Power of Rules and Rule of Power

The 2018 Presidential Theme for the International Studies Association’s Annual Conference was “Power of Rules and Rule of Power.” The theme underlines the importance of recognizing the relative and relational influence of power and rules in international politics. To do so, research should examine official rules but also probe what role informal rules play in shaping formal regulations of international interactions and power dynamics. The nexus of actors, issues, and interactions define international relations as a research field but also impact international studies as a profession. The articles included in this special issue and the forum expand, question, and problematize such interactions

Refugee Resettlement and Preferences

Aid organisations spend considerable time lobbying for aid to be sent to refugees in poorer neighboring states, rather than campaigning for more refugees to be resettled to wealthy states. Lawmakers in wealthy countries similarly tend to focus on aiding refugees abroad, rather than resettling more refugees. One moral justification raised for focusing on aid rather than resettlement is that refugees prefer to remain in neighboring countries so that they can quickly repatriate when the time is safe. Yet, few have established what refugees’ preferences actually are. Drawing upon an original dataset of a representative sample of Syrian refugees in Lebanon, we find that most prefer remaining to resettling when the details of resettlement are not clarified, but roughly half prefer to relocate if offered certain types of relocation. We further argue that organisations and states have reason to account for whether preferences are “adaptive”. Such preferences arise when refugees prefer remaining in neighbouring countries only when relocating to other countries is not an option. We present a novel philosophical reason for not appealing to adaptive preferences as a justification for not resettling refugees. We further apply a novel experimental method for evaluating whether preferences are adaptive

Should I stay or should I go? The decision to flee or stay home during civil war

The literature on forced migration reveals a linkage between conflict-related violence and displacement. However, it often neglects the potential that variable forms of violence have differential impacts on the decision to flee violence. Moreover, there is a mobility bias in the empirical literature, whereby analyses often focus upon individuals that leave their homes, neglecting to assess factors influencing decisions to remain at home during conflict. To address these dynamics, we focus upon Lebanon, which experienced a civil war between 1975 and 1990. We leverage a survey of 2,400 Lebanese residents who lived through the civil war. Our analyses suggest different forms of violence play distinct roles in the decisions taken by individuals who remained at home, those that fled internally, and those that fled abroad as refugees

Government Targeting of Refugees in the Midst of Epidemics

We investigate how the outbreak of epidemics can affect host governments’ targeting of refugees and violation of their physical integrity rights. We argue that governments target repression against refugees for two reasons. First, refugees are easily scapegoated for the arrival of epidemics at a time when governments are looking to shift the blame for their own poor performance. Second, crises provide circumstances for governments to engage in opportunistic repression to further their goal of coercing existing refugees to depart and deterring new refugees from arriving. Drawing upon a global dataset of countries for the years 1996 to 2015, we demonstrate that epidemic outbreaks do indeed increase the likelihood and scale of government repression targeting refugee populations. These effects are especially pronounced in countries with higher proportions of refugees hosted and in less democratic countries. Identification of this potential for government repression of refugees during epidemics is important in light of the grave scale of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings suggest the international community should be vigilant for signs of governments’ mistreatment of vulnerable refugee populations to shift focus away from their own poor handling of crises such as the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and opportunistically advance their goal of reducing the numbers of refugees hosted locally

How Governance Under the 'Grand Compromise' Affects Refugee Preferences for Relocation: Evidence from Syrian Refugees in Lebanon

We examine how governance actors in first-asylum countries affect refugees' relocation preferences. We argue that external humanitarian actors and host country actors can have different effects on refugees' aspiration and perceived ability to relocate away from the first-asylum country. Using an original survey of Syrian refugees in Lebanon, we find that when refugees believe external actors are effective at dealing with refugee issues, they are significantly less likely to aspire to migrate but significantly more likely to feel able to do so. When refugees believe the host government is effective at providing security, they are significantly more likely to aspire to relocate but significantly less likely to feel able to do so. In other words, the effectiveness of host actors is associated with ‘involuntary immobility’. To probe this finding further, we rely on a modified conjoint experiment. In line with our observational findings, we find that refugees who believe host actors are effective are more likely to choose relocation over staying when presented with a legal opportunity, indicating involuntary immobility. Refugees who believe external actors are effective are no more likely than others to choose relocation when presented with a legal resettlement opportunity

The Journey Home: Violence, Anchoring, and Refugee Decisions to Return

While the UNHCR promotes voluntary repatriation as the preferred solution to refugee situations, there is little understanding of variation in refugees’ preferences regarding return. We develop a theoretical framework suggesting two mechanisms influencing refugees’ preferences. First, refugees’ lived experiences in their country of origin prior to displacement and in their new host country create a trade-off in feelings of being anchored to their origin or host country. Second, firsthand exposure to traumas of war provides some refugees with a sense of competency and self-efficacy, leading them to prefer to return home. We test these relationships with data from a survey among Syrian refugees hosted in Lebanon. We find refugees exposed to violence during the war have a sense of attachment to Syria and are most likely to prefer return. Refugees who have developed a detachment from Syria or an attachment to Lebanon are less likely to prefer return