Displaced humanity: Power politics and international refugee regime

This dissertation explores variance in state responses to refugee crises. It argues that contrary to public perception, assistance to refugees is more of a realist than humanitarian endeavor. In other words, states provide assistance based upon their perceived national interests and not necessarily upon the interests of refugees. Consequently, the mechanism designed to assist refugees, the international refugee regime (IRR), is often stretched to accommodate state goals and assist states contain and mitigate the potentially disruptive impact of refugee crises. This argument is developed by utilizing International Relations theories to explain state responses to refugee crises and by applying those theories to four in-depth case studies: Hungary 1956, Iraq 1991, Bosnia 1993--1995 and Rwanda 1994--1997. Refugee crises involving populations that are of interest to potential intervening states receive assistance; IRR principles and procedures can even be changed to accommodate them. Refugees of "less value," those for whom the cost/benefit ratio for assistance is deemed to be too high, receive less assistance. The Hungarian crisis represents the former and the Rwandan crises the latter. In between these extremes are crises in which state interests exist and are mediated through the refugee regime. In other words, refugee or would be refugee populations are assisted but in ways that meet the needs of the intervening states more than the populations being assisted. The creation of the Iraqi and Bosniac safe areas, which created millions of internally displaced persons, is an example of this approach. The dissertation concludes that a more realist/security-focused approach to refugee crises is needed to effectively assist future refugee populations.