Penelope Mathew

Fresh Perspectives on the ‘War on Terror’

On 20 September 2001, in an address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American people, President George W. Bush declared a ‘war on terror’. The concept of the ‘war on terror’ has proven to be both an attractive and a potent rhetorical device. It has been adopted and elaborated upon by political leaders around the world, particularly in the context of military action in Afghanistan and Iraq. But use of the rhetoric has not been confined to the military context. The ‘war on terror’ is a domestic one, also, and the phrase has been used to account for broad criminal legislation, sweeping agency powers and potential human rights abuses throughout much of the world. This collection seeks both to draw on and to engage critically with the metaphor of war in the context of terrorism. It brings together a group of experts from Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, France and Germany who write about terrorism from a variety of disciplinary perspectives including international law and international relations, public and constitutional law, criminal law and criminology, legal theory, and psychology and law.

Refugees, Regionalism and Responsibility

Regional cooperation is sometimes seen as the answer to refugee movements. This book examines whether regional arrangements have resulted in protection and durable solutions for refugees and how responsibility for refugees has been shared at the regional level. Posing critical questions about responsibility-sharing and regionalism, the book is a timely contribution on an issue garnering increasing attention as a result of maritime arrivals in the Mediterranean and Southeast Asia.

Regionalism and Refugee Protection

Regional cooperation is sometimes seen as the answer to refugee movements. This book examines whether regional arrangements have resulted in protection and durable solutions for refugees and how responsibility for refugees has been shared at the regional level. It begins by unpacking the concept of regionalism and the way that it has worked historically in refugee law, as well as the ways in which five major regions of the world have, or have not protected refugees. The book then turns to examine why refugee protection is a moral imperative and why and how responsibility for refugee protection should be shared. It examines refugee protection and responsibility-sharing in practice through five regional arrangements. The book concludes by drawing attention to the strengths and weaknesses of these arrangements and advocating for changes to ensure better refugee protection and responsibility-sharing.

Draft dodger/deserter or dissenter? Conscientious objection as grounds for refugee status

In June 2012, as the conflict in Syria continued and the UN Security Council stalled, a Syrian colonel defected by flying his MiG jet over the border to Jordan. This act highlighted the importance and radical potential of conscientious objection to military service. This individual, and the many who have since followed his example, would not be participating in the atrocities unfolding on a daily basis in Syria. In cases where one of the parties to the conflict is not readily characterized as evil, conscientious objection – whether to the very idea of carrying arms or to a particular conflict – has often met with ambivalence and hostility. Bearing arms has traditionally been the mark of (male) citizenship, and considerations of humanity rarely outweigh that duty. Many national decision-makers confronted with asylum claims based on conscientious objection have refused to recognize the claimants as refugees, instead reinscribing the power of the state to require military service of its citizens. National decision-makers have also distinguished between total conscientious objectors (i.e., persons who refuse to serve in the military on grounds of conscience in all situations) and partial conscientious objectors (persons who refuse to serve in the military only with respect to some conflicts). One assumes that the Syrian colonel who defected to Jordan was a partial conscientious objector, a man quite willing to serve in the military in most situations, but not to fight against his own people. His case would undoubtedly be viewed with sympathy.