Tacit Compliance: State Sovereignty and the UNHCR's Authority

• In Event: The Global Governance of Migration: Competing Theories, Comparing Regions

Abstract

When and why do states delegate authority to the UNHCR? When and why do states take such authority back? The relative weakness and fragmentation of the refugee regime are often explained by the understanding of states that migration laws and their enforcement remain the “last bastion of sovereignty” (Dauvergne 2008: 2; Betts 2011). Such emphasis on sovereignty obscures variation in the behavior of states vis-à-vis the UNHCR. Israel, for example, in the early 1950s, granted the UNHCR full responsibility for the process of Refugee Status Determination (RSD). However, in 2001, Israel took partial responsibility for this process and later assumed full responsibility. Similarly, until 1994, Turkey has allowed the UNHCR to conduct the entire RSD process but assumed partial responsibility for the process in 1994. In practice, however, Turkey’s decisions continue to be based on the UNHCR recommendations (Kirişçi 2001).

This paper analyzes patterns of cooperation and resistance between states and the UNHCR thorough a comparison of the Israeli and Turkish cases. The case selection follows a most-different design – while Israel has experienced a limited influx of refugees, Turkey is one of the top refugee hosting countries in the world. In addition, Israel nationality regime is a mono-ethnic one, while Turkey is a multi-ethnic one (Aktürk 2012). Based on archival research and interviews with government officials and UNHCR staff, the paper shows that states are more willing to delegate authority to the UNHCR than previously expected. However, states mobilize against the UNHCR and challenge its mandate when domestic political calculations motivate them to do so. Moreover, based on the Israeli and Turkish cases, the paper claims that states mostly reassert their sovereignty symbolically, while in practice continue to cooperate with the UNHCR behind the public eye.

Overall, the paper seeks to make two primary contributions. Theoretically, it demonstrates how states work around the principle of sovereignty to continue to fulfill their international obligations while appeasing domestic pressures. Policy-wise, this research sheds light on the degree of states’ cooperation with the UNHCR and can improve the ways the UNHCR operates inside states.

Author

• Yehonatan Abramson, Hebrew University of Jerusalem