Questioning Governance in Protracted Refugee Situations: The Fiduciary Nature of the State-Refugee Relationship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent decades, increases in the number and duration of protracted refugee situations (PRSs) have revealed substantial shortcomings in the international refugee protection framework. Falling as they do outside of the range of traditional refugee crises, PRSs present the international community with new challenges specifically with respect to effective responses and the allocation of responsibility. Efforts to address these situations have been hampered not only by the lack resources and political will among states but by the absence of a clear legal framework. Too often states abdicate their protection responsibilities and rely upon UNHCR to step into their shoes. At a time when there is the need for effective monitoring and enforcement of refugee protection and assistance, UNHCR is reduced to the role of mere aid provider. This article proposes an alternative conception of state responsibility for PRS based on the fiduciary theory of state legal authority. By embracing a fiduciary understanding of the refugee-host state relationship, we have a legal basis for the duty and responsibility of states to respect, protect and fulfil the human rights of refugees within their borders that arises as a function of that relationship as opposed to being imposed externally. With the fiduciary theory of state legal authority clearly placing primary responsibility for refugee protection on the host state, the refugee assistance function of UNHCR can be reconceived as being supportive in nature and supplementary to its original protection and supervisory mandate.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".