The international ethics of refugees: A case of internal or external political obligation?

A debate is currently taking place in international relations theory between internal/contractual and external/universalist ideas of political and moral obligation. This paper will undertake a policy-oriented analysis of the tension between these two approaches to obligation by examining the contemporary issue of refugees-an area where the tension between the two traditions appears to be especially great. It argues that while states have recognised the inherent 'goodness' and desirability of pursuing universal principles of ethical obligation and responsibility with respect of refugees, such idealistic aspirations have necessarily to be weighed against realistic appreciation of what governments can deliver at what cost. The paper starts by outlining the central assumptions of two idealised accounts of internal and external political obligation. Each depiction provides an opposing perspective on the way particularist and universalist relationships should be properly defined and prioritised; in so doing, they usefully help to contextualise and shape the discussion on moral responsibilities-not only to refugees but in general as well. The paper then goes on to investigate the application of refugee law by states, analysing what (if anything) this reveals about the international ethics of refugees in general. The article concludes with a brief examination of whether the reluctance of states to admit large numbers of refugees can be morally justified, drawing primarily on hte arguments of Robert Goodin and Michael Walzer.