Forced displacement has reached unprecedented levels, with over 123 million people uprooted worldwide, challenging the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol. Contemporary drivers—including armed conflict, non-state violence, political repression, and climate-induced instability—produce complex, multi-causal migration that traditional legal frameworks struggle to address. Rather than adapting protections, states such as the United Kingdom and the United States increasingly employ securitised, deterrence-oriented measures, including the UK Illegal Migration Act 2023, U.S. expedited removal, and terrorism-related inadmissibility grounds. These policies operationalise exclusion, criminalisation, and externalisation, disproportionately harming women, children, LGBTQ+ individuals, and others whose persecution falls outside conventional doctrinal categories. Through comparative analysis, this article demonstrates how deterrence-first approaches undermine the humanitarian core of refugee law. It advocates for modernised, gender-responsive, and context-sensitive interpretations, procedural safeguards, oversight of digital and externalisation mechanisms, and multilateral responsibility-sharing to restore the normative integrity of international refugee protection.
Abstract This article investigates Finnish policies on Indigenous Peoples’ tenure rights in between global standards and domestic debate. Some persisting failures are analysed through an environmental justice framework. These are linked to the non-recognition of the Sámi as tenure right holders which moreover influences their negotiation power within development processes and their ability to benefit from those. Failures persist despite the obligations of the international law to respect Indigenous Peoples’ tenure rights, safeguards embedded in the Finnish Constitution, and recent legal improvements in the Sámi self-determination and procedural rights. The resistance by the majority and the ideal of equal treatment for all citizens explain the weak appreciation of indigenousness in Finland. The prevailing situation creates a paradox for Finland otherwise portraying itself as a frontrunner in human rights. Global challenges, that pressure Indigenous Peoples’ territories around the world, invite positioning strongly in favour of their tenure rights domestically and internationally.
Abstract The Nile Basin’s hydro political deadlock is analysed through Critical Discourse Analysis, revealing how nationalist narratives hinder cooperation. Egypt views Ethiopia’s GERD as a threat to colonial-era water rights, while Ethiopia focuses on postcolonial sovereignty and development. Sudan’s position is influenced by internal instability and shifting alliances. These narratives reinforce power imbalances and exclude smaller riparian states and marginalized communities from decision-making. Current institutions fail to promote trust, equitable resource sharing, or inclusive governance. However, opportunities for cooperation arise from functional interdependence and shared vulnerabilities. The GERD’s operation is reshaping hydrological dynamics, promoting cooperation in dam operations and regional energy integration. Coordinated water management could benefit Sudan by improving irrigation and dam safety. Cross-border energy projects and shared climate vulnerabilities offer further incentives for collaboration. While current institutions are weak, platforms like the NBI and EAPP support incremental cooperation, offering a foundation for a more inclusive and equitable governance model.
Abstract While many African countries face democratic setbacks, authoritarianism, and electoral violence, Somaliland offers a compelling alternative. Since declaring independence from Somalia in 1991 without international recognition, Somaliland has held multiple peaceful and credible elections, sustained internal stability, and built a participatory political system with minimal foreign aid. This paper explores its hybrid democratic model, which blends traditional clan-based governance with modern multiparty politics. The integration of customary institutions has fostered local legitimacy, effective conflict resolution, and political consensus, allowing Somaliland to avoid the turmoil seen in neighboring states. Despite these achievements, Somaliland remains largely overlooked in global discourse. The paper argues this neglect is due to entrenched geopolitical interests, rigid interpretations of state sovereignty, and limited international interest. By examining Somaliland’s institutional innovations and community-driven democratic practices, this study calls on African states, scholars, and policymakers to recognize and learn from this underappreciated model of democratic governance.
