Do Human Rights Transcend Citizenship? Lessons from the Buduburam Refugee Camp
| Date | 01 June 2014 |
| Published date | 01 June 2014 |
| Author | Tehila Sagy |
| DOI | 10.1177/0964663913503682 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Do Human Rights
Transcend Citizenship?
Lessons from the
Buduburam Refugee
Camp
Tehila Sagy
University of Leicester, UK
Abstract
This article describes the practices of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees (UNHCR) relating to the protection of refugees’ rights to physical security
and access to justice as observed by the author in the Buduburam refugee camp in
Ghana (2005–2007). It argues that UNHCR worked to ‘privatize’ these rights. The
article suggests that the failure of UNHCR to administer criminal law in the camp is
a breach of its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights. Furthermore, since no political authority assumes the duty to protect
refugees’ rights to physical security and access to justice, according to standard
conceptions of ‘human right’, refugees have no human rights to physical security and
access to justice. The article concludes that ‘human rights’ are not universal and that
those who are excluded from the human rights framework are the same persons
who were excluded from the citizenship rights framework.
Keywords
Access to justice, Buduburam, human rights, international organizations, privatization,
refugees, security, UNHCR
Corresponding author:
Tehila Sagy, University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK.
Email: ts198@le.ac.uk
Social & Legal Studies
2014, Vol. 23(2) 215–236
ªThe Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0964663913503682
sls.sagepub.com
Introduction
Nowadays, the claim that humans have certain rights simply in virtue of being human
seems no more than a platitude. But is this apparent platitude borne out in reality? This
essay attempts to answer this question by analyzing empirical findings from a research
project carried out by the author in the Buduburam refugee camp in Ghana between 2005
and 2007 (henceforth, The Research Project). Liberian refugees have been arriving in
Ghana since May 1990, shortly after Charles Taylor invaded Liberia (Ellis, 2001). By
August 1990, the Ghanaian government established a reception centre for these refugees
in Buduburam, 24 km west of Ghana’s capital Accra (Dick, 2002: 3). By the end of
September 1990, there were 7000 Liberians in Buduburam. The government, poorly
equipped to handle the refugee influx, appealed to the international community for aid
and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) became involved
(Dick, 2002: 2). Buduburam’s population has grown precipitously. During the time of
The Research Project, about 45,000 refugees resided in Buduburam (UNHCR, 2006).
The Research Project examined how human rights are actualized and worked out on the
ground by a major international organization. In particular, it examined UNHCR’s prac-
tices relating to the protection of human rights – specifically, the right to physical security
and the right of access to justice, which are paradigmatic exemplars of human rights even
on the most conservative construal of ‘human rights’. A key finding of the project is that
UNHCR’s practices essentially blocked refugees’ access to justice and that UNHCR
worked to transfer the responsibility for the protection of refugees’ physical security onto
the refugees themselves. This process is described here as ‘privatization of human rights’.
I use the concept ‘privatization of human rights’ to describe a situation whereby the
authorities reject their role as providers of human rights while propelling their constituents
to assume personal/private responsibility for the actualization of these rights.
1
According to a common conception of human rights, these rights, qua human rights,
must be ‘referenced against authoritative political bodies, typically nation-states or orga-
nizations of nation-states’ (Waters, 1996: 594). Therefore if, as I argue below, there is no
authoritative political body responsible for the protection of refugees’ physical security,
then in effect refugees are deprived of the human right to physical security. Likewise, if
there is no authoritative political body responsible for the protection of refugees’ right to
access justice, then in effect refugees are deprived of the human right of access to justice.
Furthermore, since human rights claims are universal – that is, ‘they are made not on
behalf of any particular social grouping but for all instances of humanity in general’
(Waters, 1996: 594) – then the fact, as I argue, that refugees lack the rights to physical
security and access to justice reveals that there are no human rights to physical security
and access to justice.
From Citizenship-Based Rights to Human Rights
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948 is thought to have solved
practical and theoretical problems for the prevailing conception and implementation of
rights it replaced. Prior to UDHR, citizenship was the only basis for having rights, and
states were exclusively responsible for the protection of the rights of citizens. The central
216 Social & Legal Studies 23(2)
To continue reading
Request your trial