Recently, in Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom, tribunals determining refugee status appear to have adopted the position that North Korean refugee claimants are indeed South Korean nationals (and thus dual nationals). Accordingly, unless North Korean claimants can demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution in the Republic of Korea (South Korea), they should be denied international protection under the Refugee Convention. A well-founded fear of persecution has long been recognized as the core element of refugee status in international refugee law. However, a growing number of scholars have begun to challenge the dominance of this view of refugee status. The emerging perspective points to lack of state protection as the essential aspect of refugee status. According to this 'protection perspective', refugee status is premised on the assumption that there should be a meaningful protection relationship between a state and its citizens that reflects the normative values formalized in the legal concept of 'nationality' or 'citizenship'. According to this emerging view, one should look beyond merely theoretical nationality and determine whether each nationality of a refugee is effective. This understanding of nationality in the context of the refugee determination process gives rise to a new juridical approach in which the claims of North Korean refugees should be assessed according to different criteria. This article argues that, at least in cases of dual nationality, the protection perspective should be adopted. Where the facts permit, international protection should be provided to North Korean refugees, even outside South Korea. © The Author (2016).

[No Keywords available]

national security Canada refugee international law citizenship