This article examines the changes towards more gender-sensitive interpretations of refugee status in international and national asylum laws and policies within the context of contemporary and historical global power relations. It also analyzes the changes in the language that can be found in the international UNHCR guidelines for the protection of women asylum seekers, U.S. national guidelines for assessing gender-related asylum claims, and recent U.S. court decisions assessing the gendered claims of women. Among the analyzed court cases, the focus is on the 2005 Mohammed case due to its problematic court decision and legal interpretations. Finding the Western countries’ instrumentalization of the international refugee protection system crucial for understanding the contemporary asylum system and women asylum seekers, the argument connects the historical conditions with the way in which the protection of women refugees from “cultural” gendered violence has been articulated in asylum politics in the U.S. The author’s overall findings are that international law, governmental organizations, and liberal women’s human rights NGOs have shaped the international and national legal protection of (women) asylum seekers in such a way that it reproduces global inequalities in its representation of “Third World” women and their culture, uses women asylum seekers fleeing from violence for the purpose of exercising Western cultural superiority, and covers up the restrictive and racist Western asylum politics towards immigrants and asylum seekers.
展开▼
