Abstract
Refugee Protection in Southeast Asia: Between Humanitarianism and Sovereignty argues that Southeast Asia, often viewed as deficient due to limited participation in the 1951 Refugee Convention, has instead developed a distinct postcolonial refugee regime that warrants analysis on its own terms. The present work builds on two earlier foundational works. Davies (2008) emphasized norm contestation and state resistance, inaugurating the dominant view in refugee studies of “persistent rejection” of the 1951 Refugee Convention regime by ASEAN states; on the other hand, Moretti (2022) challenged that view by framing refugee protection initiatives of states in the region—including by those that are non-convention parties—as somehow consistent with customary international law. The present book advances the conversation to the next level by providing a more plural, empirically grounded, but theoretically integrated account of Southeast Asian refugee governance, one that extends earlier accounts beyond law-centered and state-centric discourses.
Review
The volume’s principal contribution to legal scholarship is an empirically grounded discussion of the limits of the established binaries. Rather than being opposite poles, humanitarianism and sovereignty, state and civil society, legality and informality, are co-constitutive of Southeast Asia’s overlapping refugee governance fields (Kneebone et al.: 1–18). This framing—really its central contribution to the literature—delineates the central analytical tension that structures the volume’s historical, national, and institutional inquiries, through theoretical and legal reconstruction set against state-by-state case studies (here, focused on Thailand, Indonesia, and Malaysia, countries that “host the largest numbers of refugees in the region[…]” but “have no special procedures at the national level […] to determine [their] status […]” (Kneebone et al., Introduction: 1-14).
And so, it is not that the region has refused refugee protection (in the ASEAN, only Cambodia, the Philippines, and Timor-Leste are parties to the 1951 Refugee Convention); rather, as the anthology illustrates, states in the region have resisted a particular European idea of refugee protection, which has been indissolubly linked to colonial legacies, permanent settlement, and top-down obligations (Kneebone et al., Introduction: 10-11; Abraham: 34–38).
Contemporary refugee governance in Southeast Asia exposes the structural tensions of the international refugee regime itself. The volume shows how regional responses rely on a form of humanitarianism that privileges territorial control and state sovereignty over rights-based protection (Kneebone et al., Introduction: 3–7).
Within regional responses, refugees and asylum-seekers are often managed through immigration law, administrative discretion, and informal toleration rather than durable legal solutions. This “humanitarian” regime produces legal precarity, dependence on international and civil society actors, and exclusion from meaningful integration (Kneebone et al., Introduction: 12-15).
Part I traces the historical and political foundations of contemporary regional refugee governance. In Chapter 1, Abraham argues that regional resistance to the Refugee Convention reflects postcolonial sovereignty and urban political economy, where informal protection regimes keep refugees in precarious forms of “political society” (pp. 41-48). Napaumporn and Kneebone show Thailand’s (Chapter 2) selective humanitarianism has historically produced statelessness while also sustaining a tradition of asylum for “displaced persons” aligned with state interest (pp. 69-70). Masardi (Chapter 3) complements this by demonstrating how refugees in Indonesia embrace “partial rights protection” over unattainable legal status, with an eye for resettlement elsewhere (pp. 99–108).
Part II examines refugee governance in Indonesia, Thailand, and Malaysia. Kuncoro and Prabandari (Chapter 4) argue that Indonesia’s Presidential Regulation No. 125 of 2016 attempts to balance sovereignty and responsibility through an evolving notion of the former’s internal and external aspects. But ultimately, reinforces securitized immigration control (pp. 124-134). Coddington (Chapter 5) similarly shows that Thailand’s National Screening Mechanism applies “affective governmentality” that securitizes migration while preserving arbitrary migration enforcement (pp. 149–151). Hoffstaedter and Jalil (Chapter 6) provide a detailed account of Malaysia’s unofficial refugee regime, highlighting how religion, labor markets, and discretionary toleration shape protection policy and practice (pp. 161-175).
Part III examines the role of non-state actors and regional norm production in refugee protection. In Chapter 7, civil society actors function as intermediaries between humanitarian and sovereign imperatives, particularly through alternatives to detention (Keegan et al.: 191-201). In Chapter 8, at the regional level, the development of the Asia Pacific Refugee Rights Network illustrates how norms diffuse outside formal treaty frameworks, challenging state-centric models of governance (Taylor: 212-227). In Chapter 9, refugee communities themselves are conceptualized as constrained “communities of practice,” exercising limited forms of agency rather than remaining passive subjects (Viartasiwi: 247–257).
The concluding chapters synthesize the book’s central themes. Petcharamesree (Chapter 10) argues that ASEAN human rights instruments contain an unrealized framework for responsibility-sharing, even as refugees are treated as “forced migrants” needing humanitarian assistance (pp. 269-279). The editors conclude that humanitarianism allows limited protection without rights, while sovereignty remains the decisive force in determining legal status and durable solutions (Kneebone et al.: 297-304).
One notable omission in this otherwise excellent work is the Philippine case. Despite being a Convention party with a long experience in refugee protection—it receives no extended discussion, other than a note, citing Moretti, that while it has “welcomed asylum seekers during recent crises, it does not offer an official refugee status” (Kneebone et al., Introduction: 2). In endnote 3 of the Introduction, the editors’ note that although the Philippines is often cited as a regional model of “good practice,” its refugee processes lack transparency, particularly regarding Refugee Status Determination (RSD) outcomes, and do not provide durable solutions. This assessment appears dated. The year Moretti’s book was published, or three years before the publication of the book under review, the Philippine Supreme Court issued A.M. No. 21-07-22, the “Rule on Facilitated Naturalization of Refugees and Stateless Persons.”
1
As an official statement from the Court said of this new rule: The Rule […] aims to simplify and reduce legal and procedural hurdles in obtaining Philippine citizenship to facilitate the assimilation and naturalization of refugees and stateless persons into Philippine society.
2
Overall, this is a rigorous and intellectually confident volume that will serve as a reference in regional or international refugee studies for years to come, with its broader implication that the future of refugee protection may lie not in the universalization of formal legal regimes, but in the continued evolution of context-specific practices shaped by regional realities. Whether this model can be reconciled with the normative aims of international refugee law remains an open question, but the volume shows it cannot be ignored.