Looking Back, Moving Forward: The History and Future of Refugee Protection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The origins of refugee protection are commonly associated with the aftermath of the Second World War and the huge outpouring of refugees that it sparked.The 1951 Refugee Convention, however, was in fact a revision and consolidation of previous international agreements relating to the status of refugees.In their own ways, all of the Convention's predecessors responded to the refugee crises by facilitating the movement of refugees to safe states.With the 1951 Convention, in contrast, non-refoulement -the promise not to send people back to persecution -has come to be considered the core of refugee protection.While resettlement is indeed part of many countries' current refugee schemes, it is voluntary, and therefore secondary, to the international legal obligation of non-refoulement.In a period when the fear of terror translates into a fear of foreigners and borders are turning into barriers, it is becoming increasingly difficult for refugees to reach safe states and trigger the legal obligation of non-refoulement.This article looks back to the refugee agreements made during the first half of the twentieth-century to argue that the international regime of refugee protection is as much about bringing refugees to safety as refusing to send them back to danger.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".