Skip to main content

Conclusion

Part of the International Political Theory book series (IPoT)

Abstract

The conclusion to this book reviews its main arguments, identifies key themes emerging from them and shows how they point towards avenues for future research. Emphasising that the notion of asylum as reparation presents a challenge to current understandings of responsibilities to refugees and existing state practice in this context, Souter shows how the analysis has underscored, among other things, the moral tensions and conflicts that may arise from states’ acceptance of their reparative obligations towards refugees, and the need to see asylum as one potentially fitting reparative measure among others. Finally, the conclusion stresses the ongoing relevance of the notion of asylum as reparation to the international politics of the twenty-first century in light of states’ continued refugee-producing actions.

Keywords

  • Asylum
  • Reparation
  • Refugees
  • Responsibility

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-62448-4_10
  • Chapter length: 6 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-030-62448-4
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Hardcover Book
USD   119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)

Notes

  1. 1.

    For the view that refugee protection potentially requires ‘morally excruciating’ choices, see Miller (2016: 162).

  2. 2.

    For relevant discussion, see Bosniak (2016: 209–217).

  3. 3.

    For the application of reparative thinking to the case of forced migration from Honduras in light of US foreign policy, see Nevins (2019).

  4. 4.

    The application of this framework to case studies would allow us to evaluate more general claims about the salience of reparative justice for refugee and immigrant admissions more robustly, such as David Miller’s assertion that ‘allowing reparative concerns to dominate immigration policy as a whole would…be a backward step’ (Miller, 2017: 765). Moreover, its more thorough application to cases of environmental displacement may reveal normatively salient differences between the environmentally displaced and ‘political’ refugees, as Eckersley (2015: 494) has anticipated.

  5. 5.

    See Vernon (2012: 43) for discussion of the extent to which immigrants more generally may come to share in the responsibilities of their new states to redress historic injustice. For the argument that refugees do not owe gratitude to their host states given that they are owed asylum as a form of recompense, see Kling (2019: 97).

  6. 6.

    While this can be expected to vary among refugees and different refugee populations, some have pointed to examples of refugees and migrants thinking in reparative terms about states’ responsibilities towards them (see e.g. Achiume, 2019: 1570; Saunders, 2018: 857).

  7. 7.

    For recent work on the development of solidarity with refugees see, for instance, Sandelind and Ulaş (2020) and Woods (2020).

  8. 8.

    For discussion of this point more generally, see Hobbs (2020: 66).

References

  • Achiume, E. T. (2019). Migration as decolonization. Stanford Law Review, 71(6), 1509–1574.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosniak, L. (2016). Wrongs, rights and regularization. Moral Philosophy and Politics, 3(2), 187–222.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Butt, D. (2009). Rectifying international injustice: Principles of compensation and restitution between nations. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coen, A. (2017). Capable and culpable? The United States, RtoP, and refugee responsibility-sharing. Ethics and International Affairs, 31(1), 71–92.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Eckersley, R. (2015). The common but differentiated responsibilities of states to assist and receive ‘climate refugees’. European Journal of Political Theory, 14(4), 481–500.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibney, M. J. (2020). The duties of refugees. In D. Miller & C. Straehle (Eds.), The political philosophy of refuge (pp. 132–153). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs, J. (2020). Cosmopolitan anger and shame. Journal of Global Ethics, 16(1), 58–76.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kling, J. (2019). War refugees: Risk, justice, and moral responsibility. Lexington Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. (2016). Strangers in our midst: The political philosophy of immigration. Harvard University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. (2017). Migration and justice: A reply to my critics. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 20(6), 763–773.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Nevins, J. (2019). Migration as reparations. In R. Jones (Ed.), Open borders: In defense of free movement (pp. 129–140). University of Georgia Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Sandelind, C., & Ulaş, L. (2020). Solidarity with refugees: An institutional approach. Journal of Social Philosophy, 51(4), 564–582.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, N. (2018). Beyond asylum claims: Refugee protest, responsibility, and Article 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The International Journal of Human Rights, 22(7), 847–868.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Tan, K. C. (2007). Colonialism, reparations and global justice. In J. Miller & R. Kumar (Eds.), Reparations: Interdisciplinary inquiries (pp. 280–306). Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torpey, J. C. (2006). Making whole what has been smashed: On reparations politics. Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vernon, R. (2012). Historical redress: Must we pay for the past? Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woods, K. (2020). Refugees’ stories: Empathy, agency, and solidarity. Journal of Social Philosophy, 51(4), 507–525.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Souter, J. (2022). Conclusion. In: Asylum as Reparation . International Political Theory. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62448-4_10

Download citation