The 1951 Refugee Convention represents the legal cornerstone of today’s global refugee protection, which is supposed to apply to all refugees regardless of their origin, gender identity, or sexual orientation. But did the Convention’s drafters have such a complex approach in mind? This paper analyzes the Convention’s drafting at the United Nations and the final conference in the late 1940s and early 1950s from feminist, queer, and postcolonial perspectives. By drawing on subalternity and absence, and using interpretive analysis of historical sources, the paper focuses on politics—who was (not) involved in debates—and policy—who was (not) considered under the refugee definition. The analysis reveals pervasive asymmetries, with western androcentrism inherently shaping the drafting. The western, white, heterosexual man was the standard filter for the powerful decision-maker and the protection subject, whereas women, LGBTQ+ and colonized people were neglected in politics and policy. Their exclusion was not merely a side effect of the political landscape at the time but reflects the reproduction of western androcentric power, which ultimately invisibilized the subaltern Others in the creation of international refugee law.
This article explores the lived experiences of nine women scholars who are single, childfree and internationally mobile. Mobilising Laurent Berlant's work on ambivalence and ‘cruel optimism,’ we show how experiences of singlehood and academic international mobility are never only good or bad, but always both at the same time. Ambivalence emerges in the women's experiences because singlehood can facilitate academic careers by enabling high productivity and mobility, whereas mobility can inhibit finding committed relationships through an absence of stability and prevalent gendered expectations of women in heterosexual relationships. Most of the interviewed women hope for a life which has both careers, mobility and romantic relationships, however, the simultaneity of benefits and struggles associated with singlehood and a mobile academic life places them in an ambivalent situation that precludes the option of letting go of either of their affective attachments, namely, to gendered couple norms and the academic institution.