Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Refugees - we’d like to help, but …

By Guy Goodwin-Gill - posted Friday, 3 February 2006


All of this has been against a political background and events which the states were simply unable to change or even influence, or which other political interests led them to maintain or encourage.

It is certainly not the case, however, that state practice reveals a common golden thread of humanitarian commitment which time duly translated from conduct into rule. On the contrary, bouts of negative self-interest and dissembling, and persistent unwillingness to sign on to legal obligation, frequently interrupted such legal development.

Through the 1920s Nansen’s mandate expanded to include other groups in addition to the Russians. Although each of these later groups was seen to share certain common characteristics, states preferred an ad hoc, group by group approach, seeking to limit their commitments to known categories and staying away from any general description of unknown quantity.

Advertisement

Following Nansen’s death in 1930, no new High Commissioner was appointed at the time but the functions and responsibilities were transferred to a new office named in Nansen’s honour.

In October 1933, as the Nansen Office was on the point of winding up and on the eve of a decade or so of devastating displacements, a diplomatic conference was convened in Geneva to draft a convention on the legal status of the refugee, and to promote the principle of equal treatment with nationals.

At once the question arose, whether the new treaty should go beyond the specific categories already recognised in the 1920s, and include anyone who no longer enjoyed the protection of their country of origin.

League officials were concerned with what appear today to be legal niceties. They worried that the former countries of origin - the “refugee-producing countries” - might protest, even as they also affirmed that the international community of the time, being based on principles of law and justice, could hardly allow a substantial number of individuals to live without a clear legal status.

Like the drafters who followed them 20 or so years later, they were cautious, anxious not to appear to be doing anything innovative, and claimed merely to be consolidating earlier practice.

But there were indeed innovations and hints of problems yet to come. Non-refoulement - the now familiar principle that no state should return a refugee in any manner whatsoever to where he or she may face persecution - was mentioned for the first time in an international agreement.

Advertisement

Limitations on the power of expulsion were also mooted, for example, where the only reason was destitution, and where destitution in turn was consequential on the state itself having prohibited employment.

The interlinkage of responses and consequences began to be seen and understood: access to education was readily identified as an essential condition of equality but also a resource of potential benefit to the asylum state, should the refugees it trained ever be able to return home.

That debate revealed and further confirmed the central elements: recognition and acceptance of the international character of the refugee problem, at institutional and practical levels; the continuing relevance of national interests; and the convergence in fact of national practices, reflecting in various degrees the acceptance of common principles.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

Article edited by Allan Sharp.
If you'd like to be a volunteer editor too, click here.

This article is an edited and abridged version of the first of three lectures on international refugee protection given by Dr Goodwin-Gill in Australia in 2005 for the Kenneth Rivett Orations.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

33 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Dr Guy S. Goodwin-Gill is currently a Senior Research Fellow at All Souls College at the University of Oxford. He was previously the Professor of International Refugee Law at Oxford, the Professor of Asylum Law at the University of Amsterdam, and worked for over a decade for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Guy Goodwin-Gill
Related Links
Refugee Council of Australia

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Guy Goodwin-Gill
Article Tools
Comment 33 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy