Suchergebnisse

Abstract
This article explores three different methodological approaches to the UN 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees—and international refugee law (IRL) more broadly. These are termed the internal, external and dialectical approaches. It is argued that the dialectical approach, which combines elements of the internal and external approaches using a materialist postcolonial perspective helps make out in the light of changing conditions a more persuasive case for liberal interpretation and reform of the 1951 Convention. Put differently, the article is about the limitations and failings of mainstream IRL scholarship, which essentially pursues an internal approach to the 1951 Convention. It is equally about the need to decolonize and transform the pedagogy and research of IRL. This article concludes with some suggestions to advance refugee rights that would allow the 1951 Convention to respond more effectively to the protection needs of refugees around the world.

Abstract
This article argues, from the perspective of third-world approaches to international law (TWAIL), that the limitations of the Guiding Principles on Shared Responsibility (hereinafter 'Guiding Principles') stem from the very fact that their drafters did not contest the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA). Therefore, before advancing a critique of the Guiding Principles, this article questions certain aspects of ARSIWA. It argues that ARSIWA tends to overlook the distinction between primary and secondary rules; does not take into account the thick and structured relations between corporations and the state in formulating the rule on attribution; completely neglects the principle of special and differential treatment (SDT) in framing secondary rules of state responsibility; and gives a negative connotation to the erga omnes principle. As a result, ARSIWA cannot do justice to weak states. Since the Guiding Principles merely seek to supplement ARSIWA, they fail to address key issues, including the shared responsibility of state and non-state actors, such as multinational corporations, for the violation of human rights and environmental norms and the application of SDT principles in determining shared responsibility.

AbstractThe article offers an alternative account of the evolution, formation, and function of customary international law (CIL) from a third world perspective. It argues that there is an intimate link between the rise, consolidation, and expansion of capitalism in Europe since the nineteenth century and the development of CIL that is concealed by the supposed distinction between "formal" and "material" sources of CIL. In fact, both "traditional" and "modern" CIL sustain the short-term and systemic interests of global capitalism. It proposes a "postmodern" conception of CIL that would contribute to the global common good.

Der Beitrag bietet eine Kritik des globalisierenden Internationalen Rechts und schlägt eine Reihe von Strategien zur Schaffung einer auf sozialer Gerechtigkeit beruhenden Weltordnung vor. Das Ziel ist es, eine definitive Stellungnahme zum Thema vorzulegen. Der Artikel ist in fünf Abschnitte gegliedert. Im ersten Abschnitt wird erörtert, ob es noch sinnvoll ist, von einer "Dritten Welt" zu reden. Der zweite Abschnitt diskutiert die verschiedenen Methoden, mit denen die Beziehung zwischen dem Staat und dem Internationalen Recht im Zeitalter der Globalisierung zum eindeutigen Nachteil der Staaten und Menschen der Dritten Welt umgestaltet wird. Anschließend untersucht der dritte Abschnitt die Ideologie des globalisierenden Internationalen Rechts. Mit der Theorie und den Prozessen des Widerstands gegen ungerechtes und unterdrückendes Internationales Recht befasst sich der vierte Abschnitt. Schließlich zeigt der fünfte Abschnitt Elemente einer künftigen Agenda der Dritte-Welt-Perspektiven auf das Internationale Recht auf. Der Text endet mit einigen Schlussfolgerungen. (ICF2)

This essay seeks to understand and explain the birth of Forced Migration Studies. It argues that the turn from Refugee Studies to Forced Migration Studies must be viewed against the backdrop of the history and relationship of colonialism and humanitarianism, as a certain commonality binds the past and present eras. The move to Forced Migration Studies accompanies the inauguration of a phase of political humanitarianism with a distinct accent, albeit encapsulated in new forms and issues, on 'civilizing' the Other. In making this contention the paper distances itself from both the defenders and critics of the turn to Forced Migration Studies. It inter alia contends that Refugee Studies, like Forced Migration Studies, has served the geopolitics of hegemonic states. But since all knowledge is dual use, both have also had humanitarian effects. But a greater degree of disciplinary reflexivity would go a long way to ensure that the genuinely humanitarian strand in Forced Migration Studies prevails. Adapted from the source document.