2021 年 10 巻 2 号 p. 15-31
Traditionally, refugees were provided with durable solutions in other countries via either spontaneous arrival as asylum seekers or resettlement through the first country of asylum, unless and until repatriation becomes possible. Since the early 1990s, and given the global attention to the so-called Syrian refugee “crisis,” the world has devised a number of new ways to allow entrance for forced migrants, including temporary protection, complementary pathways, and “humanitarian” admission programmes. In particular, over the past few years, schemes such as private sponsorship and refugee admission as foreign students, labour migrants, or family members have been hailed as innovative ways to provide new sanctuary and opportunities for forced migrants. However, this paper challenges uncritical promotion of new schemes, arguing that some of these schemes risk turning the institution of asylum into a neoliberal immigration enterprise reserved only for highly skilled and educated migrants, setting aside the principles of vulnerability and humanitarianism. After critically analysing statistical data and reports made available by international organisations, this paper calls for cautious approaches to such new schemes if one is to uphold the truly humanitarian nature of refugee protection. It concludes that such new pathways should be adopted, if ever, in addition and complementary to—not in place of—the traditional ways of admitting refugees.
