Abstract
The conclusion to this book reviews its main arguments, identifies key themes emerging from them and shows how they point towards avenues for future research. Emphasising that the notion of asylum as reparation presents a challenge to current understandings of responsibilities to refugees and existing state practice in this context, Souter shows how the analysis has underscored, among other things, the moral tensions and conflicts that may arise from states’ acceptance of their reparative obligations towards refugees, and the need to see asylum as one potentially fitting reparative measure among others. Finally, the conclusion stresses the ongoing relevance of the notion of asylum as reparation to the international politics of the twenty-first century in light of states’ continued refugee-producing actions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For the view that refugee protection potentially requires ‘morally excruciating’ choices, see Miller (2016: 162).
- 2.
For relevant discussion, see Bosniak (2016: 209–217).
- 3.
For the application of reparative thinking to the case of forced migration from Honduras in light of US foreign policy, see Nevins (2019).
- 4.
The application of this framework to case studies would allow us to evaluate more general claims about the salience of reparative justice for refugee and immigrant admissions more robustly, such as David Miller’s assertion that ‘allowing reparative concerns to dominate immigration policy as a whole would…be a backward step’ (Miller, 2017: 765). Moreover, its more thorough application to cases of environmental displacement may reveal normatively salient differences between the environmentally displaced and ‘political’ refugees, as Eckersley (2015: 494) has anticipated.
- 5.
See Vernon (2012: 43) for discussion of the extent to which immigrants more generally may come to share in the responsibilities of their new states to redress historic injustice. For the argument that refugees do not owe gratitude to their host states given that they are owed asylum as a form of recompense, see Kling (2019: 97).
- 6.
- 7.
- 8.
For discussion of this point more generally, see Hobbs (2020: 66).
References
Achiume, E. T. (2019). Migration as decolonization. Stanford Law Review, 71(6), 1509–1574.
Bosniak, L. (2016). Wrongs, rights and regularization. Moral Philosophy and Politics, 3(2), 187–222.
Butt, D. (2009). Rectifying international injustice: Principles of compensation and restitution between nations. Oxford University Press.
Coen, A. (2017). Capable and culpable? The United States, RtoP, and refugee responsibility-sharing. Ethics and International Affairs, 31(1), 71–92.
Eckersley, R. (2015). The common but differentiated responsibilities of states to assist and receive ‘climate refugees’. European Journal of Political Theory, 14(4), 481–500.
Gibney, M. J. (2020). The duties of refugees. In D. Miller & C. Straehle (Eds.), The political philosophy of refuge (pp. 132–153). Cambridge University Press.
Hobbs, J. (2020). Cosmopolitan anger and shame. Journal of Global Ethics, 16(1), 58–76.
Kling, J. (2019). War refugees: Risk, justice, and moral responsibility. Lexington Press.
Miller, D. (2016). Strangers in our midst: The political philosophy of immigration. Harvard University Press.
Miller, D. (2017). Migration and justice: A reply to my critics. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 20(6), 763–773.
Nevins, J. (2019). Migration as reparations. In R. Jones (Ed.), Open borders: In defense of free movement (pp. 129–140). University of Georgia Press.
Sandelind, C., & Ulaş, L. (2020). Solidarity with refugees: An institutional approach. Journal of Social Philosophy, 51(4), 564–582.
Saunders, N. (2018). Beyond asylum claims: Refugee protest, responsibility, and Article 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The International Journal of Human Rights, 22(7), 847–868.
Tan, K. C. (2007). Colonialism, reparations and global justice. In J. Miller & R. Kumar (Eds.), Reparations: Interdisciplinary inquiries (pp. 280–306). Oxford.
Torpey, J. C. (2006). Making whole what has been smashed: On reparations politics. Harvard University Press.
Vernon, R. (2012). Historical redress: Must we pay for the past? Continuum.
Woods, K. (2020). Refugees’ stories: Empathy, agency, and solidarity. Journal of Social Philosophy, 51(4), 507–525.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Souter, J. (2022). Conclusion. In: Asylum as Reparation . International Political Theory. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62448-4_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62448-4_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-62447-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-62448-4
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)