Law and Critique

, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp 249–270 | Cite as

Accidents, Agency and Asylum: Constructing the Refugee Subject



Refugee law demands that the asylum seeker demonstrate an extremely limited and distorted form of agency that is encapsulated within the legal definition of the refugee. Such a framework also denies the role of the accidental in the refugee experience. I argue that the problem lies at the heart of the legal form, as constructed under capitalism. The sans-papiers show us the potential for refugees themselves to reconstruct a subjectivity that transcends the distorted form of agency and the false dichotomy between the accidental and agency found in law, through their rejection of legal definitions and the re-emergence of themselves as political subjects.


Agency Marxism Refugees Sans-papiers 



I would like to thank the organisers and participants at the December 2011 University of Melbourne Doctoral Forum on Legal Theory, who first encouraged me to think through some of the issues dealt with here. I am also grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their very useful comments and suggestions. The usual disclaimer about authorial responsibility of course applies.


  1. Agamben, Giorgio. 1998. Homo sacer: Sovereign power and bare life. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Agier, Michel. 2011. Managing the undesirables: Refugee camps and humanitarian government. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  3. Barsky, Robert F. 1994. Constructing a productive other: Discourse theory and the convention refugee hearing. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Behrman, Simon. 2014. Legal subjectivity and the refugee. International Journal of Refugee Law 26(1): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blin, Thierry. 2005. Les sans-papiers de Saint-Bernard: Mouvement social et action organise. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
  6. Blin, Thierry. 2010. L’Invention des sans-papiers: Essai sur la démocratie à l’épreuve du faible. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Callinicos, Alex. 2009. Making history: Agency, structure and change in social theory. Chicago: Haymarket Books.Google Scholar
  8. Cissé, Madjiguène. 1997. The Sans-Papiers: The new movement of asylum seekers and immigrants without papers in France—a woman draws the first lessons. London: Crossroads Books.Google Scholar
  9. Cissé, Madjiguène. 1999. Parole de sans-papiers. Paris: La Dispute.Google Scholar
  10. Collectif des Sans-Papiers du Loiret. 2000. Sans papiers, tu vis pas. Paris and Montréal: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
  11. Conaghan, Joanne, and Wade Mansell. 1999. The wrongs of tort, 2nd ed. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  12. Council of Europe & European Agency for Fundamental Rights. 2013. Handbook on European law relating to asylum, borders and immigration. Luxembourg: European Union.Google Scholar
  13. Decroly, Vincent. 2001. Le devoir d’asile. In À la lumière des sans-papiers, ed. Antoine Pickels. Brussels: Complexe.Google Scholar
  14. Diop, Ababacar. 1997. Dans la peau d’un sans-papiers. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  15. Einarsen, Terje. 2011. Drafting history of the 1951 convention and the 1967 protocol. In The 1951 convention relating to the status of refugees and its 1967 protocol: A commentary, ed. Andreas Zimmerman. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Gilbert, Geoff. 1991. Aspects of extradition law. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  17. Goodwin-Gill, Guy. 1996. The refugee in international law, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Goussault, Bénédicte. 1999. Paroles de sans-papiers. Paris: Les Éditions de L’Atelier.Google Scholar
  19. Grahl-Madsen, Atle. 1972. The status of refugees in international law:, vol. II. Leiden: A. W. Sijthoff.Google Scholar
  20. Hallward, Peter. 2002. Badiou’s politics: Equality and justice. Culture Machine 4.Google Scholar
  21. Harvey, C.J. 1998. Taking human rights seriously in the asylum context? A perspective on the development of law and policy. In Current issues of UK asylum law and policy, ed. Frances Nicholson, and Patrick Twomey. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  22. Hathaway, James T. 1991. The law of refugee status. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
  23. Heyman, Michael G. 1987. Redefining refugee: A proposal for relief for the victims of civil strife. San Diego Law Review 24: 449–484.Google Scholar
  24. Kaplan, Caren. 1996. Questions of travel: Postmodern discourses of displacement. Durham: Duke University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kaushal, Asha, and Catherine Dauvergne. 2011. The growing culture of exclusion: Trends in Canadian refugee exclusions. International Journal of Refugee Law 23: 54–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McAdam, Jane and Ben Saul. 2010. An insecure climate for human security? Climate-induced displacement and international law. Sydney Centre for International Law Working Paper 4: 1–23.Google Scholar
  27. McAdam, Jane. 2010. ‘Disappearing states’, Statelessness and the boundaries of international law. University of New South Wales Law Research Paper No. 2010-2.Google Scholar
  28. McNevin, Anne. 2011. Contesting citizenship: Irregular migrants and new frontiers of the political. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Marfleet, Philip. 2006. Refugees in a global era. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  30. Marks, Susan. 2009. False contingency. Current Legal Problems 62: 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marx, Emanuel. 1990. The social world of refugees: A conceptual framework. Journal of Refugee Studies 3: 189–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Marx, Karl. 1973. The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. In Surveys from exile, ed. David Fernbach. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  33. Marx, Karl. 1975. Preface to A critique of political economy. In Early writings. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  34. Marx, Karl. 2011. Capital: Volume One. Mineola: Dover Publication.Google Scholar
  35. Pashukanis, Evgeny. 2002. The general theory of law & Marxism. Piscataway: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  36. Rancière, Jacques. 1999. Disagreement: Politics and philosophy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  37. Rancière, Jacques. 2010. Ten theses on politics. In Dissensus, ed. Steve Corcoran. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  38. Sambou, Aboubacry, Jeanne Davy, and Hélène Gispert. 2008. Chroniques des Sans-Papiers. Paris: Éditions Syllepse.Google Scholar
  39. Sané, Mamady. 1996. Sorti de l’ombre: Journal d’un Sans-papiers. Paris: Le Temps des Cerises.Google Scholar
  40. Siméant, Johanna. 1998. La cause des sans-papiers. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.Google Scholar
  41. Tuitt, Patricia. 1996. False images: The law’s construction of the refugee. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  42. Tuitt, Patricia. 1999. Rethinking the refugee concept. In Refugee rights and realities, ed. Frances Nicholson, and Patrick Twomey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. UNHCR. 1951. Convention and protocol relating to the status of refugees. Available at Accessed 1 August 2013.
  44. UNHCR. 2011. Handbook on procedures and criteria for determining refugee status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the status of refugees. HCR/IP/4/Eng/REV.1. Geneva: UNHCR.Google Scholar
  45. UNHCR. 2001. The international protection of refugees: Interpreting Article 1 of the 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees. Refugee Survey Quarterly 20: 77–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cases Cited

  1. Adan and Others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [1999] 1 A.C. 293.Google Scholar
  2. Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689.Google Scholar
  3. Eain v. Wilkes 641 F.2d 504 [1981].Google Scholar
  4. F.H. v. Sweden [2009] 32621/06.Google Scholar
  5. H.L.R. v. France [1997] 11/1996/630/813.Google Scholar
  6. INS v. Elias-Zacarias 112 S.Ct. 812 [1992].Google Scholar
  7. Jeltsujeva v. Netherlands [2004] 39858/04.Google Scholar
  8. Matter of Acosta, Interim Decision 2986, [1985] WL 56042, United States Board of Immigration Appeals.Google Scholar
  9. Mendis v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [1988] WL 1608759.Google Scholar
  10. N v. UK [2008] 26565/05.Google Scholar
  11. N.A. v. United Kingdom [2008] 25904/07.Google Scholar
  12. Omoruyi v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2000] WL 1480010.Google Scholar
  13. Othman (Abu Qatada) v. UK [2012] 8139/09.Google Scholar
  14. Quinn v Robinson 783 F 2d 776 [1986].Google Scholar
  15. R. v. Special Immigration Adjudicator [2000] WL 699382.Google Scholar
  16. Ravichandran v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [1996] Imm. A.R. 97; Times, October 30, 1995, available at
  17. Re Castioni [1891] 1 Q.B. 149.Google Scholar
  18. Re Meunier [1894] 2 Q.B. 415.Google Scholar
  19. Secretary of State for the Home Department v. Ahmed [1999] WL 1071271.Google Scholar
  20. S.H.H. v. UK [2013] 60367.Google Scholar
  21. Sufi and Elmi v. UK [2011] 8319/07.Google Scholar
  22. T v. Immigration Officer [1996] 2 A.C. 742.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Law SchoolUniversity of East Anglia, Norwich Research ParkNorwichUK

Personalised recommendations