Chapter 11: International Law & Human Rights – Aliens, Asylum, and Humanitarianism

11.1: Case Study – District 9 (2009)

At its core, international law serves as the foundation for global cooperation, ensuring that states interact under a set of agreed-upon rules rather than descending into chaos and conflict. Among the most vital aspects of international law is the protection of human rights. However, enforcing these rights on a global scale is complex, often clashing with state sovereignty and cultural differences. To explore these challenges, we turn to the 2009 sci-fi film District 9, which presents a gripping allegory for human rights violations, xenophobia, and refugee rights.

Set in an alternate version of South Africa, follows the arrival of a stranded alien species—derogatorily called “prawns”—whose massive spaceship hovers above Johannesburg. Rather than being welcomed, the aliens are forced into slum-like camps under harsh, oppressive conditions, closely resembling the apartheid-era treatment of Black South Africans. The story follows Wikus van de Merwe, a bureaucrat from the Multinational United (MNU) corporation, who is tasked with evicting the aliens from their settlement. However, after an accident exposes him to alien biotechnology, Wikus finds himself in a situation all too familiar to many others. The film serves as a powerful metaphor for real-world human rights violations, refugee crises, and the moral dilemmas surrounding discrimination and sovereignty. This allows us to analyze how international law attempts to protect vulnerable populations while grappling with political resistance and cultural biases. Check out the first three minutes of the film below to get a sense of a world where aliens are not here to invade, but rather refugees with a broken spaceship.

The oppression of the alien population in District 9 mirrors South Africa’s history of apartheid. Under apartheid, Black South Africans were forced into segregated townships, denied political rights, and treated as second-class citizens. In the film, the aliens are subjected to similar treatment—confined to slums, denied basic legal protections, and subjected to violent policing. This reflects how state policies can systemically enforce human rights abuses under the guise of law and order. International law has long struggled with how to intervene in such cases, as seen with the global response to apartheid, which led to economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation of South Africa until the regime was dismantled. The challenge remains today in countries where state-sponsored discrimination persists, raising questions about when the international community should step in and whether sovereignty should ever be overridden to protect human rights.

One of the most powerful themes in District 9 is xenophobia, which fuels discrimination and human rights violations worldwide. In the film, the human population views the aliens as dangerous and inferior, justifying their harsh treatment. This reflects real-world attitudes toward marginalized groups, from anti-immigrant sentiment in the United States and Europe to the persecution of the Rohingya in Myanmar. Check out the clip below and as you hear the characters talk about the aliens, imagine replacing the terms “alien” or “prawn” with any marganilized group here in the real world. Xenophobia often leads to the creation of exclusionary policies, including strict immigration laws, refugee detention centers, and even ethnic cleansing. International human rights law, particularly the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), asserts that all individuals deserve equal treatment regardless of nationality or background. However, as seen in both history and contemporary politics, states frequently violate these principles, prioritizing national security and cultural identity over the protection of vulnerable populations. The alienation of the prawns in District 9 serves as a stark reminder of how deeply ingrained xenophobia can be, making the enforcement of human rights a constant challenge.

Under international law, refugees are entitled to certain legal protections, including the right to seek asylum and protection from forced return to dangerous conditions. However, in District 9, the aliens exist in a legal gray area—treated as neither citizens nor refugees, they lack basic refugee rights and are subjected to forced displacement. This reflects real-world issues faced by stateless populations, such as the Palestinians, Kurds, and Rohingya, who are denied national recognition and legal protections. The 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol establish legal frameworks for protecting refugees, yet many countries resist full compliance, either due to political considerations or resource constraints. The film highlights how bureaucracies like the MNU—mirroring real-world government agencies—often prioritize political and corporate interests over humanitarian needs. This tension raises critical questions about the effectivenessnon-discrimination principle of international human rights protections when states are unwilling to uphold them.

One of the main components of international human rights law is the non-discrimination principle, which holds that individuals should not face discrimination based on race, nationality, religion, or other identity factors. The alien population in District 9 is systematically denied rights and subjected to brutal treatment simply because they are different. This principle is enshrined in numerous international agreements, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), yet violations remain widespread. For example, ethnic minorities in China’s Xinjiang province and Indigenous communities in Latin America continue to experience state-sponsored discrimination. The film underscores how human rights violations persist when legal frameworks exist but lack enforcement, leaving marginalized groups vulnerable. This dilemma raises a central question in international law: how can the global community ensure that states respect non-discrimination principles without infringing on national sovereignty?