将不受欢迎的他人隐形化?从女性主义、同性恋和后殖民主义角度看 1951 年《难民公约》的起草工作

IF 1.5 3区 社会学 Q2 WOMENS STUDIES Womens Studies International Forum Pub Date : 2024-09-18 DOI:10.1016/j.wsif.2024.102979
Ulrike Krause
{"title":"将不受欢迎的他人隐形化?从女性主义、同性恋和后殖民主义角度看 1951 年《难民公约》的起草工作","authors":"Ulrike Krause","doi":"10.1016/j.wsif.2024.102979","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>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.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47940,"journal":{"name":"Womens Studies International Forum","volume":"107 ","pages":"Article 102979"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277539524001171/pdfft?md5=601fd9e591c24a5b070df578ff081aaa&pid=1-s2.0-S0277539524001171-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Invisibilization of the unwanted Others? Feminist, queer, and postcolonial perspectives on the 1951 Refugee Convention’s drafting\",\"authors\":\"Ulrike Krause\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.wsif.2024.102979\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>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.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47940,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Womens Studies International Forum\",\"volume\":\"107 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102979\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277539524001171/pdfft?md5=601fd9e591c24a5b070df578ff081aaa&pid=1-s2.0-S0277539524001171-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Womens Studies International Forum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277539524001171\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"WOMENS STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Womens Studies International Forum","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277539524001171","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"WOMENS STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

1951 年《难民公约》是当今全球难民保护的法律基石,它应该适用于所有难民,无论其出身、性别认同或性取向如何。但是,《公约》的起草者是否考虑过如此复杂的方法?本文从女权主义者、同性恋者和后殖民主义的视角出发,分析了《公约》在联合国的起草过程以及 20 世纪 40 年代末和 50 年代初的最终会议。通过借鉴次等性和缺失,并利用对历史资料的解释性分析,本文重点关注政治--哪些人(未)参与了辩论,以及政策--哪些人(未)被纳入难民定义的考虑范围。分析揭示了普遍存在的不对称现象,西方的雄性中心主义在本质上塑造了起草工作。西方、白人、异性恋男性是有权势的决策者和保护对象的标准过滤器,而妇女、LGBTQ+和殖民地人民则在政治和政策中被忽视。他们被排除在外并不仅仅是当时政治格局的副作用,而是反映了西方以雄性为中心的权力的再现,最终在国际难民法的制定过程中隐匿了处于次要地位的其他人。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Invisibilization of the unwanted Others? Feminist, queer, and postcolonial perspectives on the 1951 Refugee Convention’s drafting

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
7.10%
发文量
63
审稿时长
79 days
期刊介绍: Women"s Studies International Forum (formerly Women"s Studies International Quarterly, established in 1978) is a bimonthly journal to aid the distribution and exchange of feminist research in the multidisciplinary, international area of women"s studies and in feminist research in other disciplines. The policy of the journal is to establish a feminist forum for discussion and debate. The journal seeks to critique and reconceptualize existing knowledge, to examine and re-evaluate the manner in which knowledge is produced and distributed, and to assess the implications this has for women"s lives.
期刊最新文献
Challenging the status quo: A feminist analysis of gender dynamics, motivation, and empowerment in hackathons Thirty years of gender mainstreaming: Evolution, development, and future research agenda through a bibliometric approach How the online presence of mothers changed over time during the COVID pandemic: A longitudinal study Anti-genderism in Turkey: Masculinist entrenchment through cultural intimacies Montenegrin gender ‘protections’ and the limits of gender equality laws
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1