Negotiating Durable Solutions for Refugees: A Critical Space for Semiotic Analysis

International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 29 (1):9-27 (2016)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Despite the proliferation of specialised agencies designed to reduce the prevalence of refugees worldwide, the number of individuals fleeing persecution is increasing year on year as endemic violence in countries such as Iraq, Somalia and the Syrian Arab Republic continues. As a result, media broadcasts and political dialogues are saturated with discussions about these “persons of concern”. Fundamental questions nonetheless remain unanswered about what meaning these actors attribute to the label ‘refugee’ and what intent, other than paucity of knowledge, might be driving the term’s use or manipulation. Though this is evidently important in the public arena, where incorrect conflations fuel mistrust and misunderstandings, the ramifications of these divergent understandings at the level of multi-lateral politics have yet to be critically explored. This article applies Barthes’ theory of the multiple orders of the sign to address this. Using the case study of the negotiations preceding the invocation of the Cessation Clause for Rwandan refugees, it illustrates how the word refugee is susceptible to numerous, simultaneous understandings, and discusses the implications of these manifold interpretations for how durable solutions are envisaged and negotiated in the refugee regime. In the case of Rwandan refugees in Uganda, this has meant that over a decade of stalemated discussions between the Governments of Uganda and Rwanda and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees over their future have been broken by a series of bilateral concessions that, whilst diminishing the political significance attached to this protracted caseload, have failed to address the continuing precarity of their situation. By conceptualising the word refugee as a sign according to the Saussurean model of semiotics, this paper therefore argues that despite the term’s established legal-normative definition, its inherent malleability makes it susceptible to processes of political instrumentalisation. This elevates the refugee as a rhetorical figure above the refugee as a physical-legal body entitled to certain forms of assistance

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 94,070

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Unresolved and Unresolvable? Tensions in the Refugee Regime.Megan Bradley - 2019 - Ethics and International Affairs 33 (1):45-56.
Should refugees govern refugee camps?Felix Bender - forthcoming - Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 1:1-24.
Should refugees govern refugee camps?Felix Bender - 2024 - Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 27 (4):441-464.
Refugees, Limbo and the Australian Media.Ben Hightower - 2015 - International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 28 (2):335-358.
The ethics of tradable refugee quotas.Andrea Sangiovanni - 2023 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 22 (4):407-422.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-05-30

Downloads
35 (#446,089)

6 months
6 (#701,155)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality.Michael Walzer - 1983 - Journal of Business Ethics 4 (1):63-64.
A Theory of Semiotics.Umberto Eco - 1977 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 10 (3):214-216.
A Theory of Semiotics.Robert Scholes - 1977 - Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 35 (4):476-478.
Who is a refugee?Andrew E. Shacknove - 1985 - Ethics 95 (2):274-284.

View all 11 references / Add more references