THE GOOD LIE: MOVIE REVIEW

Internal Assessment III: International Humanitarian and Refugee Law

Sharmishtha Bharde

16010125013
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ 1

OVERVIEW OF THE MOVIE........................................................................................................ 2

FACTUAL BACKGROUND: THE REFUGEE CRISIS IN SUDAN..................................................... 4

LEGAL VIOLATIONS .................................................................................................................. 4

POSSIBLE ALTERNATE ENDING ................................................................................................ 6

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 7

1
 OVERVIEW OF THE MOVIE

‘The Good Lie’ is a powerful and moving story of four refugees from (South) Sudan who,
against all odds, survive through inhumane circumstances. The four refugees navigate through
problems that most of us in our privileged lives would never even think about as problems.

The movie starts on a sombre note, with a flashback to how the protagonists became refugees
in the first place. In a village in the southern part of Sudan, life is as it should be: children
playing, herding cattle, adults working. However, this is disrupted with the chilling sound of
an approaching helicopter over the village, heralding fear. As the scene unfolds, we see that
the refugees, then children, hide from the ensuing gunfire between the Sudanese government
and the Sudanese People’s Liberation Movement. A young Theo, who is the eldest of the group,
risks his life because he wants to know where their father is. Amongst the pile of bodies of
people he once considered his tribe, he finds his father, dead. In that moment, the audience is
made to realize the weight of responsibility Theo has to assume over a group of children. Over
the course of the next 20 minutes, no details are spared of the horrors that the children endure.
They undergo starvation, dehydration and a constant fear of being targeted by Sudanese
soldiers. One particular scene that was unforgettable for me was when the children, watching
one of their friends die from thirst, decide to drink urine and feel compelled to say “I want to
survive. I do not want to die.” In a world where we take running water as a given, it is hard to
digest that in several parts of the world, this is the reality for people. Throughout this flashback,
one cannot help but respect Theo, for he assumes responsibility and leads the children (whilst
being a child himself) better than even most adults could. The turning point is when Theo
sacrifices himself to save his brother Mamere so that the soldiers capture him instead. Mamere,
a child not older than 12, who has barely gotten over the fact that his entire family and village
is gone, is now compelled to step into the shoes of the ‘chief’. When the children finally find
the Kakuma Refugee Camp in Kenya, the relief is palpably seen on their faces and felt through
the screen. Even though they lose their friend, Daniel, along the way, they choose to move
forward while honouring those that were not fortunate enough to survive.

As the movie progresses, we see that Mamere has grown up to be a medical apprentice, and
has applied for refugee (like many others) in America, along with his sister and the two friends
he considers to be his brothers, Jeremiah and Paul. They have also made friends in the refugee
camp. After thirteen years of living in the refugee camp, we see that the four finally are
approved as refugees to the United States, through a lottery system. A memorable scene at this

2
point is when one of their dear friends – James has been shown to be rejected as a refugee, and
yet chooses to be overjoyed at his friends’ getting a better chance at life.

As the four arrive in the United States – this joy is short-lived because Mamere’s sister, Abital
has been relocated to Boston, while the other three will have to live in Kansas. It was easy to
comprehend Abital’s fear at the prospect of being separated from her brother and friends, in a
foreign country. After bidding adieu to Abital unwillingly, the three arrive in Kansas, only to
find an impatient employment counsellor, Carrie. Carrie has grown up acclimatized to the
entitlement and privileges, so much so that she does not think that the three are not used to city-
life. After finding them jobs, Carrie hopes to return to her everyday life, and for awhile she
does. The three are shown to become comfortable with their lives in America – until both
Jeremiah and Paul encounter conflict, for vastly different reasons. It is a moment for the
audience to self-reflect when Jeremiah is fired from his job for simply giving food to a homeless
woman, food that he was supposed to throw in the trash. Instead of giving it to people who
need it, people simply throw the food because apparently helping others is inconvenient than
simply throwing it in the trash. When Carrie asks him to reconsider, Jeremiah makes a
conscious decision that perhaps most people can never do: he chooses to adhere to his moral
principles than do something that is convenient. Paul, on the other hand, is lured into the world
of drugs by his co-workers and succumbs to forgetting his trauma of losing his brother.
Mamere, who is still determined to finish school and practice medicine, voices his concerns to
Carrie. As is expected, Paul runs into trouble and upon his arrest, both Mamere and Paul
confront each other, with Paul even accusing Mamere of killing Theo. Carrie, seeing the hell
that these men have gone through, finally taps into her empathy and decides to do something
more: bring Abital back. Abital’s return brings something more: an anonymous letter from the
Kakuma Refugee Camp claiming that Theo was alive. As the movie reaches its last segment,
we know that the two will be reunited, but the question remains – What after that? This is the
crucial question because even if Theo is found, we have been told that the United States is now
hesitant in taking in refugees, and so Theo would have to stay in the refugee camp.

The answer to this question, I believe, raises the most visceral emotion for Mamere: respect.
Mamere, after knowing that Theo will not get entry to America, chooses to repay back the
sacrifice that Theo made years ago: he chooses to stay back and makes Theo go to America
instead. When asked by Theo on why he lied to him that he had gotten the papers for him to
stay in America, Mamere calls it a ‘good lie’. This is a reference to an earlier scene in the
movie, where Mamere learns, while reading Huckleberry Finn, that a good lie is justified

3
because it helps someone else. Mamere’s act of kindness, motivated by love for his brother,
shows the true humanity amongst people, is evidence that the people who have encountered
something incredibly ugly in their lives still have the ability to choose kindness.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND: THE REFUGEE CRISIS IN SUDAN

The film is set in the background of the Second Sudanese War, which lasted for 22 years,
making it one of the longest civil wars in history. The conflict contributed to the deaths of an
estimated 2 million or more people and left more than 4 million people uprooted. Most of the
violence and population displacement occurred in the southern half of the country, home to an
estimated 5 million to 7 million people.1 This resulted in a huge amount of people fleeing the
regions, originally internally displaced but eventually forced to become refugees and seeking
shelter in other neighbouring countries. The conflict notoriously resulted in the displacement
of over 20,000 young boys, who had witnessed unimaginable horrors.2 United Nations workers
termed them ‘the lost boys of Sudan’, which ultimately inspired the creation of this movie. The
Lost Boys walked more than a thousand miles, half of them dying before reaching Kakuma
refugee camp in Kenya. The International Rescue Committee assisted in organizing the camp
in Kakuma and played a significant role in resettling nearly 4000 boys to the United States.

LEGAL VIOLATIONS

Article 1 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees3 has defined refugees to include
persons who may not have suffered any actual injury – because fear of persecution is sufficient
to claim refugee status – and to exclude persons whose human rights may have been seriously
violated, for instance in a civil war.4 Refugees are one of the most vulnerable groups in the
world, being constantly persecuted and having been driven out of their homes.5 Throughout
the movie, one can discern the gross violations of human rights occurring against the
protagonists, and yet they have little to no recourse against it in practicality. However, in law
at least, there are certain rights that have been accorded to people in similar situations as the
protagonists. This protection is granted to displaced persons and is considered vital to their

1
Sudan: Nearly 2 million dead as a result of the world's longest running civil war, U.S. Committee for Refugees,
2001.
2
The Lost Boys of Sudan, RESCUE, (Oct 3, 2014), https://www.rescue.org/article/lost-boys-sudan
3
189 United Nations Treaty Series [UNTS] (1954), pp. 137-221.
4
Report of the Group of Governmental Experts on International Co-operation to Avert New Flows of Refugees,
U.N. Doc. A/41/324, May 13, 1986, paras 8, 9, 66.
5
Note on International Protection, U.N. GAOR, Hum Rts. Comm., 41st Sess., 25, U.N. Doc. A/AC.96/750
(1990).

4
survival.6 Primarily, because the conflict was a non-international armed conflict, Common
Article 3 of the Geneva Convention7 was into force as it involved a non-State armed group
namely the Sudan People's Liberation Movement and the Sudanese government.

I. Attack against Civilians

The first legal violation is the attack on civilians, which is absolutely prohibited under
international humanitarian law, both in treaty8 as well as customary law.9 The principle of
distinction was clearly not followed by the armed groups, as in the first few minutes of the
movie, a village full of non-combatant civilians is attacked without any justification or clear
military objective. The principles of proportionality and military necessity were clearly not
followed, leading to a violation of international humanitarian law.

II. Attack against Children

The Fourth Geneva Convention comprises a great many provisions in favour of children. It
specifically states that:

“The Parties to the conflict shall take the necessary measures to ensure that children
under fifteen, who are orphaned or are separated from their families as a result of the
war, are not left to their own resources, and that their maintenance, the exercise of
their religion and their education are facilitated in all circumstances.”10

Article 4 of Additional Protocol II also comprises a paragraph devoted exclusively to children.

It stipulates that: " Children shall be provided with the care and aid they require". Further, the
Convention on the Rights of the Child also provides rights to children. In the movie, we can
see that such protection was blatantly taken away as children as young as 6 were orphaned.
They were left to fend for themselves, leading to dehydration and starvation. Starvation is
absolutely prohibited in international humanitarian law,11 and yet a young child amongst the
protagonists actually died as a result of not having access to food and water. Not just this, but

6
Guy S. Goodwin-Gill, Who is a Refugee?, in REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE: REFUGEES IN THE
WORLD-THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY'S RESPONSE 53, 60 (Deny de Jong & Alex Voets eds., 1989).
7
Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the
Field 75 U.N.T.S. 31 (“GC I”); Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and
Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, 75 U.N.T.S. 85 (“GC II”); Geneva Convention Relative to the
Treatment of Prisoners of War, 75 U.N.T.S. 135(“GC III”); Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of
Civilian Persons in Times of War, 75 U.N.T.S. 287 (“GC IV”), common article 3.
8
Protocol II Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and Relating to the Protection of Victims
of Non-International Armed Conflicts 1125 U.N.T.S. 609, article 13(2). [“Additional Protocol II”]
9
Customary IHL, ICRC, https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule1_sectiona
10
Additional Protocol II, article 24.
11
Additional Protocol II, art 14.

5
in one scene, the protagonists’ friend, hesitant of crossing a river, when chose to stay behind,
was shot by the soldiers. This harrowing scene shows how international protection accorded to
children is snatched away without seemingly no ramifications or consequences.

Further, even though we do not exactly know what happened to Theo after he was taken by the
soldiers, we assume that he was not treated well. After finding him, Mamere sees the whipping
marks on Theo’s back, leading us to believe that he was at the least, physically abused when
he was taken in. This amounts to a grave breach of international humanitarian law as well as
the Convention on Rights of the Child. Part II of the Additional Protocol II called ‘Humane
Treatment’ enumerates a number of acts which are prohibited including, murder, pillage,
separation of children from their families which in the given instance can be clearly seen to be
violated.

III. Principle of Non-Refoulement

The principle of non-refoulement constitutes the cornerstone of international refugee

protection.12 It is enshrined in Article 33 of the 1951 Convention, which is also binding on
States Party to the 1967 Protocol. It prohibits States from transferring or removing individuals
from their jurisdiction or effective control when there are substantial grounds for believing that
the person would be at risk of irreparable harm upon return, including persecution, torture,
illtreatment or other serious human rights violations. In the movie, we see a mass exodus of
refugees who have been denied entry to Ethiopia, thereby violating this fundamental principle.

POSSIBLE ALTERNATE ENDING

The movie has moments where it makes you wonder how people who have survived the
seemingly insurmountable can still find reasons to be happy. The ending is heart-wrenching,
and makes us question whether we are capable of the same courage that took Mamere to send
his brother to America instead of him. It is undoubtedly true that the audience, if given the
chance to change the ending, would make it so that Mamere can join his brother and the
protagonists can build a life in a new country together. Although the brothers went through
separation, it would have been warming to see them overcome this separation and get a second
chance at life.

12
Advisory Opinion on the Extraterritorial Application of Non-Refoulement Obligations under the 1951
Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, UNHCR,
https://www.unhcr.org/4d9486929.pdf

6
What is more concerning is that this is not only based on events that actually unfolded in real
life, but that it is still happening. Families are separated across borders because only some of
them are accepted as refugees by other countries. While countries should reserve the right to
take in the refugees, they should also honour the traveaux of the 1951 Convention which
recognizes family as an essential part of a refugee’s life. 13 With Trump’s policy of separating
children from their families at the border,14 it is clear that such a change in law would help
prevent further trauma caused to refugees. Indeed, if family separation were prohibited, it
would have helped Abital or even Mamere reunite with his family.

CONCLUSION

After watching the movie, it is difficult to ignore the fact that this is the story of nearly 70.8
million people around the world.15 The traumatic experiences that these people go through on
a daily basis can be avoided if countries act together, and show more empathy rather than
distance themselves by terming refugees as criminals or job-stealers. The law for the most part,
is adequate in granting refugees protection. What is sorely lacking is effective implementation.
If the 1951 Convention and the four Geneva Conventions were strictly adhered to, the ‘Lost
Boys of Sudan’ would have never existed. As the world faces an ongoing refugee crisis and
right-wing populists demand vilification of refugees, it is disheartening and yet expected that
there will be more ‘lost boys’ in the future.

13
UNHCR Guidelines On Reunification Of Refugee Families, (July 1983), https://www.unhcr.org/3bd0378f4.pdf
14
Camila Domoneske, What We Know: Family Separation And 'Zero Tolerance' At The Border, NPR, (June 19,
2018), https://www.npr.org/2018/06/19/621065383/what-we-know-family-separation-and-zero-tolerance-at-the-
border
15
Figures at A Glance, UNHCR, https://www.unhcr.org/figures-at-a-glance.html