In a recently published thesis at the law department, Stockholm University, the complex challenges in international refugee law are explored. Here the need for a system that effectively protects the most vulnerable, while dealing with new and growing threats – such as terrorism – emerges.
According to figures from the United Nations refugee agency UNHCR, 110 million people were fleeing war, conflict and persecution in May 2023. That’s an increase from the previous year and the rising trend shows no signs of abating. Photo: Andrey Popov / Mostphotos
In a world where thousands of people are forced to leave their homes daily due to conflict, persecution and disasters – while the threat of violent extremism and terrorism is ever increasing – we face one of the most pressing questions of our time: Who has the right to, and who can be excluded from, refugee protection?
The international refugee law instruments, consisting of the 1951 Geneva Convention (also known as the Refugee Convention) and its 1967 Protocol, are best known for offering international humanitarian protection to people fleeing their home countries. These constitute, so to speak, the cornerstones of international refugee law and, through their provisions, have been able to save millions of lives through the opportunity for those in need to seek protection in another country.
What is less known in this context is that there is also a provision in the Refugee Convention that can exclude individuals from the right to humanitarian protection. Namely Article 1F – “Exclusion provision”. Jur.dr. focuses on this complex part of refugee law. Hevi Dawody’s thesis, which she successfully defended at Stockholm University on April 12, 2024.
Based on contemporary events
The dissertation “Terrorism and Exclusion from Refugee Protection” concentrates particularly on the Refugee Convention’s exclusion provision in relation to the crime of terrorism. A central problem that the thesis highlights is that this provision does not explicitly name terrorism as a basis for excluding someone from refugee protection – despite the fact that the ultimate purpose of the provision is to identify asylum seekers who do not deserve the protection of refugee law due to participation in serious criminal acts.
The reason for this, Hevi explains, is that at the time when the exclusion provision was introduced into the convention, the main interest was to identify war criminals from the Second World War, and thus exclude them from international humanitarian protection. The grounds for exclusion that were introduced in the provision consequently became “actualities” such as crimes against the peace, war crimes, crimes against humanity, serious non-political crimes, as well as acts that are contrary to the basic tenets and principles of the United Nations.
But as Hevi Dawody’s thesis points out, the world’s geopolitical landscape has changed drastically since then. Terrorism has become a global phenomenon that affects the security of many countries. Thus, although the exclusion provision does not specifically mention terrorism, it has come to be interpreted and applied in a way that recognizes acts of terrorism as a possible reason for exclusion from refugee protection. This, which at first glance can be perceived as unproblematic, creates legal uncertainty and risks leading to unequal treatment of asylum seekers – not least because there is a lack of a universal definition of terrorism.
One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.
quote from the book “Harry’s Game”, written by Gerald Seymour in 1976.
Gives room for unfounded decisions
The problems with applying the exclusion provision in connection with terrorist-related cases, despite the fact that the clause does not explicitly mention terrorism as a basis for exclusion and that there is a lack of a universal definition of the term, are several according to Hevi. Among other things, she mentions the risk that asylum seekers who are suspected of or associated with terrorism may be excluded from refugee protection without sufficient evidence or a fair investigation. The provision could also be abused for political purposes, or to deny protection to certain groups of asylum seekers without a proper assessment of their individual cases.
Hevi Dawody, Ph.D. Photo: Private
Hevi Dawody’s thesis highlights this complexity and discusses the ethical, legal and practical issues that arise when trying to apply a 70-year-old convention to today’s more complicated and globalized world. She proposes methods and guidelines for how the exclusion provision can be updated or interpreted in a way that takes into account today’s threat picture, without compromising the convention’s basic principles of human rights and protection for refugees.
Overall, Hevi’s research study is an important reminder that justice and protection go hand in hand, even in the most complex legal matters. In a society where global challenges such as terrorism and refugee crises are often the focus of political debates and decisions, her work contributes to conducting a scientifically based discussion about how we can best balance the protection of the most vulnerable and at the same time protect society’s security interests. Thus, it is not only of interest to academics, lawyers and decision-makers in this area of law, but concerns us all through its importance to fundamental human rights and justice.
Read the thesis in full
Contact details for Hevi Dawody
About the dissertation
The defense took place at Stockholm University on 12 April 2024. The opponent was Professor Sarah Singer, University of London.
Professor Gregor Noll, Gothenburg University, Professor Jessica Almqvist, Lund University, and Professor Rebecca Stern, Uppsala University sat on the assessment committee.
Supervisors have been professor Mark Klamberg and docent Simon Andersson, Stockholm University.
Text: Natalie Oliwsson
Tags: challenges refugee protection world characterized terrorism
-
