Abstract
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.
Highlights
(1) When a particular state fails to meet the basic requirements of LC1 and LC3, this undermines the claim of that state to legitimately exercise rights of selfdetermination, it undermines the legitimacy of the state system
Given that no state can be legitimate unless we have a legitimate state system, and the probability of at least one state not reach the legitimacy requirement is high, some might wonder why they should even aim to do what (LC1) and (LC3) require, because we are collectively going to fail, given at least one state is bound to let us down. (Brock 2020, 59-60)
In the paragraph in which this question is posed, Brock is pointing to the existence of ‘a large gap between the grounds for endorsing the state system and the reality.’ (2020: 113) If ‘these circumstances’ refer to these general conditions that require a refugee regime as legitimacy correction mechanism, we might take Brock’s focus on developmentbased approaches to refugee protection to represent what she sees as the appropriate response under conditions of general compliance by states with their obligations to refugees
Summary
(1) When a particular state fails to meet the basic requirements of LC1 and LC3, this undermines the claim of that state to legitimately exercise rights of selfdetermination, it undermines the legitimacy of the state system.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
