Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
Protection is arguably the raison-d’être of refugee policy. Yet, surprisingly, the meaning of protection is not without ambiguity. ‘Domestic protection’ can be distinguished from ‘international protection’; the sense attributed to protection within the 1951 Refugee Convention contrasts with that of the 1950 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Statute. Equally, how the state interprets its protective obligations departs frequently from the practice of humanitarian organisations. Alongside such differences, there has been a proliferation of protection concepts in recent years which, far from improving understanding, have added unnecessary confusion and undermined the fundamental purpose of protection. This article considers the language of ‘protection’ within the refugee field and argues that protection proliferation must now be addressed and reversed.
International Journal on Minority and Group Rights – Brill
Published: Jan 1, 2013
Keywords: protection; refugee; asylum; human rights; humanitarian; United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.