Advanced

Why refugees still matter: a response to James Hathaway

Noll, Gregor LU (2007) In Melbourne Journal of International Law 8. p.536-547
Abstract
In a 2007 article, Hathaway relaunched his proposal of a multilateral refugee protection system based on the idea of ‘common but differentiated responsibility’. The 2007 article and an earlier, similar article of 1997 both observe that the proposed system will not provide a back door to ‘permanent immigration’ for refugees.

In the proposals, all remaining migration movements are subjected to the control of the multilateral regime: movement from the country of origin to the first country of arrival, resettlement in a third country and repatriation.

In my critique of the proposals, I shall proceed in three steps, moving from the identification of concrete obligations over systemic questions to an examination of the idea of... (More)
In a 2007 article, Hathaway relaunched his proposal of a multilateral refugee protection system based on the idea of ‘common but differentiated responsibility’. The 2007 article and an earlier, similar article of 1997 both observe that the proposed system will not provide a back door to ‘permanent immigration’ for refugees.

In the proposals, all remaining migration movements are subjected to the control of the multilateral regime: movement from the country of origin to the first country of arrival, resettlement in a third country and repatriation.

In my critique of the proposals, I shall proceed in three steps, moving from the identification of concrete obligations over systemic questions to an examination of the idea of international law that the proposals reflect. Each step is based on a concern with Hathaway’s proposal:

• The proposals are contradictory: they cannot uphold a logical account of international legal obligations while simultaneously ensuring the stability of the proposed system and the human right to leave any country.

• The proposals are insufficiently attentive to the dynamics of human rights law: they disregard the migration incentives lawfully produced by differences in human rights obligations amongst states.

• The proposals are illiberal: they abandon Kant’s ‘conditions of general hospitality’ upon which cosmopolitan peace is premised.
(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
human rights, mänskliga rättigheter
in
Melbourne Journal of International Law
volume
8
pages
536 - 547
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
9ffb9dea-2e5b-49ba-be6f-5ece567e0a8b (old id 766120)
date added to LUP
2008-01-18 18:31:33
date last changed
2016-06-07 15:13:52
@misc{9ffb9dea-2e5b-49ba-be6f-5ece567e0a8b,
  abstract     = {In a 2007 article, Hathaway relaunched his proposal of a multilateral refugee protection system based on the idea of ‘common but differentiated responsibility’. The 2007 article and an earlier, similar article of 1997 both observe that the proposed system will not provide a back door to ‘permanent immigration’ for refugees.<br/><br/>In the proposals, all remaining migration movements are subjected to the control of the multilateral regime: movement from the country of origin to the first country of arrival, resettlement in a third country and repatriation.<br/><br/>In my critique of the proposals, I shall proceed in three steps, moving from the identification of concrete obligations over systemic questions to an examination of the idea of international law that the proposals reflect. Each step is based on a concern with Hathaway’s proposal:<br/><br/>• The proposals are contradictory: they cannot uphold a logical account of international legal obligations while simultaneously ensuring the stability of the proposed system and the human right to leave any country.<br/><br/>• The proposals are insufficiently attentive to the dynamics of human rights law: they disregard the migration incentives lawfully produced by differences in human rights obligations amongst states.<br/><br/>• The proposals are illiberal: they abandon Kant’s ‘conditions of general hospitality’ upon which cosmopolitan peace is premised.<br/>},
  author       = {Noll, Gregor},
  keyword      = {human rights,mänskliga rättigheter},
  language     = {eng},
  pages        = {536--547},
  series       = {Melbourne Journal of International Law},
  title        = {Why refugees still matter: a response to James Hathaway},
  volume       = {8},
  year         = {2007},
}