Global Compact on Refugees: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back
Global Compact on Refugees: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back
复制标题
全球难民契约：前进一步，后退两步
DOI：
10.1093/ijrl/eey067
复制
发表时间：
2018
影响因子：
1.2
通讯作者：
BS Chimni
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
BS Chimni
利益攸关方之间就我们时代最紧迫的问题进行全球磋商，并就共同（如果没有法律约束力）文本-《难民问题全球契约》（《难民契约》）-达成协议，这一进程是受欢迎的，因为它可能有助于促进国际合作，处理全球难民危机。它提出的全球难民论坛、支持平台和可能的团结会议等新机制肯定有助于应对难民大规模外流。然而，我认为，《难民契约》是一个有缺陷的文本，原因有几个：它避免提及最近难民潮的主要原因;淡化国际难民法的既定原则;可能削弱对儿童和妇女的保护;缺乏分担责任的真实的机制;在谈到未来的学术工作时，在强调“具体可达到的目标”（第43段）方面目光短浅;并将监督任务留给联合国难民事务高级专员办事处（难民专员办事处），而难民专员办事处没有能力履行这一任务（正如它帮助起草的《协约》本身所表明的那样）。我将简要地阐述这些观点，最后对今后的道路进行一两点思考。第一，虽然《难民契约》值得赞扬地处理了难民流动的根源问题，但它没有提到第三国，特别是西方国家，对最近与其干预行为有关的难民外流负有责任。诚然，干预本身并不是造成难民外流的原因。原籍国往往负有责任，例如罗辛亚难民的情况。因此，《难民契约》正确地指出，“解决根源问题是难民流动起源国的责任”（第8段）。但不幸的是，《契约》没有提到外部行为者在产生难民方面的作用。近年来，主要的难民外流来自阿富汗、伊拉克、利比亚和叙利亚，所有这些国家都是西方国家武装干预或保护责任努力的对象。这些干预往往是由政权更迭等目标驱动的，是一场人道主义灾难。换句话说，往往是外部社会力量和国家通过干预加剧了地方冲突，造成了难民的大规模外流。成千上万像Aylan Kurdi这样的孩子死亡，不是因为
Any process of global consultations between stakeholders on a most pressing issue of our times, resulting in agreement on a common (if not legally binding) text – the Global Compact on Refugees (Refugee Compact) – is welcome, as it may help to promote international cooperation in dealing with the global refugee crisis. Its proposed new mechanisms of a Global Refugee Forum, Support Platforms, and possible solidarity conferences will surely help in responding to mass outflows of refugees. However, in my view, the Refugee Compact is a flawed text for several reasons: it avoids mention of the principal cause of recent refugee flows; dilutes established principles of international refugee law; may weaken the protection of children and women; is short on real mechanisms for responsibility sharing; is myopic in stressing ‘specific deliverables’ (para 43) in speaking of future academic work; and leaves to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) the task of supervision which it is not equipped to perform (as the Compact itself, which it helped draft, demonstrates). I will make these points in a schematic manner, concluding with a reflection or two on the way forward. First, while the Refugee Compact, to its credit, addresses the problem of root causes of refugee flows, it fails to mention the responsibility of third States, in particular Western States, for recent outflows of refugees linked to their acts of intervention. To be sure, interventions alone are not responsible for refugee outflows. The State of origin is most often responsible, as for instance in the case of Rohingya refugees. The Refugee Compact therefore rightly notes that ‘addressing root causes is the responsibility of countries at the origin of refugee movements’ (para 8). But unfortunately, the Compact is silent on the role of external actors in the production of refugees. The major refugee outflows in recent years have been from Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria, all of which have been the objects of armed intervention or responsibility-to-protect efforts of Western States. These interventions, often driven by objectives such as regime change, have been a humanitarian disaster. In other words, it is very often external social forces and States which aggravate local conflicts through intervention that are responsible for the mass exodus of refugees. Thousands of children like Aylan Kurdi die, not because