What Would an Ethical, but Feasible, Response to the Refugee Crisis Look Like? An Exploration

Abstract

There are 25.4 million refugees displaced today, more than any time in history (UNHCR, 2018B). Simultaneously, rising nationalism has slashed already failing global refugee support (Golshan, 2018; Krastev, 2019). To improve responses, new approaches are needed which navigate the tension between ethics, politics and policy. This project explores the question “what would an ethical, but feasible, response to the refugee crisis look like”. The major philosophical contribution of this work is the development of the refugee life-cycle framework, which argues that states have obligations to assist refugees in the realms of temporary assistance, admission, (re)integration and post-integration. A great deal of scholarship concerning refugees, especially philosophical analysis, has focused on duties to admit refugees into safe states (Carens, 2013; Dummet, 2001; Gibney, 2018; Parekh, 2018; Price, 2009; Miller, 2016; Owen, 2020). The refugee lifecycle framework builds on this existing admission-focused analysis to clarify additional duties states have to assist refugees. Several novel contributions follow: First, a full understanding of what constitutes a fair share of refugee duties will include non-admission elements. Even if a state has filled its fair share of asylum or resettlement spaces, it may still owe temporary, (re)integration or postintegration assistance. Second, even if a state reaches the limit of its duties to admit refugees, residual non-admission duties remain. If admitting more refugees would threaten public order, states can still discharge a significant portion of their duties via in-state aid. Third, the moral case for development-focused policy such as Betts and Collier (2017) propose is bolstered. Refusing refugees entry is clearly a moral failure but discharging portions of state duties to assist refugees in the regions they reside can be a morally appealing approach. Fourth, how climate change impacts refugees in temporary assistance and post-integration and the role non-admission assistance can play in preventing climate displacement are emphasized. Lastly, the threat posed by anti-development and climate sceptic platforms common to nationalist parties is exposed, strengthening the case for preferring in-state assistance complimentary to admission policies. These findings build upon and complement existing admission-focused research, providing policy options that mitigate the challenges posed by rising nationalism.