Person:

Goldenziel, Jill

Why do states tolerate large numbers of refugees? This dissertation offers an answer to this puzzle by examining changes in policy responses by the international community toward Iraqis displaced after the U.S. invasion of 2003. From 2003-2006, Jordan, Syria, and Egypt remained quiet about the growing humanitarian needs of displaced Iraqis. From 2007-2010, these countries abruptly shifted policy to claim that they were hosting millions of Iraqis, and to allow Iraqis greater access to public goods and humanitarian assistance. I argue that this policy shift occurred because of new opportunities to extract strategic rents from the international community in the form of foreign aid and development assistance tied to the presence of refugees. I also explain how and why the UN Refugee Agency facilitated host country behavior during these two time periods, even in contradiction with its mandate under international law. I ground my argument in more than 100 interviews with UN Agency officials, NGO workers, government officials, and Iraqi refugees conducted in Jordan, Syria, and Egypt and at the UN Refugee Agency Headquarters in Geneva between 2007 and 2010. I also utilize research in the archives of relevant newspapers, national departments of statistics, and the UN Refugee Agency Headquarters. Previous political science literature largely conceives of refugees as a burden on state infrastructure, or as a potential security risk. This dissertation challenges this literature by suggesting that, under some conditions, states may derive political and economic benefits from the presence of refugees, explaining why they tolerate displaced populations. This dissertation also contributes to the understanding of how authoritarian regimes adapt to new opportunities for strategic rents. This dissertation also explores how an international organization can operate as both a principal and an agent, constrained by the preferences of its member or donor countries, yet autonomously advancing its own interests while shaping the political environment in which it operates. I show how the malleability of international refugee law has helped actors to manipulate humanitarian assistance for their own gain. Finally, this dissertation explores how the destabilization of Iraq affected international relations within a region that has been forever changed.

How can international law protect both international security and the human rights of displaced people? Existing international law protects only displaced refugees: those who flee persecution on the basis of religion, race, nationality, or political opinion. This article argues that a new Displaced Persons Convention must be created to protect the human rights of the world’s other 35 million victims of civil conflict and climate change who do not meet this narrow definition. International Refugee Law must be preserved as it is because it enshrines critical protections for minority rights that must not be diluted. However, an additional instrument of international law is necessary to resolve an issue that is at once one of the greatest human rights issues of our time and a threat to international peace and security. To support this argument, this article presents a comprehensive history of refugees in international law, combining primary sources and original interview data to trace how states have agreed for centuries that refugee law should protect minority rights, even as shifting state interests have changed refugee protection over time. This article refutes other scholarly proposals and UN practices that expand the category of “refugee.” It also contributes to growing scholarly interest in the history of human rights law by arguing that refugee law predates the modern human rights regime, challenges its foundations, and extends its claims to universality.

The current European migration crisis has been playing out worldwide. As record numbers of migrants have fled their countries in recent years, wealthier states have had an increasing interest in restricting their borders to protect national security. The challenge of balancing domestic security interests with international human rights commitments has fallen to courts. Drawing on cases involving interdiction of migrants and refugees at sea from the U.S., Australia, and the European Court of Human Rights, this chapter will compare how the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees has been interpreted across countries and over time. It will show how courts have permitted countries to circumvent the core prohibition of the Refugee Convention, and discuss when courts choose to intervene to enforce it. The chapter will conclude by analyzing the implications of these cases for extraterritorial application of domestic and international human rights guarantees.

The bad actor problem, or the puzzle of how to get known human rights violators to improve their practices, is central to human rights scholarship and policy-making. Scholarship has largely focused on understanding how and if state commitments to multilateral international human rights treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, can improve human rights practices. This article reframes the bad actor problem as a regulatory matter, suggesting that international agencies may, under certain conditions, provide a way to get even bad actors to improve their human rights practices. By flexibly interpreting international law, international organizations can use their authority to coordinate state interests, while enhancing the credibility of state commitments and providing valuable legal cover for state actions. I present examples of how international agencies may and have improved human rights practices, focusing on the case of the use of international refugee law during the post-2003 Iraqi refugee crisis in Jordan and Syria. My analysis suggests that traditional scholarly discussion of promoting compliance with international human rights instruments may be misplaced, and that the role of international agencies in regulating human rights deserves further attention.

How does international law protect migrants? For the most part, it does not. Of the millions of people who flee persecution, conflict, and poverty each year, international law protects only refugees: those who flee persecution on the basis of religion, race, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees provides critical protections for minorities that must never be diluted. However, it is insufficient to protect the swarms of migrants landing on the shores of Europe and elsewhere, or to guide states on how to protect them while guarding their own security. This article argues that states have always revised international law regarding displaced people to protect their own security interests and changing circumstances of displacement. The time is thus ripe for the creation of an additional instrument of international law to protect the 35 million displaced people who do not meet the definition of “refugee.” To support this argument, this article presents a comprehensive history of refugees in international law, combining primary sources and original interview data to trace how states have used refugee law to protect minority rights, even as state security interests have changed refugee protection over time. In doing so, the article makes two theoretical claims that contribute to growing scholarly interest in the history of human rights law. First, the article argues that refugee law is paradigmatic human rights law, although it is often excluded from the human rights canon. Second, the article claims that refugee law predates the modern human rights regime, challenges its foundations, and extends its claims to universality.

This article explains how judicial independence can develop in regimes that are not fully democratic. Conventional wisdom holds that a strong legislature and political parties are necessary for the emergence of an independent judiciary. This article challenges conventional wisdom by explaining how judicial independence may arise in regimes where these conditions are not present. It presents a theory of how judicial independence emerges and why and when other political actors will respect it. The article also explains why courts may be better poised than legislatures to counter executive power in non-democracies. The theory is developed through a discussion of cases involving Islamic headscarves and veils in Middle Eastern courts. These cases have broad political implications because of their significance to Islamists, who pose the biggest challenge to the power of traditional elites in majority-Muslim countries; and their broad legal ramifications with respect to judicial power, individual rights, constitutional convergence, religious freedom, and the relationship between shari‘a and state law. The article also explains how national courts have interpreted Islamic law and challenges the notion that courts function to secularize state-sponsored religion. To the author’s knowledge, this article contributes the most complete discussion in the English-language academic literature of recent high court cases in Egypt, Kuwait, and Turkey that were translated for the purposes of this article, thus contributing to the body of foreign constitutional case law available for comparative study.

How can international law better protect both international security and the human rights of people fleeing violence? International refugee law protects only the refugees: those fleeing across borders due to a well-founded persecution on the basis of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. The world’s other 42.3 million people displaced by violence have few protections under international law. This article proposes and sketches new international law to address this crucial human rights problem. I argue that a new Displaced Persons Convention to protect people fleeing violent conflict is needed to supplement the 1951 Refugee Convention. The Refugee Convention must be preserved because of the critical protections it provides for the rights of minorities and political dissidents. Adding a new Displaced Persons Convention would better protect the human rights of individuals fleeing violent conflict and state failure, further state interests, and improve international security.