Overseeing the Refugee Convention: Complaints

Abstract

At the Ministerial Meeting of States Parties to the 1951 Refugee Convention and 1967 Refugee Protocol held in Geneva on Dec. 12-13, states agreed formally to pursue efforts to reinforce effective implementation of their refugee protection treaty obligations. To that end, the International Council of Voluntary Agencies (ICVA), in collaboration with the University of Michigan's Program in Refugee and Asylum Law, convened a Global Consultation on International Protection in Geneva on Dec. 11. That meeting launched a process of careful review of options for the establishment of an independent supervisory mechanism for international refugee law based on a series of Working Papers. The introductory paper, Taking Oversight of Refugee Law Seriously, by Prof. James Hathaway of the University of Michigan Law School, makes the case for genuinely independent supervision of the Refugee Convention. In particular, it argues that scholars and activists must not be intimidated by institutional insistence that oversight of the Refugee Convention be a function exclusively of the UNHCR. The High Commissioner's duty to supervise implementation of the Convention and the more general obligation of state parties to take collective responsibility to oversee implementation of their treaty obligations are, in fact, compatible - not mutually exclusive - responsibilities. The first four Working Papers in the series consider the usefulness in the context of the Refugee Convention of the most widely used mechanisms of treaty supervision which, as forcefully argued by Harvard's Professor Henry Steiner, are mutually reinforcing and interdependent processes. The final three papers speak to the process of overseeing the Refugee Convention. Working Paper No. 2 looks at the possibility of a complaints mechanism under the Refugee Convention, and recommends in favor of a selective, group-based petition system as a means of injecting the voices of refugees directly into the supervisory process.