This book is the first systematic comparative analysis explaining why similar postcommunist states vary in their receptivity to refugees.In the 1990s, after the Iron Curtain fell, postcommunist states faced refugee inflows for the first time in recent history. This book is the first systematic comparative analysis explaining why similar postcommunist states vary in their receptivity to refugees. Drawing on primary research conducted in the Czech Republic, Poland, Russia, and Ukraine, the book shows how domestic debates over a nation's boundaries and the strategies of the UN's refugee agency (UNHCR ) shaped postcommunist refugee policies. Domestic divisions over a nation's boundaries are found to create a political space for a receptive and nondiscriminatory refugee policy.In the 1990s, after the Iron Curtain fell, postcommunist states faced refugee inflows for the first time in recent history. This book is the first systematic comparative analysis explaining why similar postcommunist states vary in their receptivity to refugees. Drawing on primary research conducted in the Czech Republic, Poland, Russia, and Ukraine, the book shows how domestic debates over a nation's boundaries and the strategies of the UN's refugee agency (UNHCR ) shaped postcommunist refugee policies. Domestic divisions over a nation's boundaries are found to create a political space for a receptive and nondiscriminatory refugee policy.Why do similar postcommunist states respond differently to refugees, with some being more receptive than others? Why do some states privilege certain refugee groups, while other states do not? This book presents a theory to account for this puzzle, and it centers on the role of the politics of nation-building and of the office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). A key finding of the book is that when the boundaries of a nation are contested (and thus there is no consensus on which group should receive preferential treatment in state policies), a politl£+