The Ethics and Polities of Asylum.

• Author: Hallett, Nicole
• Position: Book review

The Ethics and Polities of Asylum, by Matthew Gibney

Publisher: Cambridge University Press (2004)

Price: 17.99 [pounds sterling]

In The Ethics and Politics of Asylum, Matthew Gibney explores the ethical and political dimensions of the international refugee regime and uses this analysis to propose a new regime that would more adequately account for the flaws he sees in the current system. In determining which rights belong to both refugees and to countries of asylum, Gibney divides theorists into two main camps: impartialists, who advocate for open borders based on either rights-based or utilitarian principles, and partialists, who assert that "states, in their role as representatives of communities of citizens, are morally justified in enacting entrance policies that privilege the interests of their members." (1) In the end, Gibney finds neither theory convincing and thus proposes that refugee policy should be guided by a new blended model he calls "humanitarianism." Unfortunately for his readers, this model, which is presented with much fanfare at the end of the book, falls short of providing a workable alternative. In the end, Gibney's proposed solution both fails to advance a regime that is substantially different from the one already in place and fails to account for the complex ethical dilemmas that plague the other theories he considers and then ultimately discards. Although Gibney himself may disagree, the book is best seen as a primer of the ethical and political facets of the international refugee regime, a role that it fulfills admirably.

Gibney's greatest strength is convincingly advocating for and then against each argument he presents. This strength is on display most prominently in his treatment of partialism. Traditionally, human rights advocates have viewed such a position as a way for states to shirk their responsibilities to the world's most vulnerable people. Gibney obviously shares many of these suspicions himself, and yet, he argues effectively that a community should have a right to self-determination. Human rights advocates who work tirelessly to defend the right of indigenous groups to preserve their culture are often the first to dismiss similar claims of nation-states. Yet, clearly if such a right to cultural self-determination exists, then all cultural communities, however large or small, should be able to protect that right, which may mean excluding outsiders that threaten the cultural composition of the...