Abstract The rise of “complementary pathways” poses challenges to international refugee protection. This Special Issue consists of seven original and interdisciplinary articles based on empirical research, which examine the legal, normative, and practical implications of attempts to broaden protection to incorporate “complementary pathways” in responding to the global challenge of increasing numbers of people in need of international protection. The articles provide legal, normative, and policy perspectives on domestic, regional, and international law and practice. They cover programmes in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, Spain, and the United Kingdom, as well as European policies. They present refugee sponsorship programmes as a potentially “sustainable” complementary pathway, with opportunities to create “sustainable communities” of sponsors to complement state refugee resettlement schemes. However, the picture is not the same for other complementary pathways, which risk reinforcing a tiered system of refugee rights and excluding those most in need. The contributors to this Special Issue highlight that more safeguards are needed to ensure that complementary pathways do not undermine or deprioritise the international protection needs of refugees. Collectively, this Special Issue offers fresh and compelling insights into the risks, potential, and realities associated with the expansion of complementary pathways.
Kneebone et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: