The Refugee Regime: Sovereignty, Belonging and the Political of Forced Migration

  • J. Olaf KleistEmail author
Part of the Migrationsgesellschaften book series (MIGRAGS)


This chapter discusses the Refugee Regime as a combination of certain institutions that are inherently political in their conflicting determinations of who receives protection or assistance. The Asylum Regime affords protection to migrants who lost recourse to basic rights in their former residence countries. In the Global Refugee Regime, in contrast, attention is placed on assistance and human rights as the majority of refugees lingers in protracted situations. Between the national and universal, refugee policies are often formulated within Regional Refugee Regimes that build on international refugee law but amend it according to regional history and norms. Finally, the Political Refugee Regime is premised on the democratic process by which the basic rights that refugee protection promises can be offered only. The Refugee Regime then is a distinct yet inherently contested part of the Migration Regime that extends the political notion of belonging and sovereignty to those considered devoid of basic rights.


Refugee Regime Asylum Global Regional 


  1. Abass, Ademola, and Francesca Ippolito. 2014. Regional Approaches to the Protection of Asylum Seekers: An International Legal Perspective. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  2. Arendt, Hannah. 1994. The Origins of Totalitarianism. San Diego: Harcourt.Google Scholar
  3. Barnett, Laura. 2002. Global Governance and the Evolution of the International Refugee Regime. International Journal of Refugee Law 14 (2 and 3): 238–262.Google Scholar
  4. Betts, Alexander. 2009a. Forced Migration and Global Politics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Betts, Alexander. 2009b. Protection by Persuasion: International Cooperation in the Refugee Regime. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Betts, Alexander. 2010a. Forced Migration Studies: ‘Who are We and Where are We Going?’. Journal of Refugee Studies 23 (2): 260–269 (Report on IASFM 12, Nicosia, Cyprus, June 28–July 2 2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Betts, Alexander. 2010b. The Refugee Regime Complex. Refugee Survey Quarterly 29 (1): 12–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Betts, Alexander. 2011. International Cooperation in the Refugee Regime. In Refugees in International Relations, eds. Alexander Betts and Gil Loescher, 53–84. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Betts, Alexander. 2013. Survival Migration. Failed Governance and the Crisis of Displacement. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Betts, Alexander, Louise Bloom, Naohiko Omata, and University of Oxford Refugee Studies Centre. 2012. Humanitarian Innovation and Refugee Protection. Oxford: Refugee Studies Centre & Oxford Department of International Development.Google Scholar
  11. Blinder, Scott. 2016. UK Public Opinion toward Immigration: Overall Attitudes and Level of Concern. In Migration Observatory Briefing. Oxford: COMPAS, University of Oxford. Accessed 19 July 2017.
  12. Boucher, Anna, and Justin Gest. 2014. Migration Studies at a Crossroads: A Critique of Immigration Regime Typologies. Migration Studies 3 (2): 182–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carens, Joseph H. 2013. The Ethics of Immigration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Cheung, Samuel. 2012. Migration Control and the Solutions Impasse in South and Southeast Asia: Implications from the Rohingya Experience. Journal of Refugee Studies 25 (1): 50–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Coenders, Marcel, Marcel Lubbers, and Peer Scheepers. 2013. Resistance to Immigrants and Asylum Seekers in the European Union: Cross-National Comparison of Public Opinion. In Immigration and Public Opinion in Liberal Democracies, eds. Gary P. Freeman, Randall Hansen, and David L. Leal, 21–50. New York: Taylor&Francis.Google Scholar
  16. Duffy, Aoife. 2008. Expulsion to Face Torture? Non-refoulement in International Law. International Journal of Refugee Law 20 (3): 373–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fischel de Andrade, José H. 2014. Forced Migration in South America. In The Oxford Handbook of Refugee and Forced Migration Studies, eds. Elena Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, Gil Loescher, Katy Long, and Nando Sigona, 651–663. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Gallagher, Dennis. 1989. The Evolution of the International Refugee System. International Migration Review 23 (3): 579–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gammeltoft-Hansen, Thomas. 2011. Access to Asylum: International Refugee Law and the Globalisation of Migration Control. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Geddes, Andrew. 2008. Immigration and European Integration: Beyond Fortress Europe? Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Georgi, Fabian. 2010. For the Benefit of Some: The International Organization for Migration (IOM) and its Global Migration Management. In The Politics of International Migration Management, eds. Martin Geiger and Antoine Pécoud, 45–72. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gibney, Mark. 1988. Open Borders? Closed Societies? The Ethical and Political Issues. New York: Greenwood.Google Scholar
  23. Gibney, Matthew J. 2004. The Ethics and Politics of Asylum: Liberal Democracy and the Response to Refugees. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goodwin-Gill, Guy S., and Jane McAdam. 2007. The Refugee in International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Haddad, Emma. 2008. The Refugee in International Society: Between Sovereigns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Hayter, Teresa. 2004. Open Borders: The Case Against Immigration Controls. London: Pluto.Google Scholar
  27. Ibhawoh, Bonny. 2003. Defining Persecution and Protection: The Cultural Relativism Debate and the Rights of Refugees. In Problems of Protection: The UNHCR, Refugees and Human Rights, eds. Niklaus Steiner, Mark Gibney, and Gil Loescher, 61–75. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Kleist, J. Olaf. 2013. Remembering for Refugees in Australia: Political Memories and Concepts of Democracy in Refugee Advocacy post-Tampa. Journal of Intercultural Studies 24 (6): 665–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kneebone, Susan. 2014. ASEAN and the Conceptualization of Refugee Protection in Southeastern Asian States. In Regional Approaches to the Protection of Asylum Seekers: An International Legal Perspective, eds. Ademola Abass and Francesca Ippolito, 295–324. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  30. Kneebone, Susan, and Felicity Rawlings-Sanaei. 2007. New Regionalism and Asylum Seekers: Challenges Ahead. Oxford: Berghahn.Google Scholar
  31. Krasner, Stephen D. 1999. Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Loescher, Gil, Alexander Betts, and James Milner. 2008. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR): The Politics and Practice of Refugee Protection into the Twenty-first Century. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. McAdam, Jane. 2007. Complementary Protection in International Refugee Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McAdam, Jane. 2013. Australia and Asylum Seekers. International Journal of Refugee Law 25 (3): 435–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mckay, Fiona H., Samantha L. Thomas, and Susan Kneebone. 2012. ‘It Would be Okay If They Came through the Proper Channels’: Community Perceptions and Attitudes toward Asylum Seekers in Australia. Journal of Refugee Studies 25 (1): 113–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Miller, Sarah Deardorff. 2012. Global Refugee Policy: Varying Perspectives, Unanswered Questions. In Background Paper For the Refugee Studies Centre 30th Anniversary Conference. Oxford: Refugee Studies Centre.Google Scholar
  37. Milner, James. 2014. Protracted Refugee Situations. In The Oxford Handbook of Refugee and Forced Migration Studies, eds. Elena Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, Gil Loescher, Katy Long, and Nando Sigona, 151–162. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Organization of African Unity (OAU). 1969. Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa (OAUC69) (adopted 10 September 1969, entered into force 20 June 1974) 1001 U.N.T.S. 45.Google Scholar
  39. Palmgren, Pei. 2011. Navigating a Hostile Terrain: Refugees and Human Rights in Southeast Asia. Sociology Compass 5 (5): 323–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Price, Matthew E. 2009. Rethinking Asylum: History, Purpose, and Limits. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Regional Refugee Instruments & Related. 1984. Cartagena Declaration on Refugees. Colloquium on the International Protection of Refugees in Central America, Mexico and Panama, held at Cartagene, Colombia from 19–22 November 1984.Google Scholar
  42. Shacknove, Andrew E. 1985. Who is a Refugee? Ethics 95 (2): 274–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sicakkan, Hakan G. 2008. Political Asylum and Sovereignty-Sharing in Europe. Government and Opposition 43 (2): 206–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Skran, Claudena M. 1995. Refugees in Inter-war Europe: The Emergence of a Regime. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Turton, David. 2003. Conceptualising Forced Migration. RSC Working Paper. Oxford: Refugee Studies Centre.Google Scholar
  46. UN General Assembly. 1948. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (217 [III] A). Paris.Google Scholar
  47. UN General Assembly. 1951. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (adopted 28 July 1951, entered into force 22 April 1954) 189 UNTS 137 (Refugee Convention).Google Scholar
  48. UNHCR. 2016. Global Trends. Forced Displacement in 2015. Geneva: UNHCR.Google Scholar
  49. Zetter, Roger. 1991. Labelling Refugees: Forming and Transforming a Bureaucratic Identity. Journal of Refugee Studies 4 (1): 39–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zetter, Roger. 2007. More Labels, Fewer Refugees: Remaking the Refugee Label in an Era of Globalization. Journal of Refugee Studies 20 (2): 172–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Migration Research and Intercultural Studies (IMIS)Osnabrück UniversityOsnabrückGermany

Personalised recommendations