Revisiting the Concept of Flexibility in Temporary Protection Practices at the Intersection of International Refugee and Human-Rights Laws: The Case of Türkiye

Temporariness has become the norm in contemporary refugee protection. Many refugees face extended periods of time waiting for permanent status, either in camps or living among citizens in their state of asylum. Whilst this practice of keeping refugees waiting is of benefit to states, I argue that not only is it harmful to refugees but it also constitutes an injustice. First, I outline the prevalence of temporary assistance in the refugee protection regime. Second, I outline the orthodox view on temporary refugee protection – it is acceptable as long as it is not indefinite. I then spend the remainder of the article considering four arguments against temporary refugee protection: the plan argument, the reciprocity argument, the domination argument, and the compounding injustice argument. I contend that the first two arguments, which already feature in the literature, merely show that temporary protection is harmful to refugees. My own arguments on domination and compounding injustice show, instead, that giving refugees temporary protection constitutes an injustice. The domination argument allows us to critique the current practice of temporary refugee protection, whereas the compounding injustice argument shows that temporariness in any form constitutes an injustice.

As a subject of international law, the refugee is inherently temporary: refugee status exists in order to fill the gap caused by a breakdown of the normal bond between citizen and state with 'international protection', until this bond can be restored, either with the original state of nationality, or with another state. While this ambition is clear, the practice of refugee protection under the current, post-1951 regime has exposed the serious problem international refugee law (IRL) faces with regard to the tail-end of protection, also known as 'durable solutions'. This chapter studies the most prominent attempt made by UNHCR and states within the refugee regime at re-invigorating the temporary character of international protection—namely the mechanism known as 'temporary protection'. While the concept can be traced to formulations of 'temporary refuge' in the 1980s, temporary protection (TP) truly emerged as a term of art in the 1990s, as Western Europe was faced with a large-scale influx of forced migrants from the former Yugoslavia. In 2001, TP was the subject of an EU directive, which partly clarified the relationship of TP to mainstream IRL—notably whether TP should be seen as a substitute for, or a prelude to, the operation of the 1951 Refugee Convention. Ambiguity has remained the hallmark of the TP concept, however, not least in UNHCR's attempts at formalising a TP regime outside the European ambit. After examining the main features of these attempts, the chapter concludes that, while the EU directive should be taken seriously, a continuing doctrine of temporary protection outside established IRL is both legally unsound and politically unconvincing.

Indonesia's Free and Active Foreign Policy has influenced the way the country deals with international refugees, especially as a transit country. Although it has not ratified the 1951 Refugee Convention, Indonesia uses domestic legal frameworks, such as Law No. 6/2011 on Immigration, to deal with refugee issues. This research uses a qualitative method with desk-based analysis to examine the relationship between Indonesia's foreign policy and international refugee management. The results show that although Indonesia does not grant asylum, the country provides temporary protection and basic assistance to refugees, in collaboration with international organizations such as UNHCR. The article concludes that Indonesia's Free and Active Foreign Policy plays a role in balancing national interests with humanitarian obligations, demonstrating a commitment to global cooperation despite not yet fully participating in international conventions related to refugees.

Temporary protection has been discussed, promoted, and implemented in different regions (Southeast Asia, Europe, Middle East) since 1970s as a practical response for large-scale refugee movements. Nevertheless, despite its wide usage and implementation, what is meant by temporary protection is not clear, and frequently debated in policy and academic circles. The attempts to standardize/improve temporary protection frameworks dominate the studies on temporary protection. Rather than solely focusing on what is temporary protection or what it should be, this article makes a novel contribution to the literature by asking a neglected question: how and why has the category of temporary protection been developed in the contemporary international refugee regime and with what consequences? By focusing on the policy guidelines, soft-law instruments, and existing literature on temporary protection, it shows that temporary protection has been developed in a top-down manner focusing solely on the state interests. The failure of durable solutions framework in international refugee regime and inherent uncertainties of temporary protection are intrinsically related to each other and their relation is taken as key to unpack the development and consequences of temporary protection regimes. This article concludes that temporary protection both creates and maintains uncertainty as a refugee management strategy which speaks to state interests in the context of the failure traditional durable solutions framework.

Unlike ‘complementary protection’, the concepts of ‘temporary refuge’ and ‘temporary protection’ represent challenges to the Refugee Convention, exposing a real or perceived flaw in the way the Convention articulates immediate protection with longer-term solutions. This flaw tends to come to light mainly within the context of large-scale influxes of refugees, situations in which another ‘broken link’ all too often surfaces, namely between the principle of non-refoulement and the principle of international solidarity. Despite significant differences dictated by the time at which, and the space within which, they appeared in the law and practice of States, temporary refuge and temporary protection regimes share the ambition of regulating the continuum from admission and immediate relief to international (or regional) mobilization towards durable solutions. While temporary refuge was first conceptualized in the Asia-Pacific region, temporary protection reached a higher degree of formalization on the European continent, to the point of becoming a term of art in European Union law. It was originally conceived as a return-oriented protection mechanism, largely outside the Refugee Convention regime, before being recognized as a procedure of exceptional character and a prelude to the full operation of Convention standards. Regrettably, the only binding instrument covering all aspects of temporary protection—a 2001 EU directive—has never been implemented and may soon be repealed. While scholarly and policy debates over temporary refuge and/or temporary protection have creatively explored the outer limits of international refugee law, they have thus far failed to dispel ambiguities regarding the scope of ‘regimes of exception’ in refugee law and their relationship to the Refugee Convention-based regime. The time may have come to unpack the varied issues which temporary refuge and temporary protection have come to represent, in order to address them within known legal frameworks.

The Syrian civil war prompted a large number of people to flee their country and seek asylum in other countries, making Turkey a leading host country with around 3.6 million of asylum seekers. Syrian asylum seekers in Turkey are under temporary protection regime. This article examines Turkish temporary protection regime in comparison with international protection standards and human rights law, especially with the UNHCR Guideline and European Union legislation on temporary protection and European Court on Human Rights judgements. In this respect, this article argues that Turkish legislation has met the fundamental requirements of international protection law and standards, however, still needs to be improved in some crucial areas. In this regard, the international protection law and the difference between the status of refugee and temporary protection is explored. Subsequently, declaration of temporary protection in case of a mass-influx, the rights and freedoms covered under temporary protection, non-refoulement principle and termination of temporary protection regime under Turkish Temporary Protection Regulation are discussed and compared with the international standards. Finally, some conclusions and recommendations for the improvement are deduced from this discussion.

Problems of legal regulation of forced migration and ensuring the realization of the rights of forcibly displaced persons have always concerned the international community. They gained particular relevance on February 24, 2022, when millions of people, in order to save their lives, were forced to leave the territory of Ukraine. The implementation decision of the EU Council on March 4, 2022, put into effect Directive No 2001/55/EC of the EU Council of July 20, 2001, on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in case of a mass influx of displaced persons and measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof. The purpose of this article is to explore the establishment of the temporary protection institution and the genesis of constitutional and legal foundations of cooperation between Ukraine and the European Union regarding displaced persons from Ukraine. It is emphasized that in order to improve legislation regulating Ukraine's cooperation with EU member states regarding the legal status of persons with temporary protection in the EU, it is important to study the peculiarities of the genesis and establishment of the temporary protection institution at different historical stages. Based on the analysis of legal sources and normative legal acts of a certain historical period, three main directions are distinguished: the first is the genesis of the international refugee and asylum system at the universal level; the second is the formation of the international refugee and asylum system at the European level; the third is the formation of legislation regarding Ukraine's cooperation with EU countries regarding displaced persons from Ukraine. Based on the analysis of EU normative legal acts, in particular Directive No 2001/55/EC of the EU Council on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in cases of mass influx of displaced persons and measures to support the balance of efforts of member states in connection with their reception and the consequences thereof, adopted on July 20, 2001, and the EU Council Decision of March 4, 2022, as well as the legislation of EU member states, the features of obtaining temporary protection by forcibly displaced persons from Ukraine due to the military aggression of the Russian Federation have been studied. Key words: European asylum system; temporary protection; Human Rights.

The right and role of critiquing the contemporary patchwork of protection

The article analyses the peculiarities of international regulation of the legal status of Ukrainian forced migrants, both international and internal. The author notes that international forced migrants are divided into three main categories according to their legal status: refugees; asylum seekers; and persons with temporary protection status. The development of legal frameworks that would regulate international forced migration began within the framework of the League of Nations after the First World War and continued within the UN structures after the Second World War. Today, the main agency dealing with forced migration is the International Refugee Agency. The key document regulating the status of international forced migrants is the 1951Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, although a significant number of regulations in this area have been adopted in recent years: ‘The Dublin Regulations, the New York Declaration on Refugees and Migrants, the Global Compact on Refugees, etc. Itis found that the category of ‘refugee’ has the longest history of legal regulation. Unlike refugees, the legal status of asylum seekers is not clearly defined in international documents. The main international documents regulating the status of forced migrants de facto include asylum seekers in the category of refugees, but the absence of this category in international law de jure makes this status very precarious and their situation disenfranchised. Temporary protection is regulated by the Temporary Protection Directive, which was adopted by the EU Council in 2001 after the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia. For the first and so far only time, this directive was activated at the beginning of the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. It is determined that the status of internal displaced persons (IDPs) has not been regulated at the international level for a long time. The document that was supposed to regulate the status of IDPs -the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement -was presented tothe UN in 1998. For Ukraine, internal forced migration has become a new social phenomenon for which the national legal and regulatory system was not ready. The legal framework that would regulate issues related to IDPs began to be developed in the contextof the actual existence of a significant number of citizens of this category in society. Keywords:forced migration, refugee, temporary protection, IDPs.

The uprising that began with the Arab Spring has impacted many countries in North Africa and the Middle East, particularly in politics, economy, and law. Syria has also been affected by this process, and the impact of the uprising has lasted much longer there. The developments in Syria since 2011 have gained importance in terms of international humanitarian law and international human rights law, but have attracted little attention. It should be noted that although the events in Syria are undoubtedly evaluated in terms of international law on armed conflicts, it should be taken into account that the protests and demonstrations that began in the Arab world in early 2010 and later became known as the Arab Spring turned into a long and intense civil war in Syria that lasted until December 2024. On 27 November 2024, Islamist militant groups led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) launched an attack in Syria and captured the cities of Aleppo and Hama. These groups subsequently announced the capture of the capital, Damascus, marking the “end of an era” in Syria. As a result, Bashar al-Assad left the country. Of course, this development can be expected to have consequences in terms of both international and refugee law. Due to the long-standing armed conflict and an intense civil war in the country and the region, millions of people have been forced to leave their homes and live in other countries as asylum seekers, refugees or under temporary protection. In light of these new developments, it is important to discuss the legal status of the new regime and the Syrians who have fled their country.

Amidst the myriad viewpoints and perspectives that animate discussions on forced migration, the greatest challenge for academics and policymakers, continues to be the relevance and applicability of pre-existing international frameworks that were established to afford protection to people of concern, and the broader implications such challenges have on the global refugee regime. My doctoral dissertation is a study of some of the gaps associated with the global refugee regime and the historical development of refugee protection India, which remains minimally researched. The project identifies India as an alternate location of practice with respect to refugee protection. The dissertation also studies the notion of 'resistance' with respect to India's relationship to international refugee law mechanisms by pitting it against the existing global narrative of 'deviance' that has often been attached to states that are non-signatories of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. With the help of this study, my project will present the first steps towards a new place for discourse on forced migration research. With the help of detailed archival analysis, the thesis examines the subcontinent's practice of refugee protection that deviates from Eurocentric norms. The archival analysis demonstrates that several groups of people have sought refuge in India and the practice of extending sanctuary to such groups has essentially reconstructed refugeehood in India. The thesis provides first steps towards a cross-sectional model of refugee and forced migration research, which makes it crucial to not only move from the rudimentary definitions of a refugee, but also to identify alternate locations of practice. In summary, the thesis is a combination of exploring the 'cacophony of definitions' of refugeehood in India and an examination of look at how the refugee label has evolved over a period of time. Given India's disillusionment with the international refugee framework, the thesis explores the 'general perceptions and views' on refugeehood that have existed historically. Finally, the thesis explores how all of this has manifested into a form of ad-hoc 'practice' of refugee protection and find out whether it has been used consistently or in an interest-based and privileged manner.

The article analyzes the legal foundations for the protection of refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) within the context of the European Union (EU) and Ukraine. The focus is on international and European legal instruments that regulate refugee status and provide temporary protection to individuals affected by armed conflicts. The article particularly examines the EU’s Temporary Protection Directive (2001/55/EC) and the Qualification Directive (2011/95/EU) and the Asylum Procedures Directive (2013/32/EU), which harmonize refugee protection across Member States and ensure consistency in asylum procedures establishing legal frameworks for granting protection to those fleeing war, especially in the context of russia’s aggression against Ukraine. The urgency of this article is highlighted by the war in Ukraine, which has led to unprecedented displacement in Europe, testing the capacities of EU Member States and exposing both strengths and gaps in existing legal frameworks. The paper also addresses the evolving nature of international refugee protection and its alignment with human rights doctrines, offering a comprehensive analysis of how international and regional legal standards interact in practice. This article explores how international frameworks for refugee protection, particularly the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, have been incorporated into the European Union’s legal system. These international instruments define the rights of refugees and the obligations of states, especially regarding the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits the return of individuals to countries where their lives or freedom may be at risk. In the EU, these frameworks are primarily integrated through the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) and it’s key component - the Qualification Directive (2011/95/EU), which aligns EU law with international standards on refugee protection. The study emphasizes the importance of procedural safeguards, including fair and transparent asylum processes and special protections for vulnerable groups. In addition, the EU’s Temporary Protection Directive (2001/55/EC) plays a key role in addressing mass displacement, offering immediate protection in situations of crisis. This directive was activated for the first time in 2022 in response to the war in Ukraine, providing a coordinated EU-wide approach to managing the influx of displaced Ukrainians and preventing the collapse of national asylum systems. The article also discusses the legal challenges and issues that the EU and Ukraine face in providing protection and support to refugees and IDPs. The research underscores the importance of coordination between the EU and Ukraine’s legal systems to ensure proper protection for asylum seekers. An essential aspect is the harmonization of approaches and the improvement of the effectiveness of legal mechanisms in response to current global migration challenges. The findings emphasize the need for continued legal collaboration between the parties to create a more comprehensive and consistent system for refugee protection.

The current number of North Korean Escapees is much smaller than before, so the concern towards them does not seem to be so serious like before. However, the number may rise in any time in the future for any reasons, and some contingency situation may produce a mass influx of North Koreans into neighbouring countries.
 Therefore, all the legal analyses applicable to the cases of North Korean Escapees are still required and need to be updated.
 This paper first reviews their refugee status, including the issue of dual nationality, and tries to utilise international human rights regime for these cases. Then, overview of various national practices relating to the protection of North Korean Escapees is conducted. Lastly, this paper looks into ways of international cooperation and coordination to deal with the possible mass influx case.
 In conclusion, most North Korean Escapees can be recognised as refugees under international refugee law, and, if not, they can at least be treated as humanitarian status holders. The question of dual nationality should be solved based on their free will and humanitarian consideration. For the limited purposes of refugee status determination, they need to be treated as North Koreans. As human beings, they can also be protected by various norms and mechanisms under international human rights law. At a contingency situation, ‘temporary protection’ may be provided to them as ‘displaced persons’ like in the EU, and more coordinated cooperation with UNHCR, IOM and neighbouring countries is critically needed.

Expert Opinion on the Reform of the Common European Asylum System for the German Federal Ministry of the Interior: Minimum Requirements Under EU Primary Law and International Refugee Law for Rules in Secondary Legislation on the Rejection of Applications for Asylum as Inadmissible with a View to Protection and Housing Options in Third Countries (Transit and Other Countries) or in

The temporary protection directive is one of the noblest mechanisms of the European refugee protection regime. The European Union has designed it following the principle of temporary protection and non-refoulement of international refugee law. The United Nations Refugee Convention is the institutional root of these principles. In 2001, the EU has adopted the directive to improve its refugee protection mechanism. But they have never activated the directive until the current Ukrainian refugee crisis. This has remained as a piece of paper or unnecessary tool for the European countries. Their reluctance towards activating the directive seems to be hegemonic and political to some extent. Though they had all the grounds for activating the directive during the Syrian, Afghan or Tunisian refugee crisis, they did not choose to activate it. The paper doesn’t oppose the activation of TPD for Ukrainian refugees. It only explores and discusses the dualist role of the EU in activating TPD. The paper is also asking for its universal application for any refugees irrespective of their origin and the EU’s geopolitical interest. Lastly, it solicits for the utilization of the ‘doctrine of temporary refuge’ across the countries in the best possible manner considering the example of EU’s TPD.