The Refugee Convention: An extinct world view or an altruistic benchmark?
Author
Kruse, Thomas Stevn
Term
4. term
Publication year
2017
Submitted on
2017-05-31
Pages
64
Abstract
This thesis examines the parameters on which the Refugee Convention is criticized and how ideological shifts since its adoption have shaped the current debate, with a specific focus on political responses in Denmark. The research asks why the Convention and its criticism have recently become highly politicized in a Danish context, and how shifts in ideology have conditioned both the Convention’s emergence and its contemporary interpretation. Methodologically, the study adopts a qualitative design based on semi-structured, face-to-face interviews with legal experts and a politician, supplemented by public statements and documents; the analysis follows a hermeneutic process and is framed by theories of cosmopolitanism and nationalism. The data are discussed with source criticism, and a limitation is noted regarding access to multiple political interviewees. The analysis identifies key points of critique reflecting national dissatisfaction with the Convention’s obligations and finds that states attempt to circumvent or dilute these through what two researchers describe as a “deterrence paradigm.” In Denmark, this is linked to political proposals aimed at loosening or rejecting international commitments. The thesis argues that today’s perception of the Convention can be seen as a cosmopolitan ideal implemented through the machinery of the nation-state, producing persistent tensions between universal human rights and national interests. It also considers the Convention’s institutionalization, possible alternatives, and its future prospects.
Denne afhandling undersøger, på hvilke parametre Flygtningekonventionen kritiseres, og hvordan ideologiske skift siden dens vedtagelse har formet den aktuelle debat, med særligt fokus på den politiske håndtering i Danmark. Projektets problemformulering spørger, hvorfor både konventionen og kritikken heraf for nylig er blevet så politiseret i en dansk kontekst, og hvordan ideologiske forskydninger har været en betingelse for konventionens tilblivelse og nutidige fortolkning. Metodisk bygger studiet på en kvalitativ tilgang med semistrukturerede, face-to-face interviews med juridiske eksperter og en politiker, suppleret af offentlige udsagn og dokumenter; analysen er gennemført som en hermeneutisk proces, og teorier om kosmopolitisme og nationalisme udgør det analytiske rammeværk. Datagrundlaget drøftes kildekritisk, og der noteres en begrænsning i antallet af politiske interviews. Analysen identificerer centrale kritikpunkter, der afspejler nationale utilfredsheder med konventionens forpligtelser, og peger på, at stater søger at omgå eller udhule disse gennem det, to forskere betegner som et “afskrækkelsesparadigme”. I en dansk sammenhæng kobles dette til politiske tiltag og forslag om at løsne eller bryde internationale forpligtelser. Afhandlingen argumenterer for, at nutidens opfattelse af konventionen kan forstås som et kosmopolitisk ideal, der udmøntes gennem nationalstatens maskineri, hvilket skaber vedvarende spændinger mellem universelle menneskerettigheder og nationale interesser. Derudover belyses konventionens institutionalisering, mulige alternativer og dens fremtidsudsigter.
[This apstract has been generated with the help of AI directly from the project full text]