Refugee law-making, state sovereignty and the paradox of non-independent territories

State sovereignty is widely accepted as a necessary basis for refugee lawmaking. Recent trends within refugee law scholarship have shifted the analytical focus beyond State lawmaking in international law to interrogate how refugee ­matters are governed at the level of national law. This article continues that trajectory by exploring whether refugee law-making takes place beyond the boundaries of State sovereignty, in the practice of non-independent territories. Through a study of the 17 non-independent territories currently administered by the United Kingdom, including such well known examples as the Falkland Islands and Diego Garcia, it shows that, paradoxically, at least 12 have made their own provision for local refugee law; and many of these local laws differ considerably from the UK’s own refugee law framework. This suggests that the role of sovereign States in refugee law-making should not blind us to law-making practice by other entities. Such practice has implications for our understanding of refugee law and State sovereignty. Engaging with the practice of non-independent territories and other non-sovereign entities has the potential both to deepen and to complicate our picture of refugee law at the national and international levels, pushing us towards a wider epistemology of refugee law-making.