Understanding power in the global refugee regime: - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Understanding power in the global refugee regime:A work in progress…

James Milner

Carleton University

James.Milner@carleton.caSlide2

Geneva, 1998Annual meeting of the Executive Committee of the High Commissioner’s

Programme

(

ExCom

)

Debate on annual theme: “International Solidarity and Burden-Sharing in all its Aspects: National, Regional and International Responsibilities for Refugees”

Desire to “identify practical ways of achieving or enhancing” cooperation

Context:

Rising global refugee numbers and pressures for repatriation

Restrictive policies by states in the Global North and South

Hathaway’s proposal for the “reformulation of refugee law”

Opportunity for the progressive development of the global refugee regime?Slide3

Debate highlightsIndia:

“While donors seek solutions that relieve their financial burden as fast as possible, the priority for developing countries of first asylum is to expedite returns in order to obtain relief from the … burdens that the presence of refugees poses to their already hard pressed societies.”

Tanzania

:

“Countries of asylum are to a large extent left to bear the brunt of the burden or hosting the refugees they admit to their territory… Whatever resources that are made available to the countries of asylum remains a matter of charity, left to the discretion of donor countries

.”

US:

“Protecting refugees should be seen as a “shared responsibility not as a shared burden” and “it would be wrong to see refugees only in terms of costs to the countries in which they find refuge.”Slide4

Result?Chairman’s summary:

Agreement on the principle, but not on mechanisms

Debates on language of “burden” v. “responsibility”

Majority view that “developing countries bear a disproportionate share of the burden or hosting refugees”

Result: Annual Standing Committee paper on “Economic and social impact of massive refugee populations on host developing countries, as well as other countries”

Politics of the issue arguably prevented more empirical consideration of the various impacts of refugees on host states and communitiesSlide5

Significance?As the presume hegemon in the global refugee regime, the US was not able to reframe the debate around ‘responsibilities’

As a growing majority of states in

ExCom

, refugee hosting states were able to frame the concept of ‘burden sharing’

Provokes several questions:

What does this suggest about the functioning of the decision-making bodies of the global refugee regime?

What does this suggest about the functioning of power in the global refugee regime?

What does this suggest about power in global regimes, more generally?Slide6

The global refugee regimeWhat is a regime? Krasner (1982):

“sets of implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules and decision making procedures around which actors’ expectations converge in a given area of international relations.”

Is there a global refugee regime?

Norms:

Non-

refoulement

Rules: 1951 Convention and UNHCR’s 1950 Statue

Decision-making procedures:

ExCom

Expectation?

The creation and expansion of a global refugee regime will facilitate cooperation, overcome collective action failure and help ensure the realization of the regime’s core objectives: protection and solutions for refugeesSlide7

Do regimes matter?Realist view of “hegemonic stability”: The emergence of a state hegemon would encourage stability and predictability

The US as the hegemon of the global refugee regime?

Liberal view of the role of regimes and international organizations in facilitating cooperation and overcoming collective action failure

ExCom

providing a venue for developing collaborative approaches?

Critical view that regimes are not “benevolent, voluntary, cooperative, and thus legitimate” but “forums and objects of struggle” (Keeley, 1990)

How do actors exercise power or influence within the regime?

Experience of

1998 suggests that hegemons do not always get their way, regimes do not always result in consensus, and power mattersSlide8

Understanding powerLimited attention to the role of power in the study and pursuit of “global governance”

Barnett and Duvall (2005)

Compulsory power: direct control over another

Institutional power: actors’ control over socially distant others

Structural power: direct and mutual constitution of the capacities of actors (such as shaping the global economy)

Productive power: production of subjects through diffuse social relations (ability to define “what constitutes legitimate knowledge”)

Helps frame two key questions

If there is no single expression of power, how do

different actors

employ different forms of power to

influence outcomes

?

If not

all power

is exercised

and experienced directly, is there a distinction between ‘power’ and ‘influence’?Slide9

Power in the global refugee regimeHow and where do we observe or measure power/influence?

What determines the ability of various actors to influence the global refugee regime? Where? When? How?

Are there different forms of power that influence outcomes in different contexts?

How can an understanding of power contribute to a more effective and predictable global refugee regime? Slide10

Where can we observe ‘power’?‘Global refugee policy’

is a formal statement of, and proposed course of action in response to, a problem relating to protection, solutions or assistance for refugees or other populations of concern to the global refugee regime

Motivated by ‘policy problem’ affecting persons of concern to the global refugee regime (

ie

. not only refugees)

From decision-making bodies of the global refugee regime

Formal v. informal decision-making

Takes the form of either ‘regulations that define the limits of permissible behavior for national governments’ or ‘programs administered by international agencies’Slide11

Policy v. other expressions of ‘rules’Global refugee policy as a sub-set of a broad category

of ‘

impersonal rules’ (Barnett and

Finnemore

)

Overlaps with, but distinct from,

norms

: “

a standard of appropriate

behaviour

for actors with a given

identity”

Overlaps with, but distinct from,

international law

: “the body of law that governs relations between states”

Overlaps with, but distinct from, other policiesKey features of global refugee policy:Formal statement of a problem and steps to resolve that problemFrom the decision-making bodies of the global refugee regimeApplies to states and international organizationsSlide12

Observing power in global policyGlobal refugee policy is both a product

(the text of the policy document itself) and a

process

by which the policy is made, implemented and evaluated:

Agenda setting:

How do certain issues make it on to the GRR’s agenda?

Policy formulation:

Who presents different policy options?

Decision-making:

Where and how are policies formalized?

Policy implementation:

What factors condition variation in implementation?

Policy evaluation:

How does evaluation inform revision?Slide13

How do you study global refugee policy?As an

independent variable

Can ask what role global refuge policy played in outcomes in a particular context (

ie

naturalization in Tanzania), but global refugee policy arguably has little effect as an independent causal variable without the agency of other actors and

factors

But, for understanding power, more useful as a

dependent variable

What are the factors that explain the contents of the

product

?

What are the factors that explain the outcomes of the

process

?

What are the factors that explain the dynamics of each stage of the process?

Who are the actors involved? What role do these actors play?What variation do we see between the role of these

actors and factors

at different stages of the

same process

or at the

same stage

of different processes? Slide14

Who are the actors in the process?States

Donor states (US v. Australia)

Hosting states (India v. Bangladesh)

International organizations

UNHCR

IOM?

NGOs

Advocacy

Operational

Other actors?

What role for epistemic communities, diaspora communities, private sector, and refugee communities?Slide15

Expectations of power and influence?

Actor

Agenda setting

Formulation

Decision-making

Implementation

Evaluation

Donor states (1)

High

High

High

Indirect

High

Donor states (2)

Limited

Limited

High

Indirect

Limited

Host states

High

Limited

High

High

Limited

UNHCR

High

High

Indirect

Indirect

High

Advocacy NGO

Indirect

Indirect

Indirect

Indirect

High

(inconsistent)

Ops.

NGO

Indirect

Indirect

Indirect

High

High

(inconsistent)

Other

Indirect

Indirect

Indirect

Indirect

?Slide16

What are the processes?Recent examples of global refugee policy:

UNHCR’s 2014 policy on alternative to camps

UNHCR’s 2011 policy on age, gender and diversity

UNHCR’s 2010 policy on statelessness

UNHCR’s 2009 policy on displacement and natural disasters

UNHCR’s 2009 urban refugee policy

ExCom’s

2009 Conclusion on protracted refugee situations

ExCom’s

2007 Conclusion on children at riskSlide17

Agenda settingDonor states (1): Influence of key donor and resettlement countriesDonor states (2): Limited influence of states that are seen to have lost moral authority within the regime

Host states: Demonstrated ability to bring issues to the agenda through majority in

ExCom

structure

UNHCR: Important role, especially since proliferation of fora

NGOs: Ability to influence other actors, especially states

Other: Limited indirect role for epistemic communities

Result:

Contestation between donor states, host states and UNHCRSlide18

Policy formulationDonor states (1): “Loaned” policy capacity and expertise

Donor states (2

): Limited due to perceived loss of moral authority

Host

states: Limited due to perceived capacity and interests

UNHCR: Established power of IOs through expertise and experience

NGOs:

Indirect abilities, but only when included in process

Other: Indirect

abilities, but only when included in

process

Result:

Contestation between donor states and UNHCR and

within

UNHCRSlide19

Decision-makingStates: Monopoly on power given role of states in multilateral structures, but presumes the type of policy, ability to resist options, and

formal v. informal venues of decision-making

UNHCR: Officially indirect influence only through moral authority, but

presumes the type of policy, ability to resist options, and formal v. informal venues of decision-making

NGOs:

Indirect abilities, but only when included in process

Other: Indirect abilities through informal networks

Result:

Primarily contestation between states, but highlights the significance of formal and informal decision-making venues Slide20

Policy implementationDonor states: Indirect influence over implementation of policy outside their territory (resources, pressure, capacity)

Host states: Significant control over implementation process in their territory (where control is asserted)

UNHCR: Indirect influence through host states as mediator of international support, except where UNHCR is “surrogate state”

Advocacy

NGO: Indirect influence through other actors

Ops.

NGO: High, especially as implementing partners

Other:

Indirect influence through other

actors

Result:

While donor state influence would be expected, more common is contestation between host states, donor states and UNHCRSlide21

Policy evaluationDonor states (1

): Impact of donor missions and evaluations

Donor states (2

): Limited impact, unless through coalitions

Host

states: Limited influence due to presumed agenda

UNHCR:

Established power of IOs through expertise and

experience

NGOs: Demonstrated impact of NGOs evaluations, but inconsistency in the exercise of this impact

Other: Unclear what role academic evaluations of policies have played

Result:

Primarily contestation between donor states, UNHCR and NGOs

Key:

Limited understanding of the role of evaluations in formal policy cycle within the global refugee regimeSlide22

Preliminary conclusionsDifferent actors exercise ‘power’ in different ways at different stages in the global refugee policy

process

Not all actors are able to exercise ‘direct’ power

What is the distinction between ‘power’ and ‘influence’

‘Power’ is not static: actors may gain and lose power

Need to develop more systematic methodology to study ‘power

’

A more systematic study of the global refugee policy process (as a dependent variable) provides a context within which such a methodology may be developed

A more rigorous understanding of ‘power’ will enhance our understanding of the functioning of the global refugee

regime, and may contribute to the regime’s effectiveness and predictabilitySlide23

Next stepsWorkshop at Carleton University in September 2015

The

role of state, IO, NGO and other

actors in the making and implementation of global refugee policy

Plan to have video-link with the RSC (TBC)

Preparing background paper while in Oxford (May 2015)

Would welcome opportunity to continue discussion

Develop partnerships to examine the making and implementation of global refugee policy

Graduate students working with different policy partners examining the making of global refugee policy or the implementation of the same policy in different locations

Would welcome interest from graduate students associated with the RSC

Ability to draw common lessons from comparative researchSlide24

Thank you!James Milner

Carleton University

James.Milner@carleton.ca