On the Refugee Crisis Discourse: A Critical Analysis Sitting in the Junction of International Criminal Law and International Refugee Law

Abstract

This Article critically explores the close relationship between the discourse of the refugee crisis phenomenon and inattentive state policies against refugees. Various reproduced political approaches of states appearing as a result of ‘how to deal with refugee crisis’ concern across the world are exemplified to this end. In this light, it is asked whether certain forms of abuse occur due to the states’ way of regulating refugees’ asylum, and whether the process can be elevated to the level of crimes against humanity under the Rome Statute. The goal is to understand this issue by involving international criminal law and in connecting it to the International Criminal Court to determine whether states can be precluded from creating an environment that possibly leaves refugees vulnerable to both physical and sexual abuse, e.g., in detention centers or refugee camps. In relation to that, it is also expounded in what ways the refugee crisis as a produced concept by the conservative propaganda configures the attitude of both individuals and policy makers towards refugees. The adverse image, that is portrayed for refugees, effects negatively not only on the public view but also normalizes states’ othering attitude when it comes to responding and regulating the movements of outsiders. In this direction, the 1951 Refugee Convention, the Rome Statue, and some other relevant international legal instruments are taken into account to examine the perpetrated violence employed by states through their policies against refugees. Drawing upon this dispute, evil wrongdoers, victimhood and refugee person as homo sacer are conceptualized alongside the crisis narrative throughout this Article, both from a philosophical and socio-legal standpoint.

Keywords

• Refugee
• International Criminal Law
• International Refugee Law
• Crisis Discourse
• Refugee Protection
• Crimes Against Humanity

Mülteci Krizi Söylemi Üzerine: Uluslararası Ceza Hukuku ve Uluslararası Mülteci Hukuku’nun Kesişim Noktasına Oturan Kritik Bir İnceleme

Abstract

Bu makale, mülteci krizi olgusu söylemi ile mültecilere karşı istismarcı devlet politikaları arasındaki yakın ilişkiyi inceler. ‘Mülteci krizi ile nasıl başa çıkılacağı’ endişesinin bir sonucu olarak ortaya çıkan devlet politikaları bu amacı açıklamak amacıyla örnek oluşturmaları itibariyle makale kapsamında incelenir. Bu bağlamda, bazı devletlerin mültecilerin iltica başvuru sürecine ilişkin getirdikleri işleyiş dolayısıyla ortaya çıkan istismarcı muamelelerinin, Roma Statüsü uyarınca insanlığa karşı işlenen suçlar düzeyinde değerlendirilip değerlendirilemeyeceği sorgulanmaktadır. Amaç, uluslararası ceza hukukunun sürece dahil edilmesiyle, Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi’nin devletlerin mültecileri hem fiziksel hem de cinsel istismara karşı savunmasız bırakabilecek bir ortam yaratmasının engellenip engellenemeyeceğini anlamaktır. Muhafazakar propaganda tarafından üretilen bir kavram olarak mülteci krizinin hem bireylerin hem de politikacıların mültecilere karşı tutumunu nasıl yapılandırdığı da bu çerçevede açıklanır. Mülteciler için tasvir edilen olumsuz imaj, sadece kamuoyunun görüşünü negatif yönde etkilemekle kalmamakta, aynı zamanda ‘yabancıların’ ülkeye giriş çıkışlarını düzenlemek konusunda devletlerin istismarcı tutumlarını da normalleştirmektedir. Bu doğrultuda, 1951 Mülteci Sözleşmesi, Roma Statüsü ve diğer bazı ilgili uluslararası yasal belgeler, mültecilere yönelik politikalar eliyle devletlerin onlara karşı uyguladığı şiddeti incelemede dikkate alınmıştır. Tüm bu tartışmalar etrafında, haksızlık eden kimseler/kurumlar, mağduriyet ve homo sacer olgusu bağlamında mülteci kavramları, kriz söylemi etrafında, hem felsefi hem de sosyo-legal açılarından kavramsallaştırılarak incelenmiştir.

References

1. Aaron K, ‘Detention and Deterrence: Insights from the Early Years of Immigration Detention at the Border’ (2019) 129 Yale LJ F 238.
2. Aguilera J, ‘Many Asylum Seekers in Mexico Can't Get U.S. Court Hearings Until 2021 A Coronavirus Outbreak Could 'Devastate' Them’ (Time, 14 May 2020) Date of access 18 May 2020.
3. Asquith L, Rebuilding Lives After Genocide Migration, Adaptation and Acculturation (Palgrave Macmillan 2019), 10.
4. Bassiouni M C, ‘Universal Jurisdiction for International Crimes: Historical Perspectives and Contemporary Practice’ (2001-2002) 42(1) Virginia Journal of International Law 81.
5. Bassiouni M C, ‘International Crimes: Jus Cogens and Obligatio Erga Omnes’ (1996) 59(4) Law and Contemporary Problems 63.
6. BBC News, ‘Syria civil war: Germany holds unprecedented state torture trial’ (BBC, 23 April 2020) Date of access 23 April 2020.
7. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (adopted 28 July 1951, entered into force 22 April 1954) 189 UNTS 137 (1951 Refugee Convention).
8. Communiqué to the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court Under Article 15 of the Rome Statute, ‘The Situation in Nauru and Manus Island: Liability for

9. Crimes Against Humanity in the Detention of Refugees and Asylum Seekers’ Date of Access 20 June 2020 [hereinafter ICC Australia Communication].
10. Codrea C, ‘European Refugee Crisis: Legal Framework and European Political Effects’ (2016) 2016 Rev Universul Juridic 72.
11. Durieux J F, ‘The Duty to Rescue Refugees’ (2016) 28 Int'l J Refugee L 637.
12. Edwards A, ‘Age and Gender Dimensions in International Refugee Law’, in E Feller, V Türk and E Nicholson (eds), Refugee Protection in International Law: UNHCR’s Global Consultations on International Protection (Cambridge University Press 2003).
13. Fallon K, ‘EU border force 'complicit' in illegal campaign to stop refugees landing’ (The Guardian, 24 October 2020) Date of access 19 January 2020.
14. Goodwin-Gill G, The Refugee in International Law (2nded, Oxford: Clarendon Press 1996), 2.
15. Hernández C, ‘Deconstructing Crimmigration’ (2018) 52 University of California, Davis 197, 200.
16. Hollenbach D, ‘Borders and Duties to the Displaced: Ethical Perspectives on the Refugee Protection System’ (2016) 4 J on Migration & Hum Sec 148.
17. International Criminal Court The Office of the Prosecutor, (Ref. OTP-CR-322/14/001, 12 February 2020) Date of access 21 May 2020.
18. Kalpouzos I, ‘International Criminal Law and the Violence against Migrants’ (2020) 21 German Law Journal 571.
19. Kalpouzos I and Mann I, ‘Banal Crimes Against Humanity: The Case of Asylum Seekers in Greece’, (2015) 16 Melbourne J. Int’l L 1.
20. Kingsley P and Shoumali K, ‘Greece turning back migrants by abandoning them at sea’ (The New York Times, 25 August 2020) Date of access 19 January 2020.
21. Luban D, ‘A Theory of Crimes Against Humanity’ (2004) 29 Yale Journal International Law 85.
22. Martin S F, ‘New Models of International Agreement for Refugee Protection’ (2016) 4 J on Migration & Hum Sec 60.
23. Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (adopted 31 January 1967, entered into force 4 October 1967) 606 UNTS 267 (1967 Protocol).
24. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, July 17, 1998, 2187 U.N.T.S. 90 [hereinafter ICC Statute].
25. Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Criminal Court 2002, UN Doc. PCNICC/2000/1/ Add.1, Rule 85.
26. Sontag S, Regarding the Pain of Others (Picador 2004), 61–64.
27. Sussman D, ‘Review of Kant's Theory of Evil: An Essay on the Dangers of Self-love and the Aprioricity of History by Pablo Muchnik’ (Notre Dame Philopsohical Reviews An Electronic Journal, 19 July 2010) Date of access 22 May 2020.
28. UN News, ‘‘Violence, Atrocities And Impunity’ Reign Throughout Libya, ICC Prosecutor Tells UN Security Council’ (6 November 2019) <
29. https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/11/1050771> Date of access 9 June 2020. Further see International Criminal Court, ‘Situation in Libya ICC-01/11’ Date of access 9 June 2020.
30. UNHCR, ‘Glossory’ Date of Access 24 June 2020.
31. UNHCR, ‘Solutions’ Date of access 25 June 2020.
32. UNHCR, ‘Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees’ (HCR/IP/4/Eng/REV.1, 1992).
33. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted 10 December 1948 UNGA Res 217 A(III) (UDHR).