Skip Navigation


Journal of Refugee Studies Advance Access originally published online on August 8, 2006
Journal of Refugee Studies 2006 19(3):308-327; doi:10.1093/jrs/fel012
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
19/3/308    most recent
fel012v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Landau, L. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Journal of Refugee Studies Vol. 19, No. 3 © The Author [2006]. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Articles

Protection and Dignity in Johannesburg: Shortcomings of South Africa's Urban Refugee Policy

Loren B. Landau

Forced Migration Studies Programme, Graduate School for the Humanities, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, Private Bag X3, Wits 2050, South Africa landaul{at}migration.wits.ac.za

Since the end of apartheid, South African cities have become destinations for refugees and asylum seekers from across Africa. In line with its constitutional commitments to human rights and dignity, South Africa has enacted a refugee policy intended to maximize freedom and protection by promoting refugees' temporary integration into local communities. In doing so, the law guarantees freedom of movement, access to many social services, and rights to compete in labour and housing markets. This article argues that because refugees and asylum seekers are effectively unable to convert these legal entitlements into effective protection, South Africa has failed to meet its domestic and international obligations. This argument draws particular attention to institutional failures in determining refugee status and issuing recognizable identity documents; denial of essential social services; and abuse at the hands of law enforcement agents. It concludes by suggesting a positive obligation for the state to counter the full range of obstacles that prevent asylum seekers and refugees from securing effective protection.

Key Words: urban refugees • protection • South Africa • local integration


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Journal of Refugee StudiesHome page
T. Polzer
Invisible Integration: How Bureaucratic, Academic and Social Categories Obscure Integrated Refugees
Journal of Refugee Studies, December 1, 2008; 21(4): 476 - 497.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.