Response to Hathaway

In addressing the International Association for the Study of Forced Migration in June 2006 Professor James Hathaway criticized forced migration as a rubric for a union between refugee and migration studies as posing a risk to the protection of refugees. Then as in the amplified argument which appears above he called for the disaggregation of refugee studies from the broader study of forced migration (and migration more generally) so as to assure recognition of the specificity of refugees circumstances and to protect their rights of individual autonomy. However this phrasing does not sufficiently address the issue that the specificity of the refugee category in positive law does not adequately correspond with the actual circumstances of refugees or encompass others also forced to flee their homes due to human rights abuses. The concept of forced migration helps to correct this incongruity between rights and protections. The problem that Hathaway finds with forced migration studies is that the scholarship it generates refocuses attention on the amorphous phenomenon of migration at the expense of individuals more distinctly categorized as refugees. This conceptual shift he says weakens protection for individuals by appeasing the collective management approach of governments and agencies. (excerpt)