A Short History of International Refugee Law: The Early Years Guy S. Goodwin-Gill* 1. Introduction Where to begin? The history of international refugee law has been written many times already, and this brief introduction takes the creation of the League of Nations in 1920 as the point of departure, for the ‘modern’ system of protection is inextricably linked to another story – the twentieth century’s first attempts at cooperation on matters of international concern.1 The early activities attracted comment on law and practice at the time,2 and more recent narratives have served both academic and forensic purposes – to demonstrate the personal impact of individuals, such as Fridtjof Nansen, the first High Commissioner for refugees;3 Gustave Ador, President of the International Committee of the Red Cross;4 Herbert Hoover and the American Relief Association;5 or James Grover McDonald, the High Commissioner for Refugees (Jewish and other) coming from Germany.6 History has * Professor of Law, University of New South Wales and Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law; Emeritus Fellow, All Souls College, Oxford. A shorter version of this paper will appear in Cathryn Costello, Michelle Foster & Jane McAdam, eds., Oxford Handbook of International Refugee Law (forthcoming, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021). 1 See F. P. Walters, A History of the League of Nations, London: Oxford University Press, 1952. 2 See, for example, (1939) 203 Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science – Refugees; Louise W. Holborn, ‘The League of Nations and the Refugee Problem’, ibid., 124; J. Fischer Williams, ‘Denationalization’, (1929) 8 British Yearbook of International Law 45; Norman Bentwich, ‘The League of Nations and Refugees’, (1935) 16 British Yearbook of International Law 114; R. Y. Jennings, ‘Some International Law Aspects of the Refugee Problem’, (1939) 20 British Yearbook of International Law 98. 3 See E. E. Reynolds, Nansen, Penguin, 1949; (2003) 22 Refugee Survey Quarterly, Special issue: Fridtjof Nansen and the International Protection of Refugees. 4 See Société Gustave Ador: www.ador.ch. 5 Matthew L. Adams, ‘Herbert Hoover and the Organization of the American Relief Effort in Poland (1919-1923)’, (2009) European Journal of American Studies 4-2 | 2009: http://journals.openedition.org/ejas/7627; https://doi.org/10.4000/ejas.7627; Hoover Institution: www.hoover.org/events/american-relief-administration-soviet-russia. 6 See James G. McDonald, Refugees and Rescue: The Diaries and Papers of James G. McDonald, 1935-1945, Richard Breitman, Barbara McDonald Stewart, Severin Hochberg, eds., Indiana University Press, 2009; Advocate for the Doomed: The Diaries and Papers of James G. McDonald, 1932-1935, Richard Breitman, Barbara McDonald Stewart, Severin Hochberg, eds., Indiana University Press, 2007. 2 also been called in aid to trace the evolution of the refugee definition,7 or to track the consolidation of the principle of protection, or to show how States’ responses to refugees came to be organised, if never perfectly, in what today passes for the international refugee regime.8 This path has been trodden so often and so well, that little new is likely to emerge. International refugee law evolved within the politics of confrontation, mediated from time to time by the idealism of those participating in these first experiments in international cooperation, by the voices of individuals, including refugees, among the private voluntary agencies that provided relief and participated in international institutions, and by those who acted as advocates and interlocutors with governments. At times, the history seems to confirm the absence of any clear, consistent intent or commitment on the part of States, either to deal with causes and find solutions, or to regulate practice between themselves on the basis of rules, let alone vis-à-vis the individual refugee considered as agent and rights holder. The refugee is commonly portrayed as a transitory phenomenon and if he or she or they are to be treated otherwise than as just another foreigner, then it will be done reluctantly, with as little violation as possible of the State’s sovereign competence. Overall, however, the picture is more complex. Raising refugees to a known legal category and entrenching certain rights in their regard was certainly progress, but these days it is often offset by claims of national interest and national security. 1.1 The League of Nations The Covenant of the League of Nations was adopted as Part I of the Treaty of Versailles on 29 April 1919, and the organisation itself was inaugurated on 10 7 See J. C. Hathaway, ‘The Evolution of Refugee Status in International Law: 1920-1950’, (1984) 33 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 348: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/iclqaj/33.2.348 8 See Claudena M. Skran, Refugees in Inter-War Europe: The Emergence of a Regime, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985; ‘The International Refugee Regime: The Historical and Contemporary Context of International Responses to Asylum Problems’, (1992) 4 Journal of Policy History 8: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0898030600006485 3 January 1920, after the Peace Treaty came into force.9 At first glace, the Covenant appeared to allow little scope for involvement in humanitarian issues, but there were also sufficient references to social justice and ‘to the regulation of matters of international interest’ to open the way for action;10 and three issues resonated in the early years – the plight of prisoners of war, many of whom remained in exile years after the conclusion of hostilities; health matters, particularly when linked to famine and the threat of epidemics; and the anomalous situation of refugees without the protection of their country of origin or nationality. Here, politics were to play an important role, for many States were initially unwilling to recognize or otherwise deal with the Soviets, the Bolshevik revolution was seen as an affront to civilised government, and in several cases diplomats and consular officials from the old régime continued to exercise their functions.11 Some of the problems of population displacement brought about by the war, the October 1917 revolution and the collapse of the Ottoman and Austro- Hungarian empires were even then becoming apparent. Long-established religious minorities in the borderlands of Persia, Turkey and the British and French mandates were now unsettled, with the plight of Assyrian and Armenian refugees in Mesopotamia the subject of lengthy correspondence between those responsible in the field and the ministries and cabinet office in London.12 With regard to a 9 1 League of Nations Official Journal (hereafter LNOJ) 3; [1919] UKTS 4 (Cmd. 153). The original members who ratified the Peace Treaty were Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, British Empire (Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, India), France, Guatemala, Italy, Japan, Poland, Peru, Siam, Czecho-Slovakia, and Uruguay; the Argentine Republic, Chile, Paraguay, Persia and Spain had also acceded by the end of 1919: 1 LNOJ 12. 10 Ibid., Article 23: Members of the League will endeavour (a) ... to secure and maintain fair and humane conditions of labour... (f) ... to take steps in matters of international concern for the prevention and control of disease. See also the reference in Article 25 to ‘the improvement of health, the prevention of disease and the mitigation of suffering throughout the world.’ Cf. Article 11, second paragraph: ‘It is also declared to be the friendly right of each Member of the League to bring to the attention of the Assembly or of the Council any circumstance whatever affecting international relations which threatens to disturb international peace or the good understanding between nations upon which peace depends.’ 11 Hsu Fu-yung, La protection des réfugiés par la Société des Nations, Lyon: Bosc Frères, M & L Riou, 1935, 94-98; Roger Nathan-Chapotot, Les Nations Unies et les réfugiés, Paris: Pedone, 1949, 5-11 (the sometimes pathological role of ideology); Guy S. Goodwin-Gill, ‘The Politics of Refugee Protection’, (2008) 27 Refugee Survey Quarterly 8. 12 See ‘The Assyrian and Armenian Refugees in Mesopotamia.’ Memorandum by the Secretary of State for India, 5 July 1920: CAB 24/108/72; Memorandum by the Secretary of State for India, 4 November 1920: CAB 24/114/74, including Appendix and Enclosure B352, ‘Note on the Christian Communities in and around Mesopotamia’, 27 October 1920; Memorandum by the Secretary of State for War, 9 November 1920: CAB 24/114/83. 4 group of Assyrians, the Cabinet considered and later approved their being supplied with ‘rifles and a few mountain guns’, with which the refugees thought they could maintain themselves without further British assistance.13 Not long after, with the defeat of anti-Bolshevik forces in Russia in late 1920, the British and the French were to be found assisting with the evacuation of military and civilian refugees, their former allies, from the Crimea,14 each country acting unilaterally, with some cooperation at the working level.15 The British ‘contingent’ of about 4,500 refugees was initially dispersed in Egypt, Cyprus, Malta and the Serb-Croat-Slovene Kingdom, and they were eventually accepted for permanent settlement by Bulgaria and other countries, thanks to a British contribution of £150,000 (about £7 million at today’s value).16 13 Memorandum by the Secretary of State for India, 5 July 1920, above note; Memorandum by the Secretary of State for War, 9 November 1920, above note. The rifles were supplied; the mountain guns took some time. The Secretary of State for India noted, ‘that the harbouring and disposal of these refugees were nothing less than a debt of honour which it was impossible for His Majesty’s Government to repudiate’: 16 November 1920: CAB 24/115/1. 14 Britain took responsibility for what was known as the ‘Denikin’ evacuation and France for the ‘Wrangel’ movement: ‘Procès-Verbal of the Second Meeting of the Council (Private)’, (1922) 3 LNOJ 376.