nrc.nl
EU Challenges Refugee and Human Rights Laws Amidst Declining Public Support
Germany and nine other EU countries are challenging international refugee and human rights laws citing low public support for accepting refugees and wanting to make it easier to deport "criminal foreigners", while global protests demand governments uphold international law, particularly concerning Israel's actions in Gaza.
- What are the long-term implications of selectively applying international law, and how might this affect global governance and international cooperation?
- The selective application of international law, particularly concerning Israel's actions in Gaza, undermines its authority. While governments cite international law to justify actions on climate and refugees, they often disregard it regarding Israel. This selective approach risks eroding public trust in international legal frameworks and fuels populist narratives.
- How does the German government's decision to restrict refugee access at the border, despite international law, impact the credibility and effectiveness of the Refugee Convention?
- Germany's new government is justifying its refusal to accept refugees at the border, contradicting the Refugee Convention, by claiming it reflects public opinion. A CDU parliamentarian stated that willingness to accept refugees is at an all-time low in Germany. Nine EU countries, led by Italy, similarly called for re-interpreting the European Convention on Human Rights to ease deportations of "criminal foreigners.
- What are the underlying causes of the declining public support for refugee reception in Europe, and how do these factors influence political decisions regarding international law?
- This reflects a broader trend among right-wing parties to question international law, framing legal frameworks as obstacles to the 'will of the people'. Even centrist parties grapple with public opinion, as evidenced by the VVD's call to amend the Refugee Convention. Ipsos/UNHCR research shows declining public support for refugee reception, with 49% of Dutch citizens wanting closed borders.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing emphasizes the erosion of public support for international law and uses examples of governments prioritizing public opinion over international agreements. The headline and introduction highlight the conflict between public opinion and international law, potentially influencing readers to perceive international law as less important.
Language Bias
The language used is generally neutral, but terms such as 'radically right-wing parties' and 'rules-based order' carry implicit value judgments. The use of phrases like 'the people' versus 'elites' creates an us-versus-them dynamic that could influence the reader's perception.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the declining public support for refugee intake and the selective application of international law regarding Israel, potentially omitting other perspectives on these issues. It does not explore alternative solutions to managing refugee flows or the complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in detail, which could lead to a skewed understanding of the issues.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy between respecting international law and heeding 'the will of the people'. It implies that these two are mutually exclusive, overlooking the possibility of finding solutions that balance both.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights a growing trend of governments prioritizing national interests and public opinion over international law, particularly concerning refugee rights and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This undermines the rule of law and international cooperation, essential for maintaining peace and justice. The disregard for international human rights law by certain governments, as exemplified by their handling of refugees and the Israeli conflict, directly impacts the ability to establish strong institutions based on the principles of justice and human rights.