Is there a "protection dividend" to resettlement?
I'm researching this question for presentation in July and would
appreciate any input, advice, evidence, anecdotes, informed opinion,
and/or links to extant research: are there any examples of first
asylum countries granting some refugees enhanced protection or rights in
exchange for, in response to, or otherwise as a result of other
countries resettling other refugees from their territory? Or the
opposite, i.e., have some host countries granted refugees fewer rights,
either explicitly or implicitly because of, in response to, or otherwise
as a result of other countries actually or potentially taking refugees
for resettlement? Are there examples of refugees, host country civil
society advocates, or others altering their behaviour in ways relevant
to refugee rights in countries of first asylum as a result of
resettlement or its prospect?
Please send all replies to: [log in to unmask]
Thanks,
Merrill Smith
(please respond off-list to [log in to unmask])
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Note: The material contained in this communication comes to you from the
Forced Migration Discussion List which is moderated by Forced Migration
Online, Refugee Studies Centre (RSC), Oxford Department of International
Development, University of Oxford. It does not necessarily reflect the
views of the RSC or the University. If you re-print, copy, archive or
re-post this message please retain this disclaimer. Quotations or
extracts should include attribution to the original sources.
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Posting guidelines: http://www.forcedmigration.org/discussion/guidelines
Subscribe/unsubscribe: http://tinyurl.com/fmlist-join-leave
List Archives: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/forced-migration.html
RSS: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?RSS&L=forced-migration
Twitter: http://twitter.com/forcedmigration
|