The Challenges of Refugee Protection in a World Effected by Terrorism
In a recently published dissertation the intricate challenges within international refugee law related to issues of when an individual is excluded from universal humanitarian protection are thoroughly examined. This study underscores the necessity for a system that effectively safeguards the most vulnerable while addressing new and evolving threats, such as terrorism.
In a world where thousands of individuals are forced to abandon their homes daily due to conflict, persecution, and disasters, coupled with the rising threat of violent extremism and terrorism, we confront one of the most urgent issues of our time: Who is entitled to, and who can be excluded from, refugee protection?
The international instruments governing refugee law, particularly the 1951 Geneva Convention (commonly known as the Refugee Convention) and its 1967 Protocol, are pivotal in providing humanitarian protection to individuals fleeing their home countries. These instruments serve as the legal pillars of international refugee law and have played a crucial role in saving millions of lives by allowing those in need to seek asylum in another country.
What is less commonly known is that the Refugee Convention also contains a provision that can exclude certain individuals from refugee status and refugee protection. This particular outcome is regulated in Article 1F, also known as the exclusion provision. And was ultimately the main focus of Jur. Dr. Hevi Dawody's dissertation, which she successfully defended at Stockholm University on April 12, 2024.
Grounded in Historical Contexts
Dr. Dawody’s dissertation, titled "Terrorism and Exclusion from Refugee Protection," critically examines the exclusion provision of the Refugee Convention, particularly in relation to the crime of terrorism. A significant issue highlighted in her research is that the provision does not explicitly mention terrorism as a ground for exclusion, despite its overarching purpose being to identify asylum seekers who are unworthy of refugee protection due to their involvement in serious criminal activities.
Dr. Dawody explains that when the Article 1F was drafted, the primary focus was on identifying war criminals from World War II and excluding them from international humanitarian protection. As a result, the grounds for exclusion enshrined in Article 1F listed heinous and serious crimes that were pertinent to that period, such as crimes against peace, war crimes, crimes against humanity, serious non-political crimes, and acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
However, as Dr. Dawody’s dissertation points out, the geopolitical landscape has significantly changed since then. Terrorism has become a pervasive global threat that impacts the security of many nations. Thus, even though the exclusion clauses do not specifically enumerate terrorism, it has been interpreted and applied in a manner that recognizes terrorist acts as a potential basis for exclusion from refugee protection. While this may initially be viewed as an appropriate development, it creates legal uncertainty and risks leading to inconsistent treatment of asylum seekers, especially given the absence of a universally accepted definition of terrorism.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
quote from "Harry's Game", written by Gerald Seymour 1976.
The Issue of Legal Uncertainty
Dr. Dawody identifies several challenges with applying the exclusion clauses in the context of terrorism-related cases. These challenges include, amongst many/for instance, the risk of excluding asylum seekers suspected of or associated with terrorism without sufficient evidence or a fair and thorough assessment. The provision could also be misused for political purposes or to unjustly deny protection to certain groups of asylum seekers without a proper evaluation of their individual circumstances.
Her dissertation delves into these complexities and discusses the ethical, legal, and practical issues that arise when attempting to apply a 70-year-old convention to today’s more complex and globalized world. She proposes methods of interpreting the exclusion provision in a way that addresses current threats while upholding the convention’s fundamental principles of providing humanitarian protection to those in need of international safety.
A Vital Contribution to Legal Scholarship
Dr. Dawody’s research serves as a crucial reminder that justice and protection are intertwined, even in the most complex legal matters. In a global context where challenges such as terrorism and refugee crises frequently dominate political discourse and policy decisions, her work contributes to a well-informed, scholarly discussion on how to balance between the protection of the most vulnerable and the need to protect national security and borders. Consequently, her dissertation is not only of interest to scholars, decision-makers or policymakers but also to anyone who finds matters of human rights, protection and justice to be of significant value and importance.
Read "Terrorism and Exclusion from Refugee Protection"
Hevi Dawody's profile page
About the Public defence
Opponent was Professor Sarah Singer, University of London.
The examining committee consisted of Professor Gregor Noll, Gothenburg University, Professor Jessica Almqvist, Lund University, and Professor Rebecca Stern, Uppsala University.
Supervisors was Professor Mark Klamberg, Stockholm University, and Associate Professor Simon Andersson, Stockholm University.
Text: Natalie Oliwsson
Last updated: May 27, 2024
Source: Department of Law