The Post-Colonial Refugee, Dublin II, and the End of Non-Refoulement

Refugee law has been variously conceptualised. Sometimes, as a humanitarian enterprise. Sometimes, as an extension of foreign policy relations based on national self-interests. But can it be better rationalised as a post-colonial enterprise? Does its treatment of Arabs, Afghans and others from the M...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:International journal on minority and group rights 2013, Vol.20 (2), p.307-335
Main Author: Juss, Satvinder S
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Asylum seekers
Charter of Fundamental Rights
Consumers
Council Directive 2004/83/EC
Decolonization
Dublin II Regulation
Europe
European Union
Foreign Policy
Human rights
Humanitarianism
Imperialism
International law
Law
M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece
Middle East
N.S. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department
non-refoulement
North Africa
post-colonial refugee
post-colonialism
Refugees
Regulation
Risk
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Refugee law has been variously conceptualised. Sometimes, as a humanitarian enterprise. Sometimes, as an extension of foreign policy relations based on national self-interests. But can it be better rationalised as a post-colonial enterprise? Does its treatment of Arabs, Afghans and others from the Middle East and North Africa - who are the major consumers of modern refugee law today - tell us something about refugee law? Does it serve to essentialise refugees as the 'Others' of the West? If so, can we conceive of a post-colonial refugee? Is modern refugee law an exercise in 'post-colonialism', which can be defined as a cultural critique that is opposed to imperialism and Eurocentrism? This essay explores this question through an analysis of the Dublin II Regulation system. This system limits the number of asylum-seekers entering the countries of the European Union. Recent cases confirm that even powerful evidence of individual risk is of no avail and serves as no bar to an asylum-seeker being removed from one European country to another, from where he or she risks being refouled to his/her own country, where he/she may be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment. This essay tells that story.
ISSN:1385-4879
1571-8115
DOI:10.1163/15718115-02002010