Human rights: refugees and citizens

Résumé du document

The refugees issue and how to welcome and protect them is one of the currents debates. The way the refugees destabilize local areas, like the Iraqis in Syria for instance, has become an international concern and a new dilemma. Is (or should be) a refugee more or less important than a citizen of a state? Must one be privileged over the other? In that case, why? And how? First, we'll study the definition of a refugee and his perception and consequences on the international scale. Then we'll compare the partial and the impartial views and their consequences on the issue of refugees. To finish with, we'll comprehend this debate in the light of a moral and humanitarian view.

Extraits

[...] Among all the explanations, one was given by Hannah Arendt in her theory of stateless person. In our state system, we need to belong to a state to be protected. And notably because the state enforces the Right. So nobody can live without citizenship. It's important for the personal identification too. One can define two approaching of the refugee issue: the Partial and the Impartial view. The Partial view stands in favor of a right (for each state) to self- determination “which justifies priority for the interests of citizens over those of refugees”. [...]

[...] However, to be part of a country is a kind of chance, the luck of birth here, or the luck in the tracing of borders So maybe can we consider this repartition with more compassion ? On the contrary, the Impartial view claims states are “cosmopolitan agents”. They have to take into account both interests, because each human being shares something, more important than a culture or a religion, they share a human status. They all are linked together, so they easily can mingle with another population, and then they can't be dangerous. As a consequence states have to threat everybody just the same, without caring about their citizenship. [...]

[...] Because when the population is affected to a great extend with the refugees flow, refugees may be scorned and threat as scapegoats by the population in case. And just welcome refugees, is only a court term solution. We have to keep in mind it only can be a temporary resolution. It's a question of meanings, and organization. To welcome millions of refugees, a state needs to be prepared in case of huge humanitarian catastrophe. So it's interesting for both states and refugees to build some resettlement programs for example. [...]

[...] So when they have escaped, refugees need to find a new country of residence. They are asylum seeker. Although there is no duty for another state to admit and welcome refugees, the Convention has proclaimed the non-refoulement principle. It means: if the asylum seeker is bounds to cope with persecutions when he has no choices except going back in his country, then the country has a moral duty to accept him. However theses last years, the number of refugees has tragically increased. [...]

[...] It's not exactly a choice but the consequence of the cost involved, the unemployment it might create, the fear of the population and the volition of preserving the national stability and cohesion. But it is a moral issue too. Both refugees and citizens are Humans. How can we define human being only depending on their belonging to a state or a cultural community? It cannot be just a question of prioritize one of another, both have to be respected as Humans. [...]