Justice in waiting: The harms and wrongs of temporary refugee protection
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/1474885120973578 |
| Published date | 01 January 2023 |
| Date | 01 January 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article EJPT
Justice in waiting: The
harms and wrongs of
temporary refugee
protection
Rebecca Buxton
University of Oxford, UK
Abstract
Temporariness has become the norm in contemporary refugee protection. Many ref-
ugees face extended periods of time waiting for permanent status, either in camps or
living among citizens in their state of asylum. Whilst this practice of keeping refugees
waiting is of benefit to states, I argue that not only is it harmful to refugees but it also
constitutes an injustice. First, I outline the prevalence of temporary assistance in the
refugee protection regime. Second, I outline the orthodox view on temporary refugee
protection – it is acceptable as long as it is not indefinite. I then spend the remainder of
the article considering four arguments against temporary refugee protection: the plan
argument, the reciprocity argument, the domination argument, and the compounding
injustice argument. I contend that the first two arguments, which already feature in the
literature, merely show that temporary protection is harmful to refugees. My own
arguments on domination and compounding injustice show, instead, that giving refugees
temporary protection constitutes an injustice. The domination argument allows us to
critique the current practice of temporary refugee protection, whereas the compound-
ing injustice argument shows that temporariness in any form constitutes an injustice.
Keywords
Asylum, domination, justice, refugee, temporary protection
Corresponding author:
Rebecca Buxton, St Johns College, University of Oxford, St Giles’ St Oxford, OX1 3JP, UK.
Email: rebecca.buxton@sjc.ox.ac.uk
European Journal of Political Theory
!The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1474885120973578
journals.sagepub.com/home/ept
2023, Vol. 22(1) 51–72
I don’t know where I’ll be one year from now. Already I’ve been travelling and
waiting for more than a year. Sometimes I feel like I’m crazy...I just want to live
happily somewhere with my daughter. And I want to pay back the money I borrowed.
I’m just so tired, I’m really so tired. I don’t know what tomorrow will bring. (Afghan
woman interviewed by the Danish Refugee Council, 2017)
In the summer of 2015, nearly 1 million people arrived on the beaches of Europe.
Most were fleeing war in Syria, which had become increasingly violent. Although
escaping from the Middle East and North Africa to Europe by boat was far from
new, the huge increase of deaths in the Mediterranean led to a discourse of ‘crisis’
in the West.
1
Under increasing pressure, German Chancellor Angela Merkel
offered sanctuary to these new arrivals, with Germany accepting almost a million
refugees by the end of November that year.
Soon after these refugees had been given formal status, discussions began about
how quickly they could be forcibly returned. In December 2017, the German
interior ministers discussed a proposal concerning when Syrian refugees might
be forcibly repatriated to areas considered safe by the Government (Foreign
Policy, 2017). They rejected the proposal and instead extended their memorandum
on halting deportations to Syria for one year, when they again considered the
possibility of forced returns (Deutsche Welle, 2017, 2018). In 2019, German inte-
rior ministers again decided against conducting deportations, extending the policy
for another year (InfoMigrants, 2019). Many Syrians in Germany receive ‘subsid-
iary protection’ introduced by the EU Qualification Directive, as opposed to hold-
ing refugee status as defined under the 1951 Geneva Convention; this subsidiary
protection is initially granted for only a year, at which time the holder must re-
apply.
2
After several cycles, Syrian refugees can eventually apply for permanent
residence. Until then, their temporary status is extended each time by one or two
years – they must then wait to see what decision is taken the next time around.
Protection for refugees has also become more precarious in the United
Kingdom. In a 2016 speech, then-Home Secretary Theresa May announced the
introduction of ‘safe-return interviews’. Previously, refugees had automatically
qualified for indefinite leave to remain after holding formal status for five years.
Under the new policy, the Home Office would consider whether it was safe for
refugees to be repatriated after five years of protection. Announcing the policy
(Independent, 2015), May said:
[W]hen a refugee’s temporary stay of protection in the UK comes to an end, or if there
is a clear improvement in the conditions of their own country, we will review their
need for protection. If their reason for asylum no longer stands and it is now safe for
them to return, we will seek to return them to their home country rather than offer
settlement here in Britain.
It is clear from both cases that refugees spend many years in limbo, waiting to
receive some form of permanent status. This is a growing trend across European
52 European Journal of Political Theory 22(1)
To continue reading
Request your trial