Refugees, legitimacy and development

ABSTRACT

In this paper I focus on Gillian Brock’s treatment of the case of refugees. After noting a potential distinction between our otherwise closely related theoretical approaches in which we view the refugee regime as a legitimacy repair (Owen) or legitimacy correction (Brock) mechanism, I draw a contrast between our ways of addressing this regime and argue that the difference between my historical approach and Brock’s presentist approach turns out to have implications for how we conceive what is due to refugees. Focusing on her advocacy of a developmental turn in refugee protection, I develop the concern that her articulation of this approach remains too closely tied to the humanitarian perspective of Betts and Collier in a way that underestimates the significance of political rights to refugee autonomy.

KEYWORDS:

• Refugees
• development
• autonomy
• political rights
• legitimacy
• humanitarianism

Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

¹ The case of a refugee from a state that is incapable of protection is, I think, better conceived under the category of sanctuary than that of asylum. I am grateful to Matt Gibney for urging me to clarify this point.

² Persecution can take many forms, including denial of citizenship to persons entitled to that status. Unfortunately exploring this issue in depth is beyond the scope of this book.