How should we respond to the worst refugee crisis since the World War II? What are our duties towards refugees, and how should we distribute these duties among those at the receiving end of the refugee flow? What are the relevant political solutions? Are some states more responsible for creating the current refugee situation, and if so, should they also carry a larger burden on solving this situation? Is people smuggling always morally wrong? Are some groups, for example children, owed more than others, and should we thus take active measures to remove them from conflict zones? How are the existing refugee regimes, in Europe, North-America, or Australia, challenged by the current crisis? Are some of their measures more justified than others? Refugee Crisis: The Borders of Human Mobility discusses the various ethical dilemmas and potential political solutions to the ongoing refugee crisis, providing both theoretical and practical reflections on the current crisis, as well as the ways in which this crisis has been handled in public debate. The contributors to the volume include some of the most prominent political theorists and experts on the current refugee situation, as well as some of the upcoming young scholars working on the theme. This book was originally published as a special issue of the Journal of Global Ethics.

This book is a philosophical analysis of the ethical treatment of refugees and stateless people, a group of people who, though extremely important politically, have been greatly under theorized philosophically. The limited philosophical discussion of refugees by philosophers focuses narrowly on the question of whether or not we, as members of Western states, have moral obligations to admit refugees into our countries. This book reframes this debate and shows why it is important to think ethically about people who will never be resettled and who live for prolonged periods outside of all political communities. Parekh shows why philosophers ought to be concerned with ethical norms that will help stateless people mitigate the harms of statelessness even while they remain formally excluded from states. The Open Access version of this book, available at https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315883854, has been made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 license.

Hannah Arendt and the Challenge of Modernity explores the theme of human rights in the work of Hannah Arendt. Parekh argues that Arendt's contribution to this debate has been largely ignored because she does not speak in the same terms as contemporary theoreticians of human rights. Beginning by examining Arendt s critique of human rights, and the concept of "a right to have rights" with which she contrasts the traditional understanding of human rights, Parekh goes on to analyze some of the tensions and paradoxes within the modern conception of human rights that Arendt brings to light, arguing that Arendt s perspective must be understood as phenomenological and grounded in a notion of intersubjectivity that she develops in her readings of Kant and Socrates.

Hannah Arendt and the Challenge of Modernity explores the theme of human rights in the work of Hannah Arendt. Parekh argues that Arendt's contribution to this debate has been largely ignored because she does not speak in the same terms as contemporary theoreticians of human rights. Beginning by examining Arendt's critique of human rights, and the concept of "a right to have rights" with which she contrasts the traditional understanding of human rights, Parekh goes on to analyze some of the tensions and paradoxes within the modern conception of human rights that Arendt brings to light, arguing that Arendt's perspective must be understood as phenomenological and grounded in a notion of intersubjectivity that she develops in her readings of Kant and Socrates.

Syrians crossing the Mediterranean in ramshackle boats bound for Europe; Sudanese refugees, their belongings on their backs, fleeing overland into neighboring countries; children separated from their parents at the US/Mexico border-these are the images that the Global Refugee Crisis conjures to many. In the news we often see photos of people in transit, suffering untold deprivations in desperate bids to escape their countries and find safety. But behind these images, there is a second crisis-a crisis of arrival. Refugees in the 21st century have only three real options-urban slums, squalid refugee camps, or dangerous journeys to seek asylum-and none provide genuine refuge. In No Refuge, political philosopher Serena Parekh calls this the second refugee crisis: the crisis of the millions of people who, having fled their homes, are stuck for decades in the dehumanizing and hopeless limbo of refugees camps and informal urban spaces, most of which are in the Global South. Ninety-nine percent of these refugees are never resettled in other countries. Their suffering only begins when they leave their war-torn homes. As Parekh urgently argues by drawing from numerous first-person accounts, conditions in many refugee camps and urban slums are so bleak that to make people live in them for prolonged periods of time is to deny them human dignity. It's no wonder that refugees increasingly risk their lives to seek asylum directly in the West. Drawing from extensive first-hand accounts of life as a refugee with nowhere to go, Parekh argues that we need a moral response to these crises-one that assumes the humanity of refugees in addition to the challenges that states have when they accept refugees. Only once we grasp that the global refugee crisis has these two dimensions-the asylum crisis for Western states and the crisis for refugees who cannot find refuge-can we reckon with a response proportionate to the complexities we face. Countries and citizens have a moral obligation to address the structures that unjustly prevent refugees from accessing the minimum conditions of human dignity. As Parekh shows, there are ways we as citizens can respond to the global refugee crisis, and indeed we are morally obligated to do so.

How should we respond to the worst refugee crisis since the World War II? What are our duties towards refugees, and how should we distribute these duties among those at the receiving end of the refugee flow? What are the relevant political solutions? Are some states more responsible for creating the current refugee situation, and if so, should they also carry a larger burden on solving this situation? Is people smuggling always morally wrong? Are some groups, for example children, owed more than others, and should we thus take active measures to remove them from conflict zones? How are the existing refugee regimes, in Europe, North-America, or Australia, challenged by the current crisis? Are some of their measures more justified than others? Refugee Crisis: The Borders of Human Mobility discusses the various ethical dilemmas and potential political solutions to the ongoing refugee crisis, providing both theoretical and practical reflections on the current crisis, as well as the ways in which this crisis has been handled in public debate. The contributors to the volume include some of the most prominent political theorists and experts on the current refugee situation, as well as some of the upcoming young scholars working on the theme. This book was originally published as a special issue of the Journal of Global Ethics.

This book is a philosophical analysis of the ethical treatment of refugees and stateless people, a group of people who, though extremely important politically, have been greatly under theorized philosophically. The limited philosophical discussion of refugees by philosophers focuses narrowly on the question of whether or not we, as members of Western states, have moral obligations to admit refugees into our countries. This book reframes this debate and shows why it is important to think ethically about people who will never be resettled and who live for prolonged periods outside of all political communities. Parekh shows why philosophers ought to be concerned with ethical norms that will help stateless people mitigate the harms of statelessness even while they remain formally excluded from states.