2011).
5 The Refugee Crisis in Iraq Act asserted that ‘the United States has a fundamental
obligation to help the vast number of Iraqis displaced in Iraq and throughout the region
by the war and the associated chaos, especially those who have supported America’s efforts
in Iraq’ (United States, 2008).
6 Discussions include: Bader (2005: 346–347), Blake (2013: 114–119), Carens (2013:
195), Coen (2017), Ferracioli (2020: 195–196), Mark Gibney (1986: 79–108, 1991),
Matthew Gibney (2004: 48–57), Holtug (2016: 285–286), Lennox (1993), Miller (2016:
113–114), Owen (2020: 67), Shacknove (1988: 140–141), Walzer (1983: 48–51), and
Wilcox (2007). More recently, however, a few scholars have offered somewhat more
detailed explorations of states’ reparative obligations towards the environmentally displaced
(e.g. Buxton, 2019; Draper, 2018; Eckersley, 2015), war refugees (Davidovic, 2016;
Kling, 2019), and migrants more generally (e.g. Achiume, 2019; Bosniak, 2016: 209–217;
Collste, 2015: ch. 12; Glanville, 2020; Nevins, 2019).
8 J. SOUTER
that has addressed the rights of refugees to reparation has tended to focus
strongly on voluntary repatriation and refugees’ claims for redress against
their states of origin during transitional justice processes following periods
of conflict and human rights violations, rather than any entitlement to
asylum from external states (e.g. Bradley, 2013; Bradley & Duthie, 2014).
While Megan Bradley (2013) has convincingly argued that the voluntary
repatriation of refugees can potentially act as a form of redress for the
injustices of displacement, Bradley’s insight that ‘reparations are a critical
expression of accountability for forced migration’ (Bradley, 2013: 2) is
highly relevant for reflection on the responsibilities of refugees’ states of
asylum, as well as those of their states of origin.
Given this relative neglect of the reparative approach to asylum, the
claim that states bear a special obligation to those whom they have
displaced continues to contain unresolved ambiguities. Although this
basic claim may—at least for those of a broadly liberal and internation-
alist ethical orientation—be highly intuitive or even considered obvious,7
it is when we seek to flesh out and specify it that matters become much
more controversial and interesting. As it turns out, even if we are prepared
to admit the existence of this obligation in principle, the conditions under
which it should obtain are far less clear. Should external states offer asylum
to refugees for whose flight they bear only causal responsibility, or should
moral responsibility, in the form of fault or blameworthiness, be required?
Should such states offer asylum as reparation to refugees whom they have
displaced justifiably (assuming this is possible), or is it owed to refugees
who have been displaced only unjustly?8 How should this obligation
be balanced against other competing moral considerations, not least the
morally powerful humanitarian principle? What are the moral and practical
implications of asylum as reparation for the operation of the international
refugee regime?
Moreover, without a clear account of states’ reparative responsibilities
to refugees, theorists are liable to slide, perhaps inadvertently, between
Toward some refugees, we may well have obligations of the same sort that
we have toward fellow nationals. This is obviously the case with regard to
any group of people whom we have helped turn into refugees. The injury
we have done them makes for an affinity between us: thus Vietnamese
refugees had, in a moral sense, been effectively Americanized even before
they arrived on these shores.
9 Indeed, there are a number of other special responsibilities that states may bear
towards refugees. These include the responsibility of refugees’ states of origin to readmit
and reintegrate their estranged citizens (Bradley, 2013); the responsibility of states which,
by receiving refugees onto their territory, acquire a duty of non-refoulement (Miller, 2016:
84); and states’ associative duties towards refugees on the basis of political, social or
cultural ties those refugees may have to a state of asylum that stem from colonial legacies
(e.g. see Amighetti & Nuti, 2016; Smith, 2008, 2014). While recognising these other
forms of special responsibility to refugees, my focus in this work is on states’ reparative
obligations arising from the act of causing or contributing to refugees’ flight.
10 J. SOUTER
11 For a rectificatory argument with a parallel structure, see Butt (2009: 14).
12 The argument presented in this book is also therefore of a contextualist character,
taking one principle that is firmly embedded in a particular normative context, rather than
basing it on any foundational or metaphysical truth. Although this renders the argument
readily applicable to liberal-democratic states (given both their commitment to principles
of reparation and their roles in the production of refugees), it also potentially applies to
non-democratic states which also generate refugees and adhere in their laws and policies
to a conception of reparative justice. For a discussion of contextualism with reference to
the ethics of immigration, see Carens (2004).
12 J. SOUTER
they have displaced. This may seem unwarranted, given the highly limited
extent to which states—perhaps at times conscious of the admission of
failure implicitly involved in protecting refugees from states where their
interventions were supposed to have delivered freedom and security—
have recognised or fulfilled their reparative obligations towards refugees.
It may also seem unrealistic given that the analysis in this book does
not, in principle, apply only to those defined as refugees under the 1951
Refugee Convention, who have a well-founded fear of persecution on
various grounds, but to any individual forced to flee serious harm; a defi-
nition which would enjoin states to host far greater numbers of refugees
than they are generally prepared to.14 Although much of this book is an
exercise in what has become known as nonideal political theory—in that
my focus is upon the proper response to the injustices of displacement,
generated by states’ lack of compliance with ideal moral requirements—it
may also fall within what Charles Mills (2009: 178) has described as ‘rec-
tificatory ideal’ theory, which aims to identify ‘what is ideally required to
remedy past injustices’ (emphasis added).15 Thus, while the account of
asylum as reparation advanced here is concerned with these injustices, it
seeks to identify the ideal remedy for these injustices, in a way that may
well be far from being politically feasible.
On the other hand, others may detect a certain conservatism built
into the theoretical framework of asylum as reparation itself, given that
it involves presupposing what Joseph Carens (2013: 10) has dubbed
‘the conventional moral view on immigration’ that states are entitled to
control their borders. This view, some have argued, leads liberal states
to violate the principles of freedom and equality to which they are
committed (e.g. Carens, 1987). Indeed, instead of challenging a view
of asylum as a ‘loophole in otherwise restrictive immigration policies’
(Price, 2009: 3–4), I argue only that the responsibility of external states
for certain refugees’ flight can provide those refugees with one specific
ground for passing through this loophole. It may even be the case that
the idea of asylum as reparation would not make sense in a world of open
borders for, in that scenario, refugees with reparative claims would simply
be acting on their general entitlements when entering another state, and
14 For broader theoretical definitions of the refugee, see Shacknove (1985), and Gibney
(2004: 7).
15 For a critique of the use of idealism and realism in political theory concerning
refugees, see Sandelind (2019).
16 J. SOUTER
the state responsible for their flight would consequently have to offer
reparation to them in other ways.16 While a reparative argument for open
borders could be mounted if one established that all migration is the
product of external states’ actions, as Jonathan Seglow (2013: 2556) has
recognised, reparative justice ‘does not call for open borders when no
harm has occurred’ (see also Song, 2018: 82, 92).
Nevertheless, there is value in running both ideal and nonideal argu-
ments on parallel tracks, as it were. Even if the idea that the powerful
may voluntarily hold themselves accountable for the displacement they
cause seems unrealistic and we need instead to pursue some course of
action that falls short of Mills’ rectificatory ideal in this context, we still
have to know what this ideal consists of, so as to ensure that we do not
end up confusing the normatively desirable with the practically possible.
Similarly, it is possible to support open borders as a longer-term political
goal while at the same time advocating asylum as reparation for certain
refugees in the meantime, given the obstinate political reality of immigra-
tion controls. Asylum as reparation, therefore, is significant as a potential
means of offering some measure of justice to refugees in a deeply unjust
and bordered world.
References
Achiume, E. T. (2019). Migration as decolonization. Stanford Law Review,
71(6), 1509–1574.
Adepoju, A. (1982). The dimension of the refugee problem in Africa. African
Affairs, 81(322), 21–35.
Amighetti, S., & Nuti, A. (2016). A nation’s right to exclude and the colonies.
Political Theory, 44(4), 541–566.
Anthony, C. G. (1991). Africa’s refugee crisis: State building in historical
perspective. International Migration Review, 25(3), 574–591.
Bader, V. (2005). The ethics of immigration. Constellations, 12(3), 331–361.
Blake, M. (2013). Immigration, causality, and complicity. In S. R. Ben-Porath
& R. M. Smith (Eds.), Varieties of sovereignty and citizenship (pp. 111–123).
University of Philadelphia Press.
Bosniak, L. (2016). Wrongs, rights and regularization. Moral Philosophy and
Politics, 3(2), 187–222.
Bradley, M. (2013). Refugee repatriation: Justice, responsibility and redress.
Cambridge University Press.
16 I am grateful to Daniel Butt and Katy Long for prompting this point.
1 INTRODUCTION 17
3 However, some of these moral functions may be more likely to take root in other
kinds of state; for instance, asylum may potentially function most strongly as an expression
of religious solidarity in a theocratic state.
4 This is the case despite the fact that that there is disagreement among theorists over
what kinds of harm give rise to an entitlement to asylum, with some defending the
restriction of asylum to those at risk of persecution (e.g. Cherem, 2016; Lister, 2013).
However, even if asylum is restricted in this way, it will nevertheless play a humanitarian
role, by meeting the needs of refugees threatened by persecution.
5 I have borrowed this terminology from David Owen (2020: 47).
26 J. SOUTER
6 My distinction between asylum’s core and contingent moral functions is not intended
to imply that the former are necessarily more ethically significant, or that they should
always be ranked over the latter in cases where they conflict. As I argue in Chapter 8,
the priority that should be given to core and contingent functions of asylum, such as its
humanitarian and reparative roles, is importantly context-dependent. Instead, I make this
distinction mainly in order to point to whether particular moral functions of asylum are
always at play when grants of it are made to refugees, or only at times. I am grateful to
Clara Sandelind, and Blair Peruniak, for comments that prompted this point.
7 In David Miller’s terms, these moral functions apply to those he describes as ‘par-
ticularity claimants’, who he defines as those ‘whose claim is that they already have a
particular relationship with the receiving state that justifies their request to be admitted’
(Miller, 2015: 401; see also Miller, 2016: 77). However, Miller refers to immigrants more
widely, rather than only refugees.
2 ASYLUM AND ITS HUMANITARIAN FUNCTION 27
concerned, a classification that does not diminish its significance given the
frequently external causes of contemporary forced migration.
Again, these can all be properly classed as contingent functions of
asylum, simply because not every grant of asylum plays these roles. For
instance, asylum cannot meaningfully express condemnation of refugees’
states of origin in cases where displacement was the sole responsibility of
external states, and nor will it express solidarity of the sort envisaged here
in the absence of any affinity that grounds a solidaristic relation between
the refugee and their state of asylum.8 While we can imagine a scenario
in which all refugees are owed asylum on these contingent grounds—for
instance, if all refugees happened to be displaced as a result of external
states’ actions—in our actual world they apply only to some refugees.
This account of asylum’s moral functions is in some respects plural-
istic, for it recognises a variety of moral ends to which this institution
may be put, and recognises the probability that potentially tragic conflicts
will open out among these functions.9 However, it might be objected
at this point that, rather than potentially operating simultaneously, some
of the moral functions of asylum canvassed here should be seen as
being mutually exclusive, and some should be simply dropped by states.
For instance, Matthew Price argues that asylum’s fundamental roles are
to offer surrogate membership to refugees at risk of persecution and
to express condemnation of refugee-producing states with a view to
reforming those states, and not to function in a humanitarian manner.
This, Price argues, is because, given the inefficiency of asylum as a
humanitarian tool in comparison with in situ aid, ‘[f]rom a humanitarian
perspective, it is hard to see why one should prefer asylum to other, less
costly ways of helping refugees’ (Price, 2009: 12). It is also because,
according to Price, the humanitarian approach ignores the fact that perse-
cution is not just another harm that can befall refugees, but instead has
a distinct character that calls for a ‘distinctive remedy’ (Price, 2009: 13).
Price also contends that the adoption of a humanitarian form of asylum
by states would ‘eliminate from asylum any expressive valence’, as the
8 For a contrasting account of cosmopolitan solidarity towards refugees, see Hobbs and
Souter (2020).
9 In this, it shares affinities with the broader philosophy of value pluralism, as repre-
sented in the work of theorists such as Isaiah Berlin (2013). For discussion of ways in
which practices of asylum may involve tragic moral conflicts, see Blake (2020) and Miller
(2016: 93).
28 J. SOUTER
Third, Price ignores the fact that it is not only asylum’s condemnatory
function that has the ‘expressive character’ (Price, 2009: 69) he seeks
to protect, and that this character can be retained while maintaining its
humanitarian function and other moral roles. As I have suggested above,
grants of asylum can be expressive in a wider range of ways than those
recognised by Price—for instance, of solidarity and desert—and human-
itarian asylum is no exception. As I discuss below, the commitment to
political neutrality, which Price claims precludes the use of humanitarian
asylum as a means of condemning refugees’ states of origin, is merely one
contingent strand of humanitarianism, and other humanitarian traditions
do engage in overtly political ways and openly condemn the perpetrators
10 As Alexander Betts (2006: 159–160) has argued, it is not clear that asylum in a
Western state is invariably less efficient than in-region protection: if efficiency is theorised
so as to encompass social and political, rather than merely financial, considerations, then
asylum in the West may at times be the more efficient option.
2 ASYLUM AND ITS HUMANITARIAN FUNCTION 29
11 In this vein, David Owen (2020: ch. 2) distinguishes between three modes of refugee
protection: asylum (consisting of surrogate membership offered to those at risk of perse-
cution); sanctuary (offering protection to those fleeing generalised violence); and refuge
(offering protection to those escaping situations such as famine and natural disaster).
However, while recognising that these categories capture normatively salient differences,
I treat asylum as an overarching status within which all three types of claims can be put,
given that each has a common basis of protection from serious harm in another state.
30 J. SOUTER
Put simply, refuge is about fulfilling a duty of rescue. Born out of our
common humanity, it is based on the simple recognition that we have
shared obligations towards our fellow human beings. Just as we cannot
stand by and watch a stranger in our own community suffering, so too we
have obligations towards distant strangers, when we are able to assist and
it is not significantly costly to do so. The content of that obligation should
involve meeting immediate needs and then returning people to normality
as quickly as possible thereafter.
12 Political theorists who have written on asylum have tended to follow suit, viewing
states’ responsibilities to refugees in primarily humanitarian terms. Some have done so
explicitly, in terms of ‘humanitarian concern’ (Carens, 2013: 195) or the ‘principle of
humanitarianism’ (Gibney, 2004: 231). Others, in contrast, have done so more implicitly
as a ‘principle of mutual aid’ (Walzer, 1983: 45) or a ‘samaritan duty’ (Altman & Wellman,
2009: 181).
13 Although the operation of UNHCR and practices of asylum by states are often
distinct, the former has shaped understandings of the latter over the course of its history,
by promoting more inclusive asylum policies, intervening on behalf of refugees in asylum
hearings, and even undertaking refugee status determination on behalf of certain states.
UNHCR’s humanitarianism can also be seen in its aid operations in response to refugee
crises in refugees’ regions of origin, which generate their own sets of urgent moral
questions. For a history of UNHCR, see Loescher (2001).
2 ASYLUM AND ITS HUMANITARIAN FUNCTION 31
14 For instance, the former leader of the UK Independence Party, Nigel Farage,
admitted in 2013 that, unlike in the case of ‘economic migrants’, Western states have
a responsibility to admit Syrians ‘fleeing for their lives’ (Guardian, 2013). Furthermore,
the discourse of ‘bogus asylum seekers’ often perpetuated by populist politicians in liberal-
democratic states presupposes that, were refugees ‘genuine’, the receiving state would bear
a responsibility to protect them.
15 Humanitarian actors, exemplified by aid organisations such as the International
Committee of the Red Cross take impartiality to be one of their fundamental and guiding
principles, requiring that ‘assistance be based on need and not on the basis of nationality,
race, religion, gender, or political opinion’ (Barnett & Weiss, 2008: 3).
32 J. SOUTER
16 Although humanitarianism and human rights are often seen as having distinct, though
overlapping, histories (Barnett, 2011a: 16), they can be seen to be closely interlinked
conceptually for, as some theorists have argued, human needs may themselves give rise
to human rights (e.g. Miller, 2007: 178–185). While a full account of what constitutes
a basic human right stretches beyond the confines of this work, I follow Henry Shue in
arguing that ‘rights to three particular substances—subsistence, security, and liberty—are
basic rights’ (Shue, 1996: 9).
17 For the argument that various state duties of asylum, owed to refugees following their
admission, are not based on a humanitarian duty of mutual aid, see Cavallero (2014).
2 ASYLUM AND ITS HUMANITARIAN FUNCTION 33
need for refugees to undertake perilous and often fatal journeys.18 While
resettlement, which is accessed through an effective invitation to perma-
nent residence by a third-party state to a refugee already residing in a state
of first asylum that is unable to offer adequate protection to that refugee,
is viewed in refugee policy circles as distinct from asylum, it is not clear
that we should endorse this distinction at the level of theory, for reset-
tlement can be seen as a form of asylum in itself. This is because asylum
and resettlement differ principally in terms of their means of access, while
both offer the protection of refugees’ basic rights and needs in another
state.
Importantly, moreover, the humanitarian approach sees the potential
beneficiaries of asylum, in turn, as anyone whose basic needs are threat-
ened. In doing so, it makes a radical departure from the requirement
within the 1951 Refugee Convention that refugees have a ‘well-founded
fear of persecution’, by encompassing those fleeing other harms such
as generalised violence, natural disaster, severe poverty or environmental
degradation, and classifying them as refugees.
In summary, then, humanitarian asylum can be understood as
consisting of the protection of refugees’ basic needs and rights in a state
other than their own for as long as they remain at risk of serious harm
on return to their own state, which they may access through either their
spontaneous arrival, or through conventional resettlement or evacuation
undertaken by states of asylum. However, the humanitarian perspec-
tive also has important implications for the prioritisation of refugees for
asylum, and the proper distribution of duties towards refugees across
states. Given its focus on meeting basic needs, if states find they are
genuinely unable to protect all refugees in need of asylum, then a humani-
tarian approach would involve a process of triage, where the most necessi-
tous refugees would be given priority.19 When it comes to the distribution
of responsibilities to offer asylum to refugees, a humanitarian perspec-
tive implies, first and foremost, that states should act to do what they
can to protect refugees. Again, given the humanitarian focus on meeting
basic needs, states’ capacities are most relevant to the distribution of these
18 For this reason, the high levels of death in the Mediterranean Sea in 2015 led to
calls for ‘humanitarian visas’ to be issued to refugees to avoid the need for such deadly
maritime journeys (Betts, 2015).
19 For discussion of vulnerability as a selection criterion for states, see Miller (2020:
102–107).
34 J. SOUTER
20 This humanitarian aspiration to political neutrality may be responsible for the contrast
made by some theorists between humanitarian and political forms of asylum (Owen,
2020: 4–11; Price, 2009), which carries with it the implication that humanitarianism is
not political. While this may be true in some senses—for instance, humanitarian asylum
need not be directly tethered to any particular political ideology or faction—such a framing
ignores the ways in which humanitarian action, whether in the context of asylum or not,
is deeply bound up in power relations (see Long, 2013: 21).
2 ASYLUM AND ITS HUMANITARIAN FUNCTION 35
21 This is in a similar manner to how this kind of posture has enabled humanitarian
organisations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to maintain
access to war zones in order to deliver aid without being perceived as a protagonist in
conflict.
22 It may also be linked to what is often seen as the paternalism of the humanitar-
ianism pursued by actors such as UNHCR (see Barnett, 2011b): the rush to provide
aid in emergency situations can lead to an assumption that humanitarian agencies act in
the best interests of refugees, despite minimal or no consultation with them. This has
prompted the now orthodox critique that humanitarian actors often treat refugees as
passive, depoliticised victims (e.g. Harrell-Bond, 2002; Malkki, 1996; Rajaram, 2002).
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
CHAPTER LIV.
THE EGYPTIAN TURTLE.
Cum ventre humano tibi negotium est, qui nec ratione mitigatur, nec prece ullâ
flectitur.—Livy.
Ancient Alexandria left its mark on the world. Its history, however,
appears to connect it rather with great names than with great events.
Fancy is pleased with the picture of the greatest of the Greeks,
Philip’s godlike son, Aristotle’s pupil, who carried about with him his
Homer in a golden casket, the Conquistador of Asia, and the heir of
the Pharaohs, tracing, with the contents of a flour-bag, the outlines of
the nascent city, which was to bear his name of might, and to
sepulchre his remains.
The trade of Phœnicia revived in its harbours, and on its quays. It
became the Heliopolis, as well as the Thebes, of Hellenic Egypt.
Even the Hebrew part of the population caught the infection of the
place, and showed some capacity for philosophy and letters. Here it
was that their sacred Scriptures were, in the Septuagint translation,
first given to the educated world. And Plato, too, was soon more
studied in the schools of Alexandria than in his native Greece.
Here fell the Great Pompey. And here, in pursuit of him, came the
Cæsar, who bestrode the world like a Colossus; to be followed in our
own time by the only modern leader of men, whose name, if he had
possessed the generous magnanimity of the two captains of Greece
and Rome, history might have bracketed with theirs.
Here ‘the unparalleled lass,’ rather, perhaps, of the greatest of
poets than of history, having beguiled to his ruin the soft triumvir,
preferred death to the brutalities of a Roman triumph.
Matters, however, of this kind—and they might be multiplied—are
only bubbles on the surface. They interest the fancy, but have no
effect on the great current of events. We, at this day, are neither the
better nor the worse for them. But of the theology of Alexandria we
must speak differently. It is through that that it affected, and still
affects, the whole of Christendom. Sixteen hundred years have
passed, and Alexandrian thought still holds its ground amongst us.
It would help us to a right understanding of what this thought was,
and how it came to be what it was, if we knew something about the
city, the times, the country, and the mental condition of its
inhabitants. Alexandria, like Calcutta and New Orleans, having been
called into existence by the requirements of commerce, had been
obliged, for the sake of a harbour, to accept a singularly monotonous
and uninteresting site. This alone must have had much influence on
the cast of thought of its inhabitants. All who visit it will, I think, feel
this. One cannot imagine a healthy and vigorous literature springing
up in a place where Nature has neither grandeur nor beauty. Being
mainly a commercial city, its inhabitants—as must be the case in all
large commercial cities in the East—were composed of many
nationalities. They had brought with them their respective religions
and literatures, as well as manners and customs. It also contained
the most brilliant Greek Court in the world, in which we might be
certain that Greek inquisitiveness, and mental activity, would not be
extinguished. This will account for the libraries and the schools of
Alexandria.
We must understand why it never could become anything in the
world of action. It was not because the Egypt of the Ptolemies was
inferior to the Egypt of the Pharaohs. It might have been its superior
in every particular of power and greatness, and yet have been
unable to do anything in the outer world. What kept it quiet was a
consciousness of moral and intellectual inferiority to the people time
had at last educated and organized on the northern shores of the
Mediterranean.
The mental activity of the Alexandrians was all connected with
their libraries and schools. The work they did belongs to a condition
of mind which can use libraries and schools, but which really
originates nothing. It was all work upon other people’s work. They
never produced anything of their own. They never could have had an
Æschylus, or an Aristophanes; a Thucydides, or an Aristotle. The
genius that can originate implies vigour, freedom, individuality,
irrepressible impulse—in two words, expansive humanity. Nothing of
this kind could have been the growth of Alexandria. The possession
it was of these qualities which made the Greeks original, and great in
everything they undertook: in art, in war, in government, in
colonization, in philosophy, in poetry, in history. The genius which
showed itself in their literature was only the same genius which
showed itself in other forms and directions, as needs required: which
showed itself in everything Greek. Alexandria could not have
produced a Pericles, or a Phidias, or an Alexander, any more than a
great writer. It would have taken the same mental stuff to make one
of these, as to make a poet, an historian, or a philosopher. They all
work with the same motive power. The main conditions, too, are the
same in all. It is the object only to which the work is directed that
varies. The Greeks were, emphatically, men. It was this that made
them creative. Humanity was the soul of everything they created; the
stamp upon everything they did; and this it is that gives to their work
its eternal value.
The mind of Alexandria was a parasitical plant. It fastened itself on
the work of others; and endeavoured to extract from it what they had
already assimilated, and which its own limited capacities disqualified
it from extracting, first hand, for itself from the rich store-house of
Nature. It could live upon their work, and turn it to its own narrowly-
bounded purposes. For instance, the Greek language had been
perfected by the long series of generations who had used it, and who
had known nothing of grammars and dictionaries: but at Alexandria it
was studied for the sake of the grammar and of the dictionary.
Homer had been loved in the Greek world, because he spoke, as a
man, to men’s hearts and imaginations. He was valued at
Alexandria, not for his poetry—the men and women he had created
—but because he supplied a text to comment on. So with the divine
dreams of Plato: their use, at Alexandria, was that they supplied
some materials for the construction of systems.
It was exactly in this spirit that the Gospel was laid on the
dissecting tables of Alexandria. The object proposed was to set up a
skeleton to be called Christian Theology; and to inject and arrange
certain preparations, to be called Christian doctrines. Here was a
strange perversion. Never were the uses to which a thing had been
ingeniously turned so thoroughly alien to its real nature and design.
The objects of the Gospel were moral and religious. Its appeals were
addressed to the ordinary conscience, and to the ordinary
understanding: in them its philosophy is to be found. But the
systematizers of Alexandria had no taste for dealing with such
materials. The Christian religion, as presented to us in their theology,
has not one particle of the Gospel in it: no heart, no soul; no human
duties, no human motives—nothing human, nothing divine. It is
something as hard, and as dry, as a mummy; and would be as dead,
were it not for its savage, truculent spirit. It is an attempt to construct
a material god, mechanically, of body, parts, and passions—the
Egyptian passions of the day; such as burnt, volcanically, in the
hearts of the crocodile haters, and crocodile worshippers, of Ombos
and Tentyra, and impelled them to eat each other’s still quivering
flesh, and drink each other’s blood hot. The watch-word, the source,
the main-spring, of Christ’s religion, the one word that fulfils it, is
absent from this travesty of it.
This anatomical Christianity, in which there is no Gospel, this
systematic divinity, in which there is nothing divine, this mechanical
theology, which contradicts the idea of God, Alexandria had the chief
hand in inflicting on the world, and a grievous infliction they were.
Christendom is still suffering from it. It is the anatomy of a body from
which the heart, the blood, the flesh, the muscles, all that rendered it
a living power, and made it beautiful and beneficent, have been
removed. It is the systematization of a Hortus Siccus. It is a theology
that kills religion, in order that it may examine it. The religion that is
fixed and formulated; a matter of definitions, and quantitive
proportions; that can be handled, and measured, and weighed; that
can be taken to pieces, and put together again by a monk in his cell,
just as if it were a Chinese puzzle; cannot be the living growth of
minds whose knowledge is ever being extended, and of consciences
that are ever becoming more sensitive. It cannot indeed, as far as
these things go, be a religion at all. A religion, though burdened with
them, and perpetually dragged by them into the sphere of formalism,
controversy, and passion, may, and will, live on in spite of them; for
nothing can kill religion: still the two are antagonistic and
incompatible.
The Alexandrian theologians interpreted Christianity in accordance
with the criticism, the knowledge, the ignorance, the mind, and the
conscience of their day. They could hardly have done otherwise.
They came from caves in the desert, and from old tombs, and they
returned to them for fresh inspiration. They had a right to interpret
things according to the light that was in them. So have we. Our light,
however, is somewhat different from theirs. ‘The New
Commandment’ was not one that at all commended itself to their
sepulchral, troglodytic minds. It finds no place in their creeds. We,
however, give it the first place in ours. The perfect law of liberty was
unintelligible to them: their only thought about it was to make it
impossible: to us it is as necessary as the air we breathe. They held
that man is for the creed: we that the creed is for man. Which is right
makes much difference.