In refugee law, it is widely accepted that a person may qualify for international protection even if they have less than a fifty percent chance of being persecuted. However, there has been a creeping trend for decision-makers to use “imminence,” in the sense of time, as a factor in assessing the plausibility of such claims. This Article begins by surveying the elusive and incoherent notion of “imminence” in international law, including in self-defense, peacekeeping, international environmental law, and international human rights law. This analysis provides important context for the next part of the Article, which explores how imminence has been used in two illustrative contexts: protection from the (future) impacts of disasters and climate change and protection of children from anticipated harm. The Article concludes that “imminence” of harm, in a temporal sense, should never be a requirement for international protection.

Continue reading The Time Trap in International Protection