© The Author [2007]. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org
Response to Hathaway
Migration Program, Social Science Research Council, 810 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10019 dewind@ssrc.org
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
In addressing the International Association for the Study of Forced Migration in June, 2006, Professor James Hathaway criticized forced migration as a rubric for a union between refugee and migration studies as posing a risk to the protection of refugees. Then, as in the amplified argument which appears above, he called for the disaggregation of refugee studies from the broader study of forced migration (and migration more generally) so as to assure ‘recognition of the specificity of refugees’ circumstances’ and to protect their rights of individual autonomy. However, this phrasing does not sufficiently address the issue that the specificity of the refugee category in positive law does not adequately correspond with the actual circumstances of refugees or encompass others also forced to flee their homes due to human rights abuses. The concept of forced migration helps to correct this incongruity between rights and protections.
The problem that Hathaway finds with
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  O. Bakewell Research Beyond the Categories: The Importance of Policy Irrelevant Research into Forced Migration Journal of Refugee Studies, December 1, 2008; 21(4): 432 - 453. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Polzer and L. Hammond Invisible Displacement Journal of Refugee Studies, December 1, 2008; 21(4): 417 - 431. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|