Refugee

The contemporary state has often been described as a “migration state,” where the regulation and control of migration are central to state functions and interests (Hollifield, 2004; Adamson & Tsourapas, 2019). A core element of the “migration state” is the liberal paradox, which manifests in two interrelated ways. First, there is a trade-off between economically desirable migration and the territorial closure of nation-states due to security and identity concerns. Second, national sovereignty often conflicts with universal human rights, which constrain closure policies. Refugee protection is situated within this second dimension of the paradox, aligning with the rights-based perspective. Under the 1951 Geneva Convention, states are prohibited from expelling individuals to countries where their lives or freedom would be threatened due to persecution. Over the past decades, this definition of a refugee has been expanded through regional treaties and conventions to include, for instance, victims of civil war and persecution by nonstate actors. However, in practice, the distinction between “refugee” and “migrant” is often blurred (Blair et al., 2022; Rajaram, 2018). Rather than focusing on the legal nuances of the refugee definition, political scientists examine how this category of human mobility is governed by “migration states”. Research in this field primarily explores how destination states respond to refugee movements and the policies they implement (or fail to implement) to prevent, manage, or integrate these movements.