Publications
Publications relevant to BEYOND and REF-ARAB. For full list of publications, see my UiO staff page
‘Disturbing the Work of the Office’: The Limits of Refugee Collective Action on ‘UNHCR Territory’ in Beirut
There is a tension in the policy and practice of refugee presence in and around the offices of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The core principle of direct accessibility to UNHCR is continuously balanced against other competing concerns. But what, in policy and practice, are these competing concerns? And at what point does the presence of refugees and other protection seekers become illegitimate from the perspective of UNHCR? Building on original empirical research, this article explores collective action by Sudanese protection seekers at UNHCR’s office in Beirut, Lebanon. It shows how the spatial practices of UNHCR influence its relationship with protection seekers, and how these relations intersect with broader dynamics of securitization. In Beirut, once a presence was considered to ‘disturb the work of the Office’, a more restrictive policy involving host state security was triggered. The article interrogates what it means to ‘disturb the work of the Office’ in the context of a heavily securitized city and spotlights the blocking of UNHCR entrance doors in Beirut as a pivotal example of when collective action is considered by UNHCR to be so disturbing that protection seekers are to be forcibly removed from UNHCR ‘territory’.
What role did Lebanon play in the establishment of the international refugee law regime? Through a legal-historical approach, this chapter examines Lebanon’s involvement between 1946 and 1967 in creating the legal norms and supporting institutions focused on the protection of refugees. Based on a close reading of the travaux préparatoires of the main legal instruments, this chapter shows how Lebanon has been involved in the international refugee law project from the very beginning, and how Lebanese representatives to the United Nations (UN) in fact advocated for remarkably progressive understandings of some of these norms.
The chapter finds that Lebanon is both an outsider and an insider to the international refugee law regime. While remaining non-signatory to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol, the chapter shows how Lebanon was heavily involved in creating the legal norms and supporting institutions focused on the protection of refugees. Its engagement concerned the question of asylum as expressed in the UDHR and through the UN Declaration on Territorial Asylum, as well as refugee status and the institutions of protection, as formulated through e.g. the 1951 Convention, its 1967 Protocol, and the UNHCR Statute. The chapter argues that Lebanon’s progressive stance when it comes to the individual’s right to asylum is particularly noteworthy – both when seen through a historical and through a more contemporary lens.
Saudi Arabia and the International Refugee Regime
International Journal of Refugee Law (2023)
Co-authored with Charlotte Lysa
As a non-signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, Saudi Arabia is often portrayed as a State that refuses engagement with the global legal norms and supporting institutions focused on the protection of refugees. This article contends that this is not the case, and closely examines Saudi Arabia’s relationship with the international refugee regime by asking what was Saudi Arabia’s role in the drafting of the main refugee protection instruments, and what is its approach – past and present – to acceding to the 1951 Convention? How does Saudi Arabia engage with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) – on the global plane but also through UNHCR’s activities in the country?
Drawing on hitherto unresearched material from the UNHCR archives pertaining to the years 1962–94, as well as interviews with key government and UNHCR actors, this article argues that Saudi Arabia engages substantively with the international refugee regime. It discusses how Saudi Arabia participated in the drafting processes of the main refugee protection instruments and shows that accession to the 1951 Convention appears to have been seriously considered at certain junctures.
The article also explores Saudi Arabia’s relationship with UNHCR. In addition to focusing on Saudi Arabia’s role in the UNHCR Executive Committee, it looks more closely at UNHCR’s activities in the country, identifying three phases of UNHCR involvement – establishment (1987–97), expansion (1998–2005), and consolidation (2005–). It finds that UNHCR’s approach to Saudi Arabia is characterized by pragmatism rather than by principle, and that Saudi Arabia has been able to influence the way UNHCR implements its mandate in the country, as well as beyond. Importantly, Saudi Arabia is a gatekeeper for UNHCR operations in the Gulf region and in Muslim-majority countries more generally. Similarly, UNHCR is an important vessel for Saudi Arabian humanitarianism.
UNHCR’s Expansion to the GCC states: Establishing a UNHCR Presence in Saudi Arabia 1987-1993
Middle East Critique (2023)
Co-authored with Charlotte Lysa
How does the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) establish its presence in states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)? And how does it negotiate the legal frameworks needed to formally operate in these states? Focusing on the historical case of Saudi Arabia, this article attends to these pertinent questions. Based on UNHCR archival material and interviews with key actors, it details how an unprecedented opportunity for UNHCR to establish a formal presence in Saudi Arabia emerged in the context of the 1991 Gulf War. The article argues that Saudi Arabia’s hosting of Iraqi refugees in the Rafha camp provided a watershed moment for UNHCR to carve out an official presence by, first, negotiating a Note Verbale providing UNHCR with official recognition in 1992, and second, a formal Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in 1993. Importantly, this MoU provides the basis for UNHCR-Saudi relations still today.
Ethnographic Approaches and International Refugee Law
Journal of Refugee Studies (2022)
International refugee law permeates a plethora of international, national and local arenas and is developed, interpreted and applied by a wide range of very different actors. In this diversity of contexts, how do we best study the role and place of this body of law? This article advocates for the application of ethnographic approaches in the study of international refugee law, where the positivist legal approach heavily dominates the field. It argues that ethnography’s contribution to knowledge on international refugee law lies not only in its methods, but also in its perspectives on questions of power, knowledge, reflexivity and subjectivity. The article illustrates the value of the ethnographic approach through three vignettes focusing on (i) the concept of ‘refugee’; (ii) refugee rights-claiming and rights-mobilization; and (iii) actors and processes in the creation and spread of international refugee law norms.
Refugee Participation through Representative Committees: UNHCR and the Sudanese Committee in Beirut
Journal of Refugee Studies (2022)
The notions of refugee participation and empowerment are core – but highly debated and poorly implemented – standards of humanitarian response. Drawing on empirical research in Lebanon, this article offers an account of the ways in which – and which not – meaningful refugee participation and empowerment are achieved through representative committees. Spotlighting the case of the UNHCR-supported Sudanese refugee committee in Beirut 2014-2015, it focuses on three intricate and interrelated concerns – refugee participation, representation and autonomy. The article finds that the design and function of the committee made it difficult for refugees to share authority with UNHCR over decisions that impact their lives. The committee was primarily seen by UNHCR as a good in and of itself rather than as an opportunity to actively involve refugees in decision-making processes. The article suggests that there is ample room for the development of more meaningful participation that better integrates the capabilities, preferences and agencies of persons living as refugees.
The 1951 Refugee Convention and Non-Signatory States: Charting a Research Agenda
International Journal of Refugee Law No. 33: 2 (2021)
At the end of 2020, 149 States were party to the 1951 Convention, its 1967 Protocol, or both. Forty-four members of the United Nations, however, were not party to either of these core instruments. What is the influence of the 1951 Refugee Convention in non-signatory States? How do non-signatory States engage with, and help to create, the international refugee regime?
Taking these questions as its starting point, this article aims to chart a new research agenda focusing on the relationship between non-signatory States and the 1951 Convention. It argues that a closer examination of this relationship is necessary to make an informed opinion about the relevance of the 1951 Convention more broadly. By bringing this dimension to the study of international refugee law, it thus seeks to disrupt the emphasis on signatory States in contemporary discussions of the relevance and importance of the 1951 Convention.
More concretely, the article argues that the Convention continues to structure States’ responses to refugees, and plays a central role not only in States that are party to the Convention, but also in key non-signatory States. The article details the many ways in which international refugee law norms are spread and used in non-signatory States, and how, by being present and active in global fora such as the UNHCR Executive Committee, and in negotiating soft law instruments drawing on the Convention, these States also participate in the evolution and interpretation of international refugee law.
Sudanese Refugees and the “Syrian Refugee Response” in Lebanon: Racialised Hierarchies, Processes of Invisibilisation, and Resistance
Refugee Survey Quarterly No. 41: 1 (2021)
By focusing on Sudanese refugees and asylum-seekers in Lebanon, who in 2018 constituted 4 per cent of all persons of concern to United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in that country, this article explores how the UNHCR protects and assists refugees not encompassed by the mainstream humanitarian response. The article finds that in terms of refugee recognition, resettlement, and overall protection, Sudanese refugees receive differential treatment when compared with the more dominant refugee groups. More precisely, it argues that the humanitarian practices contribute to structural processes of invisibilisation of the particularities of the protection concerns and circumstances of Sudanese refugees. It spotlights how, while racism and racial discrimination remain major protection concerns for the Sudanese community in Lebanon, humanitarian vulnerability assessments are altogether blind to these categories of harm. In examining how Sudanese refugees respond to and resist such processes of invisibilisation, the article also examines two key collective action approaches through which Sudanese refugees seek to access better protection and assistance: the establishment of representative refugee committees, on the one hand, and refugee protest, on the other. It finds that refugee protest was an important means of countering humanitarian processes of invisibilisation.
Non-Signatory States and the International Refugee Regime
Forced Migration Review, No. 67 (2021)
Many of the world’s top refugee-hosting countries have not acceded to the 1951 Refugee Convention and yet they engage with the international refugee regime in a number of ways. Not only are international refugee law norms being disseminated and adopted in these States but also non-signatory States often participate in the development of international refugee law by being present and active in global arenas for refugee protection.
Special Feature: Non-Signatory States and the International Refugee Regime
Forced Migration Review, No. 67 (2021)
The FMR special feature on non-signatory states is a collaboration between Forced Migration Review and the BEYOND project at the University of Oslo. The 9 articles featured in this issue reflect on the status of refugee protection in non-signatory states and the various ways these states engage with the international refugee regime.
Regional Refugee Regimes: Middle East
The Oxford Handbook of International Refugee Law (Oxford University Press, 2021)
co-authored with Dallal Stevens
This chapter defines the Middle East to include Arab States, Israel and Turkey but excluding North African countries, with the exception of Egypt. It explores the role of the Refugee Convention, the UNHCR and other influential NGOs and of international human rights law to protect asylum seekers and refugees in the region. The chapter opens with a brief outline of the Middle Eastern context, historical background in relation to international refugee law and the significance of the UNHCR/UNRWA in Arab states. It compares the approach of signatory and non-signatory states and considers the consequences of failures to incorporate the Convention as well as the use of relevant domestic legislation to deal with asylum seekers and refugees. An important focus of this chapter is how – and whether – refugee protection is achieved across the region in light of the different approaches adopted by states to refugeehood, arising from historical, political and religious (Islamic) notions of hospitality and the treatment of foreigners, as well as to the role of law.
Modes of Ordering: Labelling, Classification and Categorization in Lebanon's Refugee Response
Journal of Refugee Studies, Vol. 31, No. 4 (2018)
co-authored with Lama Mourad
How and with what consequences are individuals fleeing the Syrian conflict to Lebanon given various legal, bureaucratic and social labels by humanitarian, state and local government actors? A wide array of labels are imposed; registered refugee, labourer, displaced and foreigner are only a few of the various categories that have developed to govern their presence. This article argues that each of these belongs to and reproduces various modes of ordering, each with its own set of implications for what a Syrian may do, how her presence is understood by others in the community, and what type of rights and protections she may have access to. Importantly, the emergence of labels in one arena often influences how and why another set of labels takes shape in another. As such, the categories do not operate distinctly and membership in one may create constraints or opportunities in another.
UNHCR and the Syrian Refugee Response: Negotiating Status and Registration in Lebanon
International Journal of Human Rights, Vol. 22, No. 3 (2017)
When a host state rejects the international refugee law regime, yet faces an unprecedented number of refugees, how does the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) execute its mandate to provide international protection to these refugees? This article seeks to attend to this pertinent issue by focusing on the role and practice of UNHCR in the context of the large-scale Syrian influx to Lebanon. This country insists that it is not a country of asylum, and flatly rejects ratification of the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. In proportion to both its geographical and population size, however, Lebanon hosts the highest number of refugees in the world. This paper argues that Lebanon’s recent policies aiming to decrease the number of Syrians in the country, by reducing access to territory and encouraging return to Syria, have heavily affected UNHCR’s own ability to execute its international protection mandate. The article seeks to explore this issue further by, on the one hand, examining UNHCR’s policies to recognise Syrians in Lebanon as refugees under international law, and, on the other, exploring its practice when it comes to registration of Syrian refugees, and the meaning of these practices for refugee protection in Lebanon.
No Country of Asylum: 'Legitimizing' Lebanon’s Rejection of the 1951 Refugee Convention
International Journal of Refugee Law, Vol. 29, No. 3 (2017)
How do States ‘legitimize’ their non-ratification of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees? This article examines the case of Lebanon, a country frequently hailed by the international community for its generosity towards refugees, and currently hosting the highest number of refugees in the world in proportion to its population size. While Lebanon engaged actively in the establishment of the international refugee regime, it has long insisted that it is not a country of asylum and steadfastly rejects ratification of the major refugee law instruments.
Based on 10 months of field research, this article makes four arguments as to why Lebanon continues to resist ratification of the 1951 Refugee Convention and its Protocol. First, it argues that there is a widespread and real, or simply politically expedient, uncertainty as to the obligations that come with the Convention. This includes a belief that the Convention requires that Lebanon allow for the permanent settlement of refugees on its territory. Secondly, it argues that the responsibility-shift for refugees to third parties such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees brings about obvious advantages for Lebanon, and has made it less inclined to become a party to the Convention. Thirdly, it argues that the ‘good-neighbourliness’ principle between Arab countries holds that Lebanon should not employ the term ‘refugee’ because doing so would put the State into positions that could violate the good neighbour principle; essentially, ratifying the Convention would entail a duty to recognize certain forced migrants as refugees.
Finally, the article argues that many Lebanese government officials and policymakers consider Lebanon’s accession to the Convention redundant for three key reasons. First, Lebanon applies the provisions of the Convention and Protocol on a voluntary basis, so that there is no need for ratification; secondly, Lebanon already has human rights obligations towards refugees on its territory by virtue of its membership of the United Nations and its ratification of a number of core human rights instruments; and, thirdly, due to the ‘crisis’ in international refugee law, in which many States appear to reject the Convention altogether, Lebanese decision makers are now questioning the relevance of these instruments.
Precarity in Exile: The Legal Status of Syrian Refugees in Lebanon
Refugee Survey Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 4 (2016)
Lebanon has had an ambiguous approach to the more than one million Syrians seeking protection in the country since 2011. The country is neither party to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, nor does it have any national legislation dealing with refugees. In October 2014, Lebanon’s Council of Ministers adopted the first comprehensive policy on Syrian displacement, one explicit goal of which is to decrease the number of Syrians in Lebanon by reducing access to territory and encouraging return to Syria. This ambition is currently being implemented through the December 2014 General Security Office new set of entry requirements for Syrians and new rules for Syrian nationals already in Lebanon applying for and renewing their residency permits. Building on 10 months of fieldwork in Lebanon, this article explores the legal status of Syrian refugees in Lebanon in light of the recent regulatory changes. It argues that these leave many refugees in a deeply precarious legal position, with an overwhelming majority of Syrian refugees present in Lebanon without legal status. In essence, this article argues that Syrians in Lebanon are left with two options: they either leave the country or stay and accept exploitation.