Abstract
This paper offers a new perspective on the current refugee crisis, using Kant’s moral philosophy to understand accountability towards refugees. Kant contrasts the duty of justice with his duty of virtue; the latter defined as an imperfect duty, the former as a perfect one. Imperfect duties are general prescriptions that allow some flexibility in how the obligation is fulfilled, whereas perfect duties are specific prescriptions that break moral codes when violated. The current refugee crisis, the largest since World War II, is creating new challenges for international institutions responsible for protecting refugees. Particularly challenging is the ambiguity of assigning and fulfilling the agreed upon responsibilities of protection. Humanitarianism, the guiding principle behind refugee protection, conceptualizes protection in terms of an imperfect duty that is both impossible to enforce and left to the discretion of the states responsible. Consequently, the humanitarian approach has resulted in failure to meaningfully act because states consider protection a voluntary duty of virtue. Refugee protection would be most effective if operating within a functioning international system that assigns duty of protection to specific state actors. Thus, states would conceive of refugee protection as a duty of justice: a duty that is perfect, obligatory, and enforceable.