PROTECT has identified the key factors that facilitate or hinder a re-alignment of international protection with the international human rights system. We have identified the legal norms, governance modes, and public discourses that have been performing the best in advancing human rights-sensitive practices. This was done by scrutinizing, quantitatively and qualitatively, how the existing variety of policy approaches have been performing over a long time span. In addition to the EU as a case, 27 countries in Europe and elsewhere have been studied. We spotted the best performing instruments by studying:
• constructions of the relationships between the GCR, GCM and human rights (doctrinal and comparative legal studies of EU, Canada, and South Africa, 2020-2022)
• history of the asylum offices (historical case studies of 11 countries, 1950/70-2020)
• effectiveness of national asylum determination systems (quantitative mapping of 16 countries, 2000-2020)
• handling of entries at border zones (ethnographic studies at migrant entry points in EU, Canada and South Africa, 2020-22)
• civil society attitudes and involvement in international protection (16 countries, 2020-2022)
• citizen attitudes to international protection (27 countries, representative surveys, 2021)
• media framings of international protection (big data, 18 countries for traditional media; 9 languages for social media, 2014-22)
The best performing norms, governance modes, and discourses were then put on the following tests:
• Cleavage-pressure test (media pressure on policymakers by using big media data)
• Citizen tolerability test (citizen and civil society pressure on policymakers through attitude surveys)
• Crisis tests (policy performance during the migration crisis of the 2010s and the Covid-19 crisis)
Our findings suggest that a transition to the human-rights paradigm may be achieved by:
• disembedding refugee and asylum laws, policies, and institutions from those that handle other policy areas that are under national discretion, such as
immigration, border, security, and development policy
• introducing a clear distinction between the conceptual tools concerning “refugees/asylum seekers” and “migrants” in citizen, civil society, and media discourses
• introducing new measures to protect other protection seeking migrants than those who fall under the categories specified in the Geneva Convention
• implementing the Global Compact on Refugees and the Global Compact on Migration in full and truthfully.
Yet, such separation should not imply that, as long as we treat protection seekers fairly, it is legitimate to deny mobility rights to other people, criminalize migrants, externalize and securitize the management of migration. Securitization, externalization, criminalization, and limitation of mobility is the main hindrance for transition to the human rights paradigm in international protection. A true transition to the human rights paradigm cannot be complete before the human rights of all migrants are recognized regardless of migration status, in the spirit of the Global Compact on Migration. This requires a complementary reading and implementation of the GCR and GCM.
Feasibility tests of our suggestions show that around 67% of the citizens in the 27 countries surveyed, except Slovakia and the Czech Republic, would support them. This also includes the transfer of sovereignty to the UNHCR, IOM and EU during crisis situations. This support is not likely to change in the foreseeable future. There would be critique against these measures in traditional media. Sympathetic discourses would be more prominent in social media. Because of overwhelming citizen support, these proposed measures are feasible. Regarding the resilience of the system, the refugee crisis of the 2010s and the public health crisis (Covid-19) have shown the relevance of international responsibility sharing, supranational coordination, and practicing international protection as an exemption from the current international order.
Our research outputs are freely available in open access academic journals and at
https://protectproject.w.uib.no(opens in new window). We have also published policy briefs, blogs and vlogs. We are promoting these outputs on social media (Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, and YouTube). PROTECT communicated its messages to the UNHCR, EC, EP, African Union, Canadian and South African governments and relevant EU member states and non-state organizations. We received spot-on comments on our reform proposals from high levels of the UNHCR, EC, EUAA, and ECRE and other non-state organizations. Our work is made visible to the general public through multiple appearances in the news media.
