Alise Coen, Ph.D.
coena@uwgb.edu
Associate Professor
University of Wisconsin-Green Bay
About Me:
I am Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, where I am also Chair of the Public & Enviromental Affairs interdisciplinary unit. My research focuses on refugees, global governance, human rights, and U.S. foreign policy. My work has appeared in journals such as International Relations, International Affairs, Ethics & International Affairs, Politics & Religion, and The International Journal of Human Rights. I am currently writing a book about U.S. refugee policy and responsibility-sharing.
Research Interests
Human Rights
Refugees
Foreign Policy
Immigration & Citizenship
Human Rights Norms
Identity
Immigration
Refugee Policy
Syrian Refugee Crisis
Responsibility To Protect
Nativism
Polarization
US Foreign Policy
Migration And Displacement
Global Governance
Human Rights
North Africa MiddleEast
International Relations Theory
Discourse Analysis
Countries of Interest
United States
Syria
Afghanistan
My Research:
My research explores connections among displacement, human rights, international relations, and U.S. foreign policy. I am particularly interested in how refugee protection and international human rights principles at the global level interact with local political forces and identity narratives. The dynamics of belonging, discourse, and identity construction have been prominent themes in my research, along with global governance, human rights norms, and U.S. foreign policy. My book in progress, Reconfiguring Refugees, weaves together many of these areas to explore the role of national and subnational identity forces in shaping U.S. refugee protection and responsibility-sharing.
Publications:
Journal Articles:
A central challenge for the study of norms in International Relations entails understanding how meaning is enacted through use and local context. Amid trends towards governments reducing pathways of humanitarian migration, local constructions of meaning around refugeehood and the obligations owed to people fleeing persecution can influence global trajectories of containment and responsibility-sharing. As a means of advancing our understanding of norm localization and contestation, this article provides an account of how obligations around refugee protection are configured and contested among national and subnational authorities. Using a case study of discourses (re)produced among United States' federal, state and municipal leaders, it explores the multiple, complex layers of meaning which emerged around duties of care owed to foreign civilian ‘allies’ in the context of the 2021 Taliban takeover of Afghanistan. Beyond illustrating dynamics of localization and contestation, the article shows how domestic resistance to norm implementation can operate as a surrogate for wider visions of resisting liberal international principles. The case study more broadly contributes to understanding the conflicting logics associated with duties of care in the aftermath of military interventions.
States have increasingly moved away from refugee protection, intensifying the vulnerability of refugees and asylum-seekers. Drawing on theories of norm dynamics within International Relations (IR), this article argues that departures from refugee protection can be partly explained by the weakness of the normative principles governing the treatment of individuals fleeing persecution. Ambiguities, diverging interpretations, and varying levels of codification complicate efforts to hold states accountable to a complex bundle of human rights standards surrounding refugee and asylum protection. These weaknesses in the international refugee regime bolster norm-evading behavior wherein governments deliberately minimize their obligations while claiming technical compliance. Drawing on an analysis of US refugee and asylum policies under the Trump administration, the article reveals how norm evasion and accountability challenges emerge in the context of ambiguous standards vis-à-vis non-refoulement, non-detention, non-penalization, non-discrimination, and refugee responsibility-sharing.
Compliance with international human rights norms and respect for the rule of law are mutually sustaining pillars of a liberal international order. State behaviours undermining customary and jus cogens legal norms are exceptionally disruptive to possibilities of global justice. This article posits that non-refoulement and a responsibility to protect refugees are connected to universally binding and peremptory norms in important ways such that state violations of these principles undermine the premises of international legal order. The article focuses on US norm violations in these areas, contextualising policy changes under the Trump administration within previous US departures from refugee protection principles. Given the position of the United States as a hegemonic and democratic actor in the international system, the article argues that US actions contra non-refoulement and efforts to shirk refugee responsibility-sharing in the wake of jus cogens crimes are particularly damaging to the foundations of global human rights governance and attendant notions of legitimacy and the rule of law.
Facilitating access to asylum and other forms of refugee protection for the millions displaced by mass atrocities in Syria and Iraq is essential to the implementation of the international norm of the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP). This responsibility, however, has been disproportionately shouldered by several states in the Middle East and Europe. This article explores the challenges associated with refugee responsibility-sharing in the context of RtoP and draws on work in climate justice and political realism to articulate a framework for integrating culpability as a key criterion in allocating states’ responsibilities to protect refugees. An empirical and normative assessment of U.S. responsibilities to protect refugees in the cases of conflict-induced displacement in Syria and Iraq outlines several potential paths of culpability. The article ultimately argues for greater attention to culpability, equity, and legitimacy within the discourse surrounding RtoP and refugee protection. The article also advocates linking the benefits of refugee responsibility-sharing with states’ national interests and highlights several such links with regard to U.S. responsibilities in Syria and Iraq.
This study explores depictions of Islam in Senate rhetoric across the 106th (1999–2000) and 111th (2009–2010) Congresses. These two periods are compared to consider overall patterns in congressional discourse on Islam and to explore how the September 11th, 2001 attacks might have shaped this discourse. The study also examines the possible effects of ideology, partisanship, and senator religious affiliation on representations of Islam. The article ultimately suggests that despite some important post-September 11 shifts in Senate rhetoric pertaining to Islam, persistent themes regarding securitization, Orientalist tendencies, moderate-fundamentalist dichotomizations, and ideological divisions merit scrutiny. This study contributes to work on Congress, religion, and American politics by assessing trends in the discursive representation of Islam by United States legislators. Theoretically, the article draws upon the Copenhagen School in International Relations to assess the securitization of Islam within legislative debates and to develop the related concept of normalization.
Research into how civilian casualties influence public opinion largely focuses on citizens’ support for the use of force by their own countries. This study explores how civilian casualties and partisan cues shape support for the use of force by an ally in a foreign conflict. Specifically, it assesses the effects of civilian casualty inequity – the uneven distribution of civilian casualties across two sides in a conflict – on Americans’ support for Israel. Drawing on an original survey experiment conducted during the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict, the article bridges work on inequity aversion theory, party identification, and social identity theory. It finds that civilian casualty inequity information reduces support for Israel, particularly among Independents. The study also finds that adding explicit partisan criticism cues to civilian casualty inequity information does not appear to induce motivated evaluations of Israel among Republicans or Democrats. An important implication is that under conditions of greater media coverage of civilian casualty inequity, Americans – particularly Independents – might become less supportive of Israel even in the absence of elite criticism of Israel.
This article bridges Responsibility to Protect (R2P) with work on Global Governance (GG). Both are products of a normative shift away from state-centric conceptualizations of authority and towards collective efforts to address transnational problems where traditional (State) governance mechanisms are absent or have failed. By assessing the governance architecture of R2P and of refugee protection in the case of Syria, the article sheds light on how global structures of authority interact with national and local systems. The constraints on agents operating at multiple levels of authority and the inequalities inherent in these structures have important implications for the effectiveness of R2P outcomes. Given the power asymmetries associated with the governance architecture of R2P and the proxy war in Syria, the article argues that the use of coercive intervention under R2P’s Pillar Three risks further de-legitimization of the concept itself. As an alternative, the article calls for greater emphasis on R2P as refugee protection, particularly in light of the largest refugee crisis in the post-World War II era. The international community can take immediate and important steps towards fulfilling R2P by responding to the millions displaced by mass atrocity crimes.
Book Chapters:
International Relations (IR) is increasingly concerned with how transnational forces, originating and operating outside the traditional domain of the state, wield influence on states’ policy decisions and outcomes. While IR scholars have begun to uncover the myriad challenges to state authority in the Middle East, derived from transnational religious movements, diasporas, and phenomena associated with the “new Arab media,” little work has related such transnational challenges to the study of Global Governance. Bearing in mind Craig Murphy’s observation that Global Governance has been “poorly done and poorly understood,” this chapter examines three manifestations of Islamist transnationalism in the Middle East to consider the empirical and theoretical implications for Global Governance: (1) the Muslim Brotherhood; (2) Hamas; and (3) Hizbullah. Empirically, these case studies present several trends regarding societal expectations of, and organizational competition over, governance in the Middle East. Theoretically, the chapter addresses the debate regarding what constitutes “Global Governance” and explores the tension between national and transnational elements of Islamist authority in the Middle East.
Other:
Teaching International Relations (IR) amid COVID-19 reiterates the differential effects of pandemics in terms of both asymmetrical impacts among students as well as compounded layers of vulnerability in global politics. This essay advances three pandemic pedagogy motifs: (1) being attentive to how our students’ lives are impacted in uneven ways by the pandemic; (2) using the pandemic as a lens for scrutinizing themes of layered vulnerability in global politics; and (3) confronting the inherent unknowability that animates both global politics and teaching amid a pandemic.
Depictions of Islam and Muslim identity in the United States have gained renewed attention with President Trump’s January 2017 executive order temporarily barring immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries and indefinitely suspending the entry of all Syrian refugees. Legal scholars, advocacy groups, and the federal courts have been debating the constitutionality of the executive order. One concern is that it may be in tension with the U.S. Constitution’s Establishment Clause by favoring the entry of Christian refugees over Muslim refugees and by targeting countries with Muslim populations in an attempt to partially implement earlier campaign promises regarding a ban on Muslims entering the United States. Concerns about executive actions on immigration that discriminate against Muslims, the potential creation of a Muslim registry, rhetoric among lawmakers supporting the internment of Muslims, and a recent effort to revise U.S. counter-extremism to focus exclusively on Islamic extremism underscore the importance of understanding how Islam and Muslims are constructed in U.S. political discourse.
The world is witnessing unprecedented forced displacement due to conflict, persecution, and human rights violations. The conflict in Syria has been a major source of this displacement, producing over 7.6 million internally displaced persons and over 4.8 million refugees. The escalation of armed conflict in Iraq since 2014 has also contributed to a dire humanitarian and displacement crisis, and recent data indicate that Iraq is one of the three main origin countries—along with Syria and Afghanistan—for asylum seekers and migrants arriving in Europe. The conflicts in Syria and Iraq have been characterized by mass atrocity crimes including war crimes, crimes against humanity, and possible acts of genocide. As the death tolls and casualties associated with attempts to flee these conflicts continue to rise, the failure of the international community to adequately protect civilian populations targeted by violence underscores concerns regarding the international norm of Responsibility to Protect (R2P). Over ten years after its acceptance by all member states at the United Nations World Summit, the framework for collectively responding to mass atrocities when states have manifestly failed to protect their populations remains weakened by critiques of selective use and by its conflation with coercive humanitarian intervention in the aftermath of its application in Libya. R2P’s association with controversial coercive measures threatens to undermine its legitimacy and overlooks important non-coercive opportunities for implementing the human protection principles that are at its core. In particular, in the wake of mass atrocity situations, facilitating access to asylum and other forms of protection for refugees and displaced persons represents an essential step towards fulfilling R2P.
Media Appearances:
Radio Appearances:
How Biden's new immigration policy affects migration from Cuba, Haiti and Nicaragua
Republican Governors Flying, Bussing Migrants to Democratic Cities
President Biden Reverses Some Trump Immigration Orders
Where the Biden Administration Stands on Refugees
Afghan Refugees to Settle in Wisconsin
The Latest Immigration News
Displacement and the Syrian Conflict
What Immigration Policy May Look Like Under Biden Administration
Trump administration imposing new work visa restrictions
Gov. Tony Evers Reaffirms Wisconsin's Stance on Welcoming Refugees
BBC Radio 5 Live's Up All Night on International Response to the Syrian Conflict
President Trump Announces Mass Deportation as Re-Election Campaign Kicks Off
Trump Administration Moves to Terminate Long Held Legal Agreement Limiting How Long Undocumented Children Can Be Detained
White House Considered Sending Asylum Seekers to Sanctuary Cities
President Trump's New Immigration Proposal to Prioritize 'Merit-Based' System
Tucson Voters Will Soon Decide Whether to Declare 'Sanctuary City'
Trump Administration Says It Will Separate Families Crossing Into U.S. Illegally
Trump Expresses Desire to End Due Process for Undocumented Immigrants
Immigration in America: U.S. Attitudes towards Refugees
Pres. Trump and Advisers Weigh U.S. Response Following Suspected Chemical Attack in Syria
The Role of 'Chain Migration' in the Immigration Debate
Trump Administration Admitting Fewer Refugees in the Coming Year
Why a Group of Honduran Migrants is Seeking Asylum in the U.S.
The Future of Trump's Asylum Ban
"Perspectives on Syrian Refugee Crisis"
Newspaper Quotes:
Zanzibar's Tiny Syrian Refugee Community Seeks Slice of Paradise
"Syrian Opposition Leader Hopes U.S. Strike 'Beginning of the End' of Civil War"
"What We Talk about When We Talk about ‘Normalizing’ Donald Trump: A Political Science Professor Weighs In"
Blog Posts:
Afterthoughts: Ukraine and Dilemmas of Displacement
How Local Leaders Shape Refugee Protection
Political Talk: The Political Implications of Pandemic Language
Changes in US Immigration Conversation Signal Departure from Responsibility Sharing
What Do You Mean By "Immigrants?"
U.S. Involvement in Syria Warrants Responsibility to Syrians Fleeing Violence
Trump's Zero Tolerance Could Undermine International Rule of Law
Where Due Process Is Missing, Migrant Children Go Missing Too