Refugee and Asylum Seeker Acceptance, Protection, and Integration in East Asia

With major ongoing refugee crises in Gaza, Ukraine, Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, Sudan, Nigeria, the Central African Republic, Iraq, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Venezuela, Ethiopia, and Myanmar, no other issue seems as timely as refugee protection, both in the affected areas and in the host countries involved. Much research has been published on the presence, protection, management, and experiences of refugees in Europe, while the same cannot be said with regard to the other regions of the world. This edited book focuses on the East Asian region.

The literature shows that most Asian states have failed to integrate international refugee laws and regional protection instruments in their national laws, in this way limiting refugees’ and asylum seekers’ security and access to international and regional protection mechanisms (Choi, 2019, pp. 161–162). Indeed, in this region, most states are not signatories of the magna carta of international refugee law, the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (henceforth, the Convention) and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (henceforth, the Protocol).

In a culturally and politically diverse region, characterised by a lack of a coherent approach to refugee protection, the literature seems to focus on state security as a crucial feature in refugee and asylum seeker matters (see, for instance, Ali Ashraf, 2021; Chatterjee & Das, 2022; Choi, 2019; Rana & Riaz, 2022). In this collective work, we emphasise how state security is not sufficient to fully understand the complexity behind refugee and asylum seeker acceptance, protection, and integration in Asia. A mix of other factors, including socio-cultural concerns, historical legacies as well as more recent debates about human security, are crucial in shaping current patterns and practices linked to asylum seekers and refugees.

Taiwan and Japan, to some degree, represent the complexity of the Asian region, where geopolitical factors linked to national security and interests intersect with other spheres to shape the acceptance, protection, and integration of refugees and asylum seekers. Taiwan, due to its unsolved sovereignty issue in the context of the “one China” policy, experiences limited international recognition and participation in international organisations. For this reason, Taiwan is among those states that are not signatories of the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol. In this politicised context, not only the presence of certain groups of immigrants, such as citizens from China, Hong Kong, and Macao, is more sensitive than others, but the overall formulation of a domestic refugee law has been hampered due to national security concerns. The result is that the presence of asylum seekers and stateless people has been dealt on a case-by-case basis, on the principle of humanitarian concerns.

Japan holds a different geopolitical position: it enjoys international recognition and participation in international organisations. It signed the Convention in 1981 and the related Protocol in 1982, and for years, the country has been one of the largest donors to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Though its refugee recognition rates have been remarkably low. In the case of Japan, socio-cultural factors have been crucial in shaping this outcome. Its current ethnocentric identity, which has emerged since the end of the Second World War, has served as a basis for its exclusive citizenship and strict immigration policies. Similar to Taiwan, claims for asylum in Japan are normally considered on an individual basis, with a few exceptions in recent decades.

Exploring beyond the realm of domestic affairs, the two cases reveal intricate connections to broader issues, such as human rights, international law, global governance, international organisations, local and transnational activism, and public opinion. This book questions to what extent refugee and asylum seeker acceptance, protection, and integration can be understood from a narrow perspective of national security interests.

In this collective work we suggest that to understand the complex matrix of interests shaping refugee acceptance, protection, and integration in Taiwan and Japan, and more generally in Asia, it is important to integrate analyses of territorial interests with more nuanced accounts that place the individuals and their security at the centre. With this in mind, we bring into our discussion the notion of human security.

Moving away from state-based, traditional security, human security focuses on people’s lives and the protection of their fundamental freedoms, and calls for governments and civil societies to create political, social, environmental, economic, military, and cultural processes that “give people the building blocks of survival, livelihood and dignity” (Commission on Human Security, 2003, p. 4). In other words, emphasising people-centred policymaking, human security calls for a paradigm shift in the way refugee protection is framed, not solely as part of a state’s strategy to promote its interests, but also as a sphere that involves and affects a series of other actors.

Along the same line, and framing human security as a two-way process in which state structures interact with social actors and affect one another (Ruggie, 1983), this volume argues that the Japanese and Taiwanese states do not operate in a vacuum but interact with a series of state and non-state actors, including civil society, media outlets, international and regional organisations, local communities, and individual migrants. In light of this argument and by focusing on three different areas, namely legal and policy frameworks, media representation and public opinion, and lived experiences of refugees and asylum seekers, the 14 chapters of this book provide a sophisticated understanding of refugee issues in Asia, where the multiplicity of interests behind the management of refugee security depend on the dissimilar geopolitical context in which the phenomenon occurs, as well as on factors that go beyond a state’s interests and intervention.

The chapters of this volume lie at the crossroads of disciplines including sociology, anthropology, legal studies, and media studies, and build on qualitative and quantitative data aiming to demonstrate the constructivist nature of refugee protection, media representation, and experiences in Taiwan and Japan, when national interests forge and are forged by social actors’ concerns and actions. Rather than only comparing Japan and Taiwan, the chapters of this volume aspire to offer an in-depth, diverse, and manifold picture of how the two East Asian nations have dealt with the protection, acceptance, and integration of refugees and asylum seekers. More specifically, this volume aims to show how, in these two nations, traditional notions of security operate alongside human security concerns generating complex pictures of interests. Aware that the chapters of this volume cannot be exhaustive, we hope that this work could inspire further research on a much-needed topic.

On a practical level, with this book, we collectively advocate for Japan and Taiwan to embrace a human security agenda in their way of framing and responding to the challenges brought by the presence of non-citizens. Bellamy and McDonald (2002, p. 376) introduce the concept of “sovereignty as responsibility”, used to evaluate whether particular states and policies are in accord with the responsibility for humane governance and human security. In line with this, this edited book collectively argues that both Japan and Taiwan should take on the responsibility to protect not only citizens but also non-citizens residing in their territory.

Before moving on to the next section, an explanation of our choice of key terms is crucial. The Convention’s definition of the refugee, which is “someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion” continues to be used by the UNHCR (UNHCR, n.d.-d; UNHCR, n.d.-b). The organisation further delineates asylum seekers from recognised refugees in their glossary, stating that an asylum seeker is someone whose claim for refugee status “has not yet been finally decided on by the country in which the claim is submitted” (UNHCR, 2005, p. 441). In its current and continuously updated master glossary of terms, the UNHCR expands its definition of asylum seekers to those who have “not yet submitted an application but may intend to do so, or may be in need of international protection” (UNHCR, n.d.-c).

Despite the revisions in recent years, these definitions have been criticised for their narrow scope, their Eurocentric underpinnings, and their temporal and geographical specificity (Davies, 2008; Ho et al., 2015). Indeed, the integration of the 1967 Protocol aimed to eliminate the temporal and geographical limitations of the Convention but it did not revise the problematic definition of “refugee”. A definition that delimits the boundaries of refugee status to a state’s persecution of individuals, neglecting a series of other issues specific to the contemporary period, such as terrorism, climate change, or natural disasters (Betts & Collier, 2017; Ho et al., 2015). Furthermore, ratification (or lack thereof) of the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol seems to be more of a matter of promoting and protecting national interests rather than protecting the rights of refugees, generating what Betts and Orchard refer to as an “institutionalisation–implementation gap” (Betts & Orchard, 2014, as cited in Choi, 2019, p. 164).

In light of these criticisms, and recognising legal definitions as a useful common basis, this book employs a broader view on refugees and asylum seekers since, in practice, the lines between these two groups of people and other migrant categories, such as economic migrants, undocumented migrants, international students, and marriage migrants may be blurred.

Human Security

Human security is a concept that emerged within the field of international development studies in the 1990s, when the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) declared “human security” as its primary development goal, stressing the necessity to develop a “people-centred development” for the twenty-first century (Morrissey, 2018, p. 226). It was the first attempt to move away from the framework of traditional security, which was focused on state-based and interest-based approaches and revolved around the territorial state. Instead, the new focus was on people’s lives, making an important switch (or at least claiming so) to de-territorialised and values-based approaches (Chandler, 2008, p. 427). More specifically, a human security approach calls for “investing in, and resourcing, interventions of a different kind: in protecting human rights; in insisting upon humanitarian law; in supporting civil society; and in enabling locally attuned rather than top-down security measures” (Morrissey, 2018, p. 227). These considerations are particularly important for migrant populations, whose security is often at risk because they may experience abuse, exploitation, and human rights violations.

Building on the idea that securing people would be the best way to secure states, human security became a fashionable paradigm in international policy circles in the 1990s and early 2000s (Chandler, 2008, p. 428). Human security seemed to offer solutions to global problems that could endanger state security, yet that could not be addressed effectively within a security system based on the Westphalian order, such as poverty, environmental change, global epidemics, natural disasters, gender-based violence, and the transnational mobility of people (Estrada-Tanck, 2016, p. 1). With the aim of addressing these global challenges, after the UNDP declared “human security” as its primary development goal, governments around the world have been asked to take responsibility for, and think cooperatively about, human security in holistic and sustainable ways (Morrissey, 2018, p. 227).

Scholars of different schools and approaches overwhelmingly agree that human security is a practically and academically valuable concept in refugee studies. Indeed, by switching the attention from notions of sovereignty, border control, and citizenship specific to other security paradigms, human security may offer “new ways to think about and to conceptualise protection concerns as well as the perception of non-citizens, may strengthen strategies of protection and empowerment, and in turn reinforce the foundational principles of international human rights law of dignity, quality and justice for all” (p. 5). Within these debates, human security has become a tool for promoting the empowerment of more vulnerable or ignored individuals and communities by addressing a series of intersecting factors beyond that of state sovereignty and non-interference. For instance, Hossain and colleagues (2016, p. 4) argue that a human security framework integrates subjective experiences in the discussion of security and “offers an inclusive framework for an expanded understanding of security that identifies vulnerabilities, self-perceived threats, and ignored risks that affect collective security”. Furthermore, it also offers a narrative for civil society and individual actors to challenge existing ways of framing security. Other scholars also believe that human security can complement the earlier notion of human rights (Estrada-Tanck, 2016; Song, 2012). Along this line, Song (2012) views human security as the securitisation of human rights, showing how the former often correlates with the latter: for instance, “personal security is in parallel with freedom from death, violence, exploitation, arbitrary arrest or detention”, or community security correlates with “the right to preserve ethnic identity, religious practices or cultural heritage, or not to be discriminated against based on ethnicity, social origin, place of birth, nationality or religion” (Song, 2012, p. 7). Analytically, human security offers scope to explore not only how states and intergovernmental organisations adapt their policies to include broader human security principles in their agenda, but also how society, through the world of non-governmental and non-profit organisations, associations, and networks, shape governmental policies through “bottom-up” initiatives (den Boer & de Wilde, 2008, pp. 9–11). Although the concept of human security has been celebrated for its focus on human safety and the “‘added value’ of normative people-centred policymaking” (Chandler, 2008, p. 428), it has become a highly contested concept, often criticised for a vagueness that makes it impractical for policymaking (Chandler, 2008, p. 428; de Simone, 2020, p. 169). Also, governments of the Global South have widely criticised the idea of human security for imposing universality and liberal norms and promoting human rights according to values that are not necessarily compatible with non-Western social, cultural, and political realities (Christie, 2018; Takizawa, 2011). Interestingly, however, as Tow (2013, p. 2) argues with regard to the Asia Pacific, a series of major non-traditional security contingencies over the past two decades, as well as the forces of globalisation, have pushed Asian governments to integrate, to a certain extent, human security principles in their domestic and international governance.

An important example is Japan, which has introduced a “broader” interpretation of human security, in opposition to the Canadian “narrow” model. Canada’s understanding of human security emphasised “freedom from fear”, in the military conflict, and gradually developed into a new concept of “responsibility to protect”. In contrast, Japan emphasised “freedom from want” and therefore de-militarised the concept (Adachi, 2023, pp. 205–206). This interpretation of human security brought it closer to the overseas development assistance which led to some criticisms of Japan’s version of human security being a mere “rebranding of international development” (Mahmud, 2023) or “social welfare” (Mine et al., 2019). Furthermore, some scholars believe that a “broader” understanding of human security might “inadvertently undermine the international human rights regime” (Howard-Hassmann, 2012, p. 88) for two reasons: firstly, because human rights become reduced to “a subset of human security concerns” (p. 103), and secondly because the individual standing in the human security discourse is less strong compared to the human rights agenda (p. 111). According to Hynek (2012) both interpretations of human security were shaped by domestic factors (in Canada, the liberal model of governance and, in Japan, the bureaucratic authoritarianism) further emphasising how state interests, rather than the security of individuals, could be at the centre of political choices linked to human security.

Due to these critiques and due to a changing world shaped by “rising nationalism” and the resurgence of “traditional security concerns and actors”, human security began to lose momentum in the second decade of the twenty-first century (Newman, 2020, p. 33). It is time to revisit and possibly reinvent human security in academic and policy circles to return the focus to individual safety in the face of complex environmental, socioeconomic, and military crises. Reflecting this complexity, this volume will explore the complementarity between human security and traditional security, when state interests intersect with those of civil society groups, local citizens and refugees and asylum seekers.

The literature shows that in the Asian region refugee issues are often treated as a traditional security issue (Ali Ashraf, 2021; Chatterjee & Das, 2022; Choi, 2019; Rana & Riaz, 2022). This does not mean that we should look at refugee protection in Asia solely as a state responsibility or a traditional security matter. The issue of complementarity between human security and the traditional security of the state is an aspect of human security that this book will attempt to address. Sadako Ogata, one of the biggest proponents of human security in the international arena, believed that human security and state security complement each other (Ogata, 2013). Contemporary East Asians express even more nuanced views: most would welcome foreign support during a natural disaster but not political unrest (Mine et al., 2019, p. 15). There is also an emphasis on improved coordination between various state and non-state actors in the region to ensure the security of individuals (Mine et al., 2019, p. 17). In this collective work, we suggest that, to understand refugee experiences in Taiwan and Japan, it is important to integrate analyses of territorial interests with broader considerations linked to human security.

Furthermore, by building on the idea that different countries interpret human security differently due to their dissimilar historical experiences and domestic politics (Lam, 2006, p. 146), and by being endorsed by various actors in a range of contexts (Marhia, 2013, p. 32), this volume suggests that human security should not be seen as a coherent and monolithic project. Instead, a diversity of positionalities and interests, hence interventions, may emerge with regard to human security. This means that the security challenges generated by and for refugees and asylum seekers in Taiwan and Japan vary depending on a series of factors, such as a broader geopolitical context, existing policies in each country, civil society actions, specific refugee/migrant groups’ needs, the time the refugee enters the host country, and the locality where they settled.

Finally, this volume suggests that the notion of human security, by stressing a people-centred approach to policymaking, calls for a paradigm shift not only in the way policymakers and states manage security issues, but also in the way they interrogate the very social structures that determine access to protection (Marhia, 2013). Indeed, human security may be distributed unequally, especially for marginalised and systematically discriminated groups. For instance, certain migrants, such as undocumented migrants and refugees who challenge the legal boundaries between citizens and non-citizens, may be neglected in domestic discussions on human security and, even worse, may be seen as a source of insecurity. As Morrissey (2018) argues, refugees are often represented as a threat and a source of insecurities for states, rather than as a consequence of unsafe life conditions elsewhere, serving to reinforce the appropriateness of biopolitical governmental measures to manage such threats. Within this logic, refugees’ and asylum seekers’ vulnerabilities are neither recognised nor acknowledged, generating, in some cases, human insecurity for these groups. As Newman (2020) argues, refugees “suffering human rights abuse, deprivation and exclusion” are the “embodiment of human insecurity in extremis” (Newman, 2020, p. 36).

In light of these points, Japan and Taiwan constitute two significant cases to discuss the complexity of human security in relation to the problems linked to refugee and asylum seeker protection, integration, and acceptance in the Asian region. Both countries have integrated human security into national and international agenda. However, both governments have failed to extend this principle to the refugees and asylum seekers present in their territory. The next two sections will explore the main issues linked to refugee and asylum seeker presence and protection in Taiwan and Japan, and how these issues intersect with concerns of territorial and human security.

Japan: Chequebook Diplomacy?

Japan signed the Convention in 1981 and the related Protocol in 1982. Among possible reasons behind the country’s decision to join both treaties during that time, scholars state pressure from the international community, particularly the United States, to create a legal framework for accepting boat people from Indochina, and Japan’s concern about its international reputation (Akashi, 2006; Arakaki, 2004; Hatcher & Murakami, 2020; Tarumoto, 2018).

For years, the country has been one of the largest donors to the UNHCR, ranking second after the United States until 2013 and fourth or fifth from 2014 to 2022 (UNHCR, n.d.-a; UNHCR, 2015). Japan has also been one of the most vigorous promoters of a human security agenda in East Asia (Evans, 2004, p. 271). However, it also seems to use human security mainly as a foreign policy objective to increase its bilateral, regional, and global political and economic influence, rather than as a tool to promote domestic policies (Kim, 2010, p. 94). In contrast to the country’s generous financial contribution to the refugee cause, Japan’s refugee recognition rates have remained remarkably low: only 915 applicants out of the total 87,892 between 1982 and 2021 received refugee status (MOFA, 2022). Out of a record number of 19,629 applicants in 2017, Japan granted refugee status to only 20 people, namely 0.1% of applicants (Hatcher & Murakami, 2020, p. 71). Due to this contrast of a high financial contribution with an extremely low refugee acceptance, the country has been repeatedly criticised by academics and practitioners for its chequebook diplomacy, both domestically and internationally (Ogata, 2002 as cited in Akashi, 2006, p. 221; Takenaka, 2015; Slater & Barbaran, 2020). In addition, Japan’s treatment of asylum seekers has attracted severe criticism with regard to the country’s detention practices, including indefinite detention periods, a lack of transparency regarding detention at ports of entry, and human rights violations (GDP, n.d.; Slater & Barbaran, 2020).

Intolerant policies towards refugees are seen as a direct consequence of the country’s postwar concept of ethnocentric identity, which served as a basis for its citizenship and immigration policies (Tarumoto, 2018). Similar to other East Asian countries, citizenship in Japan is based on jus sanguinis (right of blood), rather than jus soli (right of birthplace) which practically denies access to citizenship to non-Japanese, even if they were born in Japan, let alone first-generation immigrants or refugees. Similar to Taiwan, claims for asylum in Japan are normally considered on an individual basis, with a few notable exceptions being: (1) acceptance of Indochinese refugees in 1978–2005, particularly the first wave, (2) resettlement of Myanmar refugees in 2010–2013, and (3) reception of Ukrainian evacuees during the Russo-Ukrainian War in 2022 (UNHCR, 2010; Yamagata, 2021).

Around the end of the Vietnam War in 1975, communist regimes were established in the three Indochina countries (Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia), and those who could not fit in with these systems started fleeing abroad. These Vietnamese, Laotian, and Cambodian refugees are collectively called “Indochinese refugees”. Being the second largest economy in the world during that time, Japan felt pressure to follow the example of Western liberal democracies who opened their borders to Indochinese refugees (Akashi, 2006). Some went as far as stating that the decision to accept refugees from Indochina was imposed on Japan (Takizawa, 2011, p. 31). Between 1978 and 2005, Japan accepted 11,319 Indochinese refugees, mostly through the Orderly Departure Plan to facilitate family reunion (MOFA, 2022). This did not mean, however, that Japan eased its refugee policies. During the same time, Japan accepted claims from only 376 “Convention refugees”, i.e. those from outside Indochina applying within the Convention framework (Akashi, 2006). Moreover, a different screening procedure was applied to the second wave of Indochinese boat people in the 1980s, recognising them as economic migrants and therefore rejecting their claims for asylum (Akashi, 2006).

With regard to Myanmar refugees, Japan was the first Asian country to launch its own resettlement programme, in 2010. The programme, which aimed to resettle Myanmar families from refugee camps in Thailand, was made permanent in 2014 and expanded in 2020 (Akashi, 2021; UNHCR, 2010). Some scholars severely criticised Japan’s resettlement programme as highly ineffective (Hatcher & Murakami, 2020). The authors pointed out that the programme was based on restrictive selection criteria, systematically failed to meet its targets, and that “human rights and social conditions of refugees were not prioritised” (Hatcher & Murakami, 2020, p. 71). Substantial weaknesses were identified in the areas of employment, housing, and language support; other hindering factors included social isolation from fellow countrymen, absence of information from the central government, and absence of long-term planning (Yamashita, 2015). In the absence of active support from the government, the effectiveness of the programme largely depended on local non-profit organisations and their ability to act as an intermediary between the state and municipalities (Akashi, 2021).

Overall, acceptance of Indochinese refugees and the third-country resettlement programme for those from Myanmar did not lead to the Japanese government adopting more flexible refugee policies and immigration policies in general (Akashi, 2014). More recently, soon after the outbreak of the Russo-Ukrainian War in February 2022, Japan announced its decision to open its doors to refugees from Ukraine, cautiously referring to them as “evacuees” and providing temporary visas. Similar to previous instances of Japan’s refugee acceptance, some experts expressed hope that this initiative could be a turning point for the country’s refugee policies (Nagy in McElhinney, 2022), while others remained sceptical (Slater, 2022). Granting access to Ukrainians rather than asylum seekers from Afghanistan or Syria was believed to be a “political decision linked to Japan’s foreign policy on Ukraine, rather than a decision based on humanitarian considerations and needs” (Ryall, 2022). Also similar to previous cases, the Japanese government failed to provide adequate socioeconomic integration to newcomers: in December 2022, over 60% of newly accepted Ukrainians remained unemployed despite looking for jobs (Kyodo News, 29 December 2022).

Previous studies on intolerant refugee policies in Japan have highlighted the role of the Ministry of Justice, which, in the absence of constitutional protection for asylum seekers or a strong parliament, became a sole decision-maker on immigration and refugee issues, pursuing restrictive policies and largely ignoring pressures from civil society groups (Tarumoto, 2018). A 2023 amendment to the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act, a domestic law regulating the entry and residence of immigrants and refugees in Japan, made some improvements. However, major issues still remain. Human rights’ experts express concern that the bill provides even less protection to asylum seekers as it allows them to be deported after the third unsuccessful asylum claim, thus exposing them to harm and violating the international principle of non-refoulement (Kasai, 2023; UNGA, 2023). As long as the government sees refugees and migrants in general as a threat and continues to endorse the myth of a socio-culturally homogeneous society, it risks prioritising a restrictionist agenda. This agenda, marked by its inconsistencies with contemporary challenges and evolving societal norms, may come at the expense of the human security of vulnerable minorities, conflicting with the country’s international agenda supportive of the principles of human security.

Taiwan: National Security and the Refugee Law

According to Kironska (2022), Taiwan receives asylum seekers on a regular basis, both self-identified and already recognised by the UNHCR. For instance, it admitted ethnic Chinese refugees from Indonesia during the ethnic tensions between Indonesian Chinese and indigenous groups in Indonesia in the 1960s (Wang, 2011, p. 171), Vietnamese boat people in the period 1976–1990, and, more recently, Hong Kong political refugees. Also, a community of Tibetans, who arrived in Taiwan in the 1980s and 1990s and overstayed their visa, are presently residing in Taiwan and have either obtained Taiwanese identity cards or are still undocumented (Pan, 2015). Since 2019, Taiwan has also been active in international cooperation related to refugee protection in the Middle Eastern and the Mediterranean region, offering humanitarian assistance with trilateral aid cooperation (Wu & Chien, 2022). In Taiwan, such migrants are not protected by a formal law and their applications are often dealt with on a case-by-case basis, with rather inconsistent outcomes.

Taiwan is not a signatory of the Convention and Protocol and does not have a refugee law. The fact that Taiwan has not ratified the refugee Convention and Protocol is linked to its international status. Since the Republic of China was replaced in the UN China seat by the People’s Republic of China in 1971, Taiwan has not officially been able to accede to international conventions and UN treaties, and this also includes the Convention and Protocol. Despite this, there have been a few occasions in which Taiwan has actively integrated international convention principles into its legal system. For instance, in 2007, it joined the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women to improve the standard of gender rights in the country and advance gender equality; in 2009, it ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). However, there does not seem to be the same degree of openness regarding the integration of the principles included in the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol. Political sensitivity surrounding China–Taiwan relations seems to be the main issue of concern in this regard.

Under the “one China” policy, Beijing sees Taiwan as one of its provinces. Although Taiwan operates as a de facto state, with a democratically elected government, and independent military and monetary systems, it has not yet formally challenged Beijing’s “one China” claims. Doing so could lead to a conflict, an option that a majority of Taiwanese people do not seem to want. In light of this, the presence of immigrants from China has often posed challenges to Taiwanese lawmakers, as treating them as international citizens would challenge Beijing’s “one China” claims. Migrants from China have been regulated by a separate document, a decision that has generated the much criticised two-tiered citizenship system that discriminates against migrants from China (Friedman, 2010). The presence of refugees from China, especially in the last decade, has raised similar concerns. Indeed, as Kironska (2022) argues, one significant point of contention is to what extent an asylum law should also include people from controversial countries such as China, Hong Kong, and Macau. Legally, a refugee law that includes residents of China, Hong Kong, and Macau, could be problematic as it would challenge the sovereignty claim regarding Beijing’s “one China” policy. Indeed, extending the refugee status to citizens from China, Hong Kong, and Macao would mean formalising their international status in Taiwan. There also are matters linked to public opinion. For instance, the Taiwanese public might be concerned that the formalisation of a refugee law that includes citizens from China, Hong Kong, and Macao, could lead to an uncontrollable flow of Chinese people taking advantage of this opportunity to escape their homeland. More importantly, in this politicised context, there is a belief that such an uncontrollable flow of people from the mainland could also bring Chinese spies (Kironska, 2022, pp. 18–19). National sovereignty and security are the main concerns in this legal and public debate. These issues have frozen the development of a refugee law, a much-contested matter in the parliamentary and public debate.

Indeed, a first draft of an asylum law was submitted to the Parliament in 2005, followed by other drafts in 2011, 2012, and 2016 (Kironska, 2022, p. 5). None of these drafts has successfully passed parliamentary review. Independent human rights experts, regularly invited by the government to review the country’s progress regarding the ICCPR and the ICESCR, put forward the recommendation to set up refugee protection and political asylum mechanisms in 2013 and 2017; yet, no steps have been taken in addressing these points so far (Kironska, 2022, p. 2). The refugee law in Taiwan remains anchored to national security concerns, as Taiwanese claims of independence could lead to military action from Beijing.

Pressure from civil society has been significant, especially after the protests in Hong Kong. In January 2017, during the national review of the ICCPR and the ICESCR, various NGOs urged the government to move away from its case-by-case approach and protect refugees’ and asylum seekers’ basic human rights (Choi, 2019, p. 172). The problem became even more pressing after the outbreak of socio-political unrest in mid-2019. The implementation of the National Security Law in mid-2020, in Hong Kong, resulted in an increasing flow of Hong Kong citizens and residents seeking protection in Taiwan. In the first instance, President Tsai Ying-wen showed support towards Hong Kong citizens who fled to Taiwan, though this, as Hung (2021, p. 175) argues, was mainly rhetorical. Article 18 of the Act Governing Relations with Hong Kong and Macau states that, if Hong Kong and Macao residents’ freedom and safety are under threat, the government should provide adequate assistance. However, the absence of procedural details in the document does not ensure real protection for the asylum seekers. In other words, most of the responsibilities are transferred to civil society, which, in turn, helps asylum seekers with visas or extensions of residence permits, with accommodation searches, and with other kinds of support. In many cases, Hong Kong residents searching for long-term protection in Taiwan, are advised to enrol in a course of study to obtain a student visa, to invest in a start-up to obtain an entrepreneur’s visa, or to work in Taiwanese companies or organisations (Kironska, 2022, p. 8).

As of September 2023, Taiwan still did not have a refugee law, leaving refugees and asylum seekers who landed in its territory unprotected. Clearly, security is an important matter in this conversation. In a context in which Taiwanese claims of independence could lead to Beijing’s military action, refugee protection in Taiwan remains anchored to national security concerns. Hence, caution and ambiguity with regard to refugee protection seem to be the answer. This approach, though, does not always assure the protection of refugees’ basic human rights and physical security, staining, in this way, Taiwan’s image as a democratic, open, and safe country. The debate on human security in Taiwan developed later than in other East Asian societies (Evans, 2004, p. 271). Despite this late evolution, human security has been integrated into governmental debates, seen as a means to promote Taiwan’s global image and participation in international organisations. However, the discussion seems to remain focused on the human security of Taiwanese citizens, whereas that of non-Taiwanese migrants, asylum seekers, and refugees does not seem to be a priority in the island (Atkinson, 2018, p. 15).

Organisation of the Book

Japan has been celebrated as “the oldest and most affluent liberal democracy in Asia”, “a champion of the global liberal order”, and a “prestigious leader in humanitarian support” (Kalicki, 2019, p. 360). Taiwan, after the transition from an authoritarian regime to a democratic political system, has made significant steps in the promotion of the human rights of its citizens. Considered as one of the leading democracies in East Asia, it has created the necessary conditions for the establishment of a rights-based regime (Brysk, 2021). For both governments, human security has been a core principle of their diplomacy, much less of their domestic policies. Despite their great overall political, social, and economic success since the mid-twentieth century, both nations have come under severe domestic and international criticism for failing to offer suitable protection to refugees and asylum seekers, and for their inadequate refugee policies. Clearly, both Japan and Taiwan aspire to stand with their democratic peers with regard to the admission and treatment of refugees and asylum seekers. Yet, both face significant challenges in implementing their aspirations. Regional and domestic geopolitical interests make this goal hard to achieve. Indeed, in a region characterised by a series of territorial disputes and by highly regulated immigration regimes, a defensive concept of sovereignty may also shape the way refugees and asylum seekers are integrated, protected, and perceived. Furthermore, in a region that lacks a degree of consistency with regard to refugee protection, national interests may prevail over the security of non-citizens. The literature suggests that national security is an important matter shaping the approaches used by Japan and Taiwan to manage the presence of refugee and asylum seekers and create related policies.

This volume problematises this view and shows how concerns about national and territorial security intersect with a series of other matters, above all, human security. Human security, however, can entail different meanings and implications. Indeed, dissimilar historical experiences, socio-cultural conditions, and domestic politics may also shape contrasting interpretations and applications of human security. To show this complexity, this volume, through different case studies, explores three main features linked to refugee and asylum seekers, that of legal and policy frameworks, media representation and public opinion, and lived experiences of refugees and asylum seekers.

Part I explores legal and policy-oriented aspects linked to refugee and asylum seeker protection in Taiwan and Japan. International pressures, and domestic debates and concerns often influence how human security is approached with regard to refugee and asylum seeker management and protection. The five chapters of this part will shed light on the intricacies of these debates.

Chapter 2 by Bonny Ling and Mariko Hayashi explores the gaps between international standards in the protection of refugees and asylum seekers, and domestic policies, both in Taiwan and Japan. As previously explained, despite the different legal contexts, both countries have adopted an ad hoc approach to refugee protection resulting in inadequate security for refugees and asylum seekers. Interestingly, this comparison allows readers to understand how a legal framework, a missing feature in Taiwan yet existing in Japan, is not the only condition to promote refugees’ and asylum seekers’ protection. As the authors argue, unless there is broad acceptance and implementation of the responsibility to protect refugees in society, it will be hard to offer a secure and safe environment to these vulnerable groups.

The following two chapters delve deeper into the legal framework for refugee acceptance and protection. Chapter 3 by Christine Lin stresses the importance of developing a unitary legal framework for refugee and asylum seeker acceptance and protection in Taiwan, rather than using the current model based on separate legislation for different groups. By exploring how the UNHCR has previously operated in non-UN members and non-signatory states around the world, Lin argues that a potential collaboration between Taiwanese institutions and the UNHCR should be sought. Distinguishing this chapter from the others of this section, Lin concludes with policy recommendations for the government of Taiwan and the UNHCR. Chapter 4 by Yingjiao Zhu explores the weaknesses of the Japanese legal framework related to refugees and asylum seekers. By drawing upon legal documents and judicial practices, this chapter argues that the structural problems of the current refugee law include a narrow interpretation of refugee, a heavy burden of proof on asylum seekers, and a lengthy refugee application procedure, which together affect refugees’ and asylum seekers’ security. Hence, the author calls for a thorough reform of the refugee law.

Chapter 5 by Candia Tong and Min-yen Chiang, building on the events in Taiwan following the political unrest in Hong Kong, sheds light on how the absence of a transparent and accountable legal framework for asylum in Taiwan has led to significant risks for the security of Hong Kong asylum seekers. This chapter offers an overview of Taiwan’s ad hoc policy measures and their limitations. It also analyses the contribution that civil society has offered to fill the gaps, which has led to what the authors defined as a quasi-asylum mechanism.

Chapter 6, co-written by David Green, Lisa Unangst, and Eriko Tomita, lies at the intersection of displacement and higher education policies. This chapter draws upon exploratory interviews with Japanese university officials and explores how “student evacuees” have been admitted and supported by Japanese universities since 2017. The authors argue that, despite the positive reception and generous financial support of this new programme, more support and expertise is needed from both local and national government as well as civil society actors to enhance precarious humanitarian protection.

Part II delves into media representation and the public perception of the presence of refugees in Japan and Taiwan, examining how media coverage and public opinion can influence policymaking. Indeed, both Taiwanese and Japanese governments are accountable to the international community and their own nationals, and this is the perspective that Part II brings in.

By building on a text-mining analysis, Chapter 7 by Cody Waikwok Yau explores how the Taiwanese media has portrayed immigrants from Hong Kong, including asylum seekers, in the context of recent political instability. In a bi-partisan political environment shaped by the issue of independence from, and unification with, China, Hong Kong asylum seekers’ media coverage has revolved around the issue of security. Whose security, though? According to the author, media outlets have emphasised concerns over both national security and immigrant security, highlighting the complexity of this matter in Taiwanese public debates.

Chapter 8 by Zdenka Kyselova and Kristina Kironska explores public opinion on refugees and asylum seekers in Japan. Drawing from quantitative data collected through a wide-ranging project, the Sinophone Borderlands Indo-Pacific Survey, conducted in 2022, this chapter examines a mixed and diverse range of opinions and attitudes held by the Japanese public towards foreigners, asylum seekers, and refugees. Interestingly, this study’s findings contradict the assumption that Japanese people are a priori anti-refugee. Chapter 9 by Kristina Kironska turns the focus to Taiwan. Mirroring the previous chapter, Kironska also draws from quantitative data collected through the Sinophone Borderlands Indo-Pacific Survey and explores Taiwanese opinions with regard to refugees and asylum seekers. The chapter shows that, while there is a lack of discussion about an asylum law in Taiwan, Taiwanese people hold generally positive attitudes towards refugees and support the development of a formal legal framework to regulate their access to Taiwan and protect their rights.

Chapter 10 by Sohrab Ahmadian explores the role of social media in expressing and negotiating Kurdish cultural and political identities in Japan. The fact that Kurdish people, unlike many other displaced communities, do not possess a recognised sovereign territory, intensifies their quest for identity. This distinct feature influences their political actions and motivations. By building up a content analysis of Facebook posts by Kurdish users in Japan, this chapter shows how Kurdish nationalism is at the core of Kurdish refugees’ social media activism, helping to foster public awareness, producing and disseminating a coherent and inclusive political discourse on behalf of the Kurdish diaspora, and providing a valuable platform for public diplomacy between Kurdish political elites and Japanese politicians and activists.

Part III brings the perspectives of refugees and asylum seekers into the discussion. Clearly, it is not possible to understand the impact of public opinion or a weak or absent legal framework without taking into consideration the experiences of refugees and asylum seekers. Through their voices, everyday experiences, and collective actions, it is possible to appreciate not only the weaknesses of immigration policies and the impact of a stigmatising media on the public debate, but also how broader social and political changes could eventually be achieved.

Chapter 11 by Mei-lin Pan and Dolma Tsering explores the lived experiences of Tibetan refugees in Taiwan. Drawing on in-depth interviews and government reports, this chapter offers a detailed account of the changing status of Tibetans in Taiwan in light of Taiwan’s political transformation over the past few decades. The authors argue that different state interests shaped the status of Tibetan refugees in Taiwan during the periods of authoritarian rule and of democratisation. Chapter 12 by Shu-fen Lin brings attention to the presence of the Vietnamese refugees who arrived in Taiwan after the end of the Vietnam War. Building on the life history of Father Nguyển Văn Hùng, a Vietnamese refugee who later became a human rights advocate in Taiwan, this chapter explores how the politics of colonisation, civil war, the Cold War, and globalisation have shaped the lives of Vietnamese refugees dispersed around the world, and their transnational activism.

Chapter 13 by Kate Hannah Martin brings into the discussion a timely issue, namely displacement due to climate change. Pacific Islands have been highly impacted by climate change and many of their inhabitants have emigrated. Building on secondary sources on migrant experiences and looking at potential legal protection offered to climate refugees, this chapter explores whether Taiwan and Japan could be a viable option for relocation. This chapter argues that although both Taiwan and Japan have the capacity to accept climate-displaced people from the Pacific Islands, this should be seen as a complex process involving not only financial considerations but also integration patterns, and ensuring that displaced people can become active, valuable members of society.

Chapter 14 by Firman Budianto and Yusy Widarahesty, looks at the presence of Indonesian work seekers who have left their country in hope of gaining a refugee status in Japan. Drawing on ethnographic field notes and in-depth interviews with Indonesian migrants, this chapter highlights the existence of various subjective rationales behind a request for asylum. In the case of Indonesian workers in Japan, it could be motivated by broader structural conditions in the sending and host countries, and it could also be a survival strategy for those who aspire to improve their life and economic opportunities. Chapter 15, co-written by the editors, concludes the volume by summarising its main findings and their implications for research and policy.