The Ten Commandments of my Method

Why I cannot be accused of being a nihilist, relativist or a proponent of cynical reason ‘When someone else does what I couldn't do I learn that my failure was a Failure of skill; and there is suggestive evidence in the failure of others that my failure Was a consequence of the properties of the field.' First Commandment is to read widely, before I make conclusions on a theory. The important thing for me is to view all sides of the subject, being inclined to deviate to what I know I have to make a constant effort to make sense of other views and try to understand the varied views on ontologism. Second commandment I realize that legal reasoning in the field of human rights comes from understanding the ontological and realizing that whatever my ontology provide a basis for why I subscribe to it. I continue reading but with the mind set of whatever I believe needs to be reacted on in a critical manner. Critical thinking has often been a weak point for me, am learning to develop it here and not take things as they are without a basis or argument for my beliefs. Third Commandment is to come down on critical analysis, here I am researching but internalizing the concepts. At this stage am asking myself questions such as, why and how I have come up with the arguments. To internalize for me is to exclude voices that may otherwise interfere with my epistemology. What is directing my sense on a subject becomes the most important thing as it leads me to my fourth Commandment Fourth commandment who am I writing for? What is it I want to put forward? So what if I write this? Does anything change? Is it for my satisfaction or it is about bringing some form of change to this world? And the audience in a way starts to guide me. Fifth Commandment: This stage is never definite but at this point is where the paper starts to take shape. I set to work on the problem in human rights and start to provide arguments that defend or refute it. Here I see myself as a force of change in the politicization of refugees, and my job here is to view how African nations can best fulfill their responsibility in the protection of the refugee. Ontology and essentialism are key for me at this stage and I know I am not a nihilist because human rights is linked quite intimately with morality and enhances the idea that human beings should be treated with the uttermost respect and dignity. It is often at this stage when critiquing on one level becomes problematic as I get deeper into essentialism. Sixth commandment: The moment there is a click, I start to write my paper. It does not matter whether I start a paragraph, or the introduction, I just write. Usually there comes a point when I stop writing and return to the internalizing, research and reading process. What is interesting is that once I have started writing, the arguments start to flow; so even after I retreat to an internalizing mode, the writing gets easier because I have already chosen a path; the ideas get clearer as I flesh them out with analogies. The reason I cannot be accused of being a relativist is that this is the point where judgment is not relative to the individuals in the situation involved. In my view if it is to uphold the dignity and respect for human rights, it does not matter what a culture is based on, the standard should be to uphold the dignity of the human being. For instance if female genital cutting is done to women, my argument would be why the woman? Does she have a say to what is done to her? Why is it that it is her and not the man? How does it affect her? Does it show dignity and respect for the human being in her? Would the man have this done on himself if there was a way to do it? These may be simplistic arguments yet the questions are driving at finding a place where the woman can be treated with dignity and respect. Seventh commandment: At this stage I am never sure whether am on the right path or pretty much staggering between subjectivism and objectivity. This is the stage where Peer reviewing is most helpful, whether it is having someone look at my work or asking people questions about what they think of my views. Intentionality becomes critical as reviewing my question provides a clear image of what I am out to do and this aligns my paper to the arguments. Reviewing the question brings me to the teleogical argument as the question for me is often the center of the paper, therefore coming back to it time and again is useful. Eighth commandment: here is where I am able to view the contradictions and criticisms that others may have about my topic. After the criticisms I have to remind myself not to crash as I am doing this with a motivation for change and not a self satisfaction mission. Criticisms am learning make me stronger and better. More to that they help me understand that I have been successful at coming up with an argument and there exist views that very from my own. So I welcome the criticisms. Ninth commandment: After the criticisms, I try to define my position, basing my legal arguments with facts. Here I am aware that my audience will have several varying positions but my work and plan is to allow them view my arguments, my position may never be clear because to take a stand in law can become problematic. At this point I try to do away with the auto poetic-ness of the law. As a human rights research writer it is imperative for me to explore the surrounding arguments- selecting a limited view of a few subjects- outside the field of law and not just focusing on a specific subject as pure Law does. My job is to present positive and negative aspects of my argument. This is a critical point in my research because if I fail to do this well then my position and the goal of the paper is tarnished. So my job is to focus on conveying a message to my audience and doing it well. Tenth commandment: Define my goals for writing and structure my writing in such a way that I am understood without trying to be verbose, using present tense and focusing on who the audience is, for instance if I am writing with the goal of presenting ideas for change my sentences will be precise and concise whereas if I am writing for the purpose of critiquing theory, my sentences maybe be longer. As I conclude my methodology, my question (ontology, metaphysics, epistemology), goals (utilitarianism, teleogical arguments, intentionality, post realism auto poetics) and audience (essentialism, structuralism, legal liberalism) stand out as the most important aspects of my research.

Book Review UNHCR

GIL LOESCHER, ALEXANDER BETTS & JAMES MILNER, UNHCR: THE POLITICS AND PRACTICE OF REFUGEE PROTECTION INTO THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY, (Routledge 2008) UNHCR’s core mandate is to ensure international protection for refugees and finding durable solutions to their plight. Considering the complexities of refugee problems in the 21st century, why is UNHCR stretching itself thin in taking over all responsibility for refugees over host countries of asylum? Why does UNHCR appear to work outside State help in host countries and what is the politics behind its practice? UNHCR The politics and practice of refugee protection in the twenty-first century explores the responsibilities the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) as an organization encounters. It creates a concise yet in-depth examination of the formation, structure, challenges and the future of the UNHCR in the 21st century. It delves into defining the scope and role of the organization under the 1951 Refugee Convention stating that the office was conceived to work with states to ensure refugees access to protection and to ensure that refugees would have access to durable solutions. The book comments that UNHCR has constantly been in an ambiguous position of; on the one hand, representing states interests and being dependent upon donor state funding and, on the other hand needing to influence states in order to persuade them to fulfill their humanitarian obligations towards refugees. It recognizes that striking a balance between protection and representing States interests has been the organization’s greatest challenge. The first three chapters give a background to the formation of UNHCR, its growth in the cold war and post cold war era, creating a backdrop to how UNHCR has stood the test of time and how it has expanded to fit other responsibilities such as Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs). The authors explore the origins of international concern for refugees and its emergence in the aftermath of the First World War; it explains how the dire political context of the two World Wars and the emergence of the Cold War shaped the early global refugee regime, which led to the creation of UNHCR in 1950. The authors discuss UNHCR‘s growth in the Cold War between 1950 and 1991 and the insuperable obstacles it faced in fulfilling its mandate and gives some examples of the limitations it had to adhere to, it explores UNHCR’s expansion to the developing world in Algeria, Angola, and Hong Kong placing the context in light of the changing commissioners who have led and contributed distinctly to the work of UNHCR. The Post cold war era which ushered in momentous changes in international politics is a key focus in chapter three. It gives a summarized version of UNHCR’s response to humanitarian emergencies in intra-state conflicts in light of its significant growth from a small office of 30 staff in the 1950s to the global organization with a staff of more than 6500 in 116 countries. The last two chapters examine the debates surrounding issues of UNHCR stretching itself to assume additional functions such as the role in responding to IDP situations, development initiatives or work in countries of origin. The concluding chapter presents the UNHCR as a global institution and analyzes its structure within the UN system. It defines it as an independent organization represented in the High Commissioner with a bureaucracy embedded in its own unique culture, value system and a strong relationship with donors. The book provides an interesting, yet longwinded presentation when it gives a detailed description of the work of UNHCR and how its ability to fulfill its core mandate responsibilities has been increasingly challenged by the actors of states, the changing international humanitarian environment and the changing nature of forced displacement. It explores UNHCR’s evolving role in the protection of IDPs and the challenges and controversies this involves. The authors close the presentation by highlighting the challenges UNHCR faces in responding to the needs of refuges which is greatly contained by the increasing restrictive refugee policies adopted by states. It sets out a vision for UNHCR’s future role in the global regime, outlining key challenges, that it will face and how it can best respond to them and ends by assessing the wider implications of the book’s analysis of UNHCR for understanding the role of international organizations in global governance. Those who have read Gil Loescher’s previous work GIL LOESCHER, BEYOND CHARITY: INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AND THE GLOBAL REFUGEE CRISIS (Oxford University Press 1993) (1996) will know that it provides one of the most extensive overviews of the world refugee crisis today and argues persuasively that a central challenge in the post Cold-War era is to develop a comprehensive refugee policy that preserves the right of asylum while promoting greater political and diplomatic efforts to address the causes of flight, he presents the contemporary crisis in a historical framework and explores the changing role of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. In a THE UNHCR AND WORLD POLITICS: A PERILOUS PATH (Oxford University Press 2001), Loescher takes a similar trend and describes the UNHCR’s path to wards embracing more than just its mandate. In James Milner’s previous book (co-author) REFUGEES, THE STATE AND THE POLITICS OF ASYLUM IN AFRICA (Palgrave Macmillan 2009), he outlines the broad range of factors that influence the asylum policies of African states. Building from these lessons, the book outlines the politics of asylum in Africa and proposes a new approach to addressing the needs of the continent's refugees. With this background come three major criticisms; Readers will therefore be quite disappointed as this book (UNHCR) draws and repeats major issues such as UNHCR being caught up in world politics and how that has caused it to expand away from its mandate. Being another of his works based on UNHCR, readers may expect Gil Loescher to take on the role of suggesting to UNHCR specific ways on how to handle problems expressed in his former work with specific regard to details on situations that UNHCR has experienced in its course of existence. Detailed examples and a clear way forward would have been expected from such a legend in the refugee field. The book seems to be another historical analysis of UNHCR and an informative research on challenges facing UNHCR in the 21st century with concluding recommendations that are familiar to us. With Gil Loescher and James Milner having already published books on the same issues discussed in UNHCR, one would come away wondering what the point of the latest book is. In some respects it is a summarized version of their works and yet a repetition of what they have been saying in several publications. It may be justified that this is their passion, to criticize UNHCR to the point that it starts to take up recommendations offered in their writings. Being the 21st century, the greatest benefit these authors may have on the complex UNHCR mission is to offer guidelines by analyzing individual crises in helping UNHCR keep states accountable in the protection of refugees. The book is co-authored by two upcoming and apparently outstanding researchers in the refugee field and former employees at the UNHCR offices in Geneva. It does not portray or elevate the co-authors voices as Loescher’s voice seems to override the two. It would have been beneficial if their voices were heard throughout the book providing insight to their individual views and experiences as UNHCR insiders. For those interested in understanding ways in which governmental structures and international organizations could be strengthened to assume more effective assistance and protection for refugees this is not the book to read. This book is for those who need to understand the complexities facing UNHCR in the 21st century and how it is widening its scope in fitting with internally displaced persons. It is a book for those who need to find an in-depth examination on the politics and practice of UNHCR today but does not add to the previous work by the authors.