Justice in waiting: The harms and wrongs of temporary refugee protection

• Published in: European journal of political theory Vol. 22; no. 1; pp. 51 - 72
• Main Author: Buxton, Rebecca
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London, England SAGE Publications 01.01.2023; Sage Publications Ltd
• Subjects: Dominance; Injustice; Political asylum; Refugees; Welfare policy; justice; domination; temporary protection; Asylum; refugee
• ISSN: 1474-8851; 1741-2730
• DOI: 10.1177/1474885120973578

Temporariness has become the norm in contemporary refugee protection. Many refugees face extended periods of time waiting for permanent status, either in camps or living among citizens in their state of asylum. Whilst this practice of keeping refugees waiting is of benefit to states, I argue that not only is it harmful to refugees but it also constitutes an injustice. First, I outline the prevalence of temporary assistance in the refugee protection regime. Second, I outline the orthodox view on temporary refugee protection – it is acceptable as long as it is not indefinite. I then spend the remainder of the article considering four arguments against temporary refugee protection: the plan argument, the reciprocity argument, the domination argument, and the compounding injustice argument. I contend that the first two arguments, which already feature in the literature, merely show that temporary protection is harmful to refugees. My own arguments on domination and compounding injustice show, instead, that giving refugees temporary protection constitutes an injustice. The domination argument allows us to critique the current practice of temporary refugee protection, whereas the compounding injustice argument shows that temporariness in any form constitutes an injustice.