LAUSR

politics of their host states. This may mean involvement in violent armed groups. Alternatively, refugees have also become involved in nonviolent campaigns, become important voting blocs in elections, and even fielded candidates for political office in some cases. Such behavior in refugee populations indicates that a crisis in the hosting of refugees may be precipitated not only by sudden increases in their number or changes in the type of refugees, as the author suggests (pp. 32–34). It may also result from refugee behavior within host states. Orchard’s work neglects this avenue for crisis to occur. Given the harsh reactions of host countries in the EU, Canada, and the United States to terrorist attacks in places such as Nairobi, Paris, Istanbul, and Ankara, this avenue for crisis merits significant consideration. Host state responses to crises facilitated by the political behavior of refugees also raise a concern with Orchard’s depiction of host states as “protecting” refugees. This “protection” is only from origin states. Host states and their populations have engaged in anti-refugee repression and violence in every region of the world, from Europe to Africa to the Middle East. While Orchard’s primary concern is in the international refugee system, there is a striking gap in his analysis when he only minimally discusses how host states treat refugees after they accept them. With A Right to Flee, we have a substantial contribution to our understanding of the deliberations over, and evolution of, the international system for managing refugee flows. However, this contribution is limited by an inherent selection bias in the analysis of norm entrepreneurs, by conceptual confusion over state protection versus hosting of refugees, and by empirical oversights in its lack of engagement with the challenges of protracted refugee crises and anti-refugee repression and violence. Addressing these shortcomings would yield still greater insight into the political contention involved in hosting refugees.