Domination and misframing in the refugee regime

References

• Allain, J. (2001). The jus cogens nature of non‐refoulement. International Journal of Refugee Law, 13(4), 533–538.
   Google Scholar
• Amighetti, S., & Nuti, A. (2016). A nation’s right to exclude and the colonies. Political Theory, 44(4), 541–566.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anghie, A. (2004). Imperialism, sovereignty and the making of international law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barry, B. (1980). Is it better to be powerful or lucky?: Part I. Political Studies, 28(2), 183–194.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Betts, A. (2011). International cooperation in the refugee regime. In G. Loescher & A. Betts (Eds.), Refugees in international relations (pp. 53–84). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Betts, A. (2015). The normative terrain of the global refugee regime. Ethics & International Affairs, 29(4), 363–375.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Betts, A., & Collier, P. (2015). Help refugees help themselves: Let displaced syrians join the labour market. Foreign Affairs 94(6), 84–92.
   Google Scholar
• Betts, A., & Collier, P. (2016, April 28). Jordan’s refugee experiment. Foreign Affairs[online]. Retrieved from https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/middle-east/2016-04-28/jordans-refugee-experiment.
   Google Scholar
• Betts, A., & Collier, P. (2017). Refuge: Rethinking refugee policy in a changing world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carens, J. H. (2013). The ethics of immigration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cherem, M. (2016). Refugee rights: Against expanding the definition of a ‘Refugee’ and unilateral protection elsewhere. Journal of Political Philosophy, 24(2), 183–205.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Convention relating to the status of refugees. (1951). A/CONF.2/108. Retrieved from https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1954/04/19540422%2000-23%20AM/Ch_V_2p.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Dahl, R. A. (1957). The concept of power. Behavioral Science, 2(3), 201–215.
   Google Scholar
• Dowding, K. M. (1991). Rational choice and political power. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Ferracioli, L. (2014). The appeal and danger of a new refugee convention. Social Theory and Practice, 40(1), 123–144.
   Google Scholar
• Forst, R. (2011). The right to justification: Elements of a constructivist theory of justice. New York: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Forst, R. (2015). Noumenal power. Journal of Political Philosophy, 23(2), 111–127.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraser, N. (2008a). Scales of justice: Reimagining political space in a globalizing world. New York: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fraser, N. (2008b). Abnormal justice. Critical Inquiry, 34(3), 393–422.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerver, M. (2018). Moral refugee markets. Global Justice: Theory Practice Rhetoric, 11(1), 45–63.
   Google Scholar
• Getachew, A. (2019). Worldmaking after empire: The rise and fall of self-determination. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gibney, M. J. (2004). The ethics and politics of Asylum: Liberal democracy and the response to refugees. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gibney, M. J., 2006. ‘A thousand little guantanamos’: Western States and measures to prevent the arrival of refugees. In: K. E. Tunstall, ed. Displacement, Asylum, Migration: The Oxford Amnesty Lectures 2004(pp. 139–169). Oxford: Oxford University Press
   Google Scholar
• Gibney, M. J. (2015). Refugees and justice between states. European Journal of Political Theory, 14(4), 448–463.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin-Gill, G. S., & McAdam, J. (2007). The refugee in international law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hathaway, J. C., & Neve, R. A. (1997). Making international refugee law relevant again: A proposal for collectivized and solution-oriented protection. Harvard Human Rights Journal, 10, 115–212.
   Google Scholar
• Held, D. (2000). Regulating globalization? The reinvention of politics. International Sociology, 15(2), 394–408.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Himmelreich, J. (2019). Asylum for sale: A market between states that is feasible and desirable. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 36(2), 217–232.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, W., & Teytelboym, A. (2017). The international refugee match: A system that respects refugees’ preferences and the priorities of states. Refugee Survey Quarterly, 36(2), 84–109.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kälin, W. (2010). Conceptualising climate-induced displacement. In J. McAdam (Ed.), Climate change and displacement: Multidisciplinary perspectives(pp. 81–104). London: Hart Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Kuosmanen, J. (2013). What (If anything) is wrong with trading refugee quotas? Res publica, 19(2), 103–119.
   Google Scholar
• Laborde, C., & Ronzoni, M. (2016). What is a free state? Republican internationalism and globalisation. Political Studies, 64(2), 279–296.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lister, M. (2013). Who are refugees? Law and Philosophy, 32(5), 645–671.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lovett, F. (2010). A general theory of domination and justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lukes, S. (2005). Power: A radical view (2nd ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, D. (2016). Strangers in our midst: The political philosophy of immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Owen, D. (2016a). In loco civitatis: On the normative basis of the institution of refugeehood and responsibilities for refugees. In S. Fine & L. Ypi (Eds.), Migration in political theory: The ethics of movement and membership(pp. 269–290). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Owen, D. (2016b). Refugees, fairness and taking up the slack: On justice and the international refugee regime. Moral Philosophy and Politics, 3(2), 141–164.
   Google Scholar
• Owen, D. (2018). Refugees and responsibilities of justice. Global Justice: Theory Practice Rhetoric, 11(1), 23–44.
   Google Scholar
• Pettit, P. (1997). Republicanism: A theory of freedom and Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Price, M. E. (2009). Rethinking asylum: History, purpose, and limits. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Roemer, J. E. (1982). A general theory of exploitation and class. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ronzoni, M. (2009). The global order: A case of background injustice? A practice-dependent account. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 37(3), 229–256.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ronzoni, M. (2012). Two conceptions of state sovereignty and their implications for global institutional design. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 15(5), 573–591.
   Google Scholar
• Schuck, P. H. (1997). Refugee burden-sharing: A modest proposal. Yale Journal of International Law, 22, 243–298.
   Google Scholar
• Shacknove, A. E. (1985). Who is a refugee? Ethics, 95(2), 274–284.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steiner, H. (1984). A liberal theory of exploitation. Ethics, 94(2), 225–241.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suhrke, A. (1998). Burden-sharing during refugee emergencies: The logic of collective versus national action. Journal of Refugee Studies, 11(4), 396–415.
   Google Scholar
• United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). (2016). New York declaration on refugees and migrants. A/RES/71/1. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/71/1
   Google Scholar
• United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). (2017). Global trends: Forced displacement in 2016. Geneva: UNHCR. Retrieved from https://www.unhcr.org/5943e8a34.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Vrousalis, N. (2013). Exploitation, vulnerability, and social domination. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 41(2), 131–157.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vrousalis, N. (2018). Exploitation: A Primer. Philosophy Compass, 13(2), e12486.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walzer, M. (1983). Spheres of justice: A defence of pluralism and equality. Oxford: Robertson.
   Google Scholar
• Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. Berkley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wertheimer, A. (1996). Exploitation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ypi, L., Goodin, R., & Barry, C. (2009). Associative duties, global justice, and the colonies. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 37(2), 103–135.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar