Refugee Convention Research Articles

‘But we have to be realistic’: examining the origins of temporary protection in the USA and European Union

Abstract Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the consequences of temporary protection regimes in contemporary refugee policy became more acute. This article examines the origins and development of temporary protection in the USA and the European Union from a historical and comparative perspective. By analyzing US congressional documents and EU parliamentary papers, we explore the original political debates in both regions in the 1980s and 1990s. We argue refugee advocates in the USA championed the creation of this new status, while those in the EU expressed skepticism that this would erode the 1951 Refugee Convention. The political calculus in the USA made temporary protection a seemingly limited and winnable accomplishment amid an anti-refugee climate, whereas advocates in the EU feared creating a new prolonged limbo category for refugees. With more people than ever before living under ‘temporary protection’, it is worth re-assessing its origins and the advantages and the limitations of temporary protection.

State responsibility: Explaining the UK’s exclusive citizenship provision to Hong Kong British National Overseas

What explains the United Kingdom’s (UK) exclusive citizenship provision to British National Overseas (BNOs) in response to the National Security Law? This paper argues that the citizenship offer reflects both the distribution of international legal responsibilities and London’s perception of where these responsibilities primarily lie. Legally, while dual Hong Kong Special Administration Region (HKSAR) and BNO passport holders are British nationals whom the UK owes a primary duty to protect, offering humanitarian assistance to those with HKSAR (only) is a collective responsibility under the Refugee Convention. Domestically, whereas London views helping BNOs as its own “historic responsibility,” affording protections to HKSARs is perceived as a shared duty of the international community. This article backs up its argument with empirical evidence from UK parliamentary debates and reactions.

Climate refugees and political borders: An emerging crisis in environmental and International policies

One of the most important global policy and environmental institution issues in recent days is the climate refugee phenomenon. The climate refugees confronting unsecured legal status and, appalling, human rights violations as well as dangerous access to basic services. The scale of this crisis grows ever more pronounced from day to day, and given its highly endemic character it is doubtful that existing international instruments, particularly the 1951 Refugee Convention, are in a position to offer effectively to the distinct dangers and vulnerabilities of climate-displaced people. As a special emphasis, the article focuses on case studies in the Pacific Islands, Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, where climate displacement is severely afflicting, disproportionate to the rest of the world. Moreover, the article discusses the boundaries between migration of climate refugees across international borders under the Constraint of strained resources, national security access and social integration. To avoid this coming crisis the article advocates for global policies that are inclusive that would include environmental sustainability, human rights protection and equitable resource allocation. For instance, there is a need for cooperative international action which revises existing legal instruments and institutes some new paradigms for climate migration to relative justice and security for climate refugees.

The Impact of Ministerial Direction 110 on Australia's International Law Obligations

Ministerial Direction 110 (Direction 110), introduced under the <i>Migration Act 1958</i> (Cth), is a pivotal policy document in Australia that provides guidance for visa refusal and cancellation of non-citizens under sections 501 and 501CA. Direction 110 prioritises the protection of the Australian community and other domestic concerns while relegating international law obligations—such as non-refoulement and human rights protections—to secondary considerations. This article critically examines the implications of this hierarchy of considerations, which reflects Australia’s prioritisation of national security and community safety over its international commitments. The analysis begins with an exploration of the framework established by Direction 110, highlighting its emphasis on domestic priorities, including community protection and expectations of the Australian public. It critiques the relegation of international obligations to a lower tier, arguing that this undermines Australia’s adherence to treaties like the Refugee Convention, the Convention Against Torture, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Such an approach risks breaching fundamental principles of international law and diminishing Australia’s reputation as a global leader in human rights advocacy and the rules-based international order. The article further explores the practical and ethical consequences of Direction 110, noting its potential to create inconsistencies in decision-making and prolonged judicial reviews. These inconsistencies arise from subjective interpretations of the hierarchical framework, particularly in deportation cases involving non-citizens facing serious risks in their home countries. The article concludes by proposing reforms to Direction 110, recommending the elevation of international law obligations to primary considerations. Such changes would align Australia’s domestic policies with its international commitments, reduce legal conflicts, and restore its global reputation. By integrating international obligations more meaningfully into visa decisions, Australia can safeguard its national interests while upholding its longstanding commitment to human rights and international law, strengthening its role as a responsible global actor.

Pakistan’s Judicial Engagement with International Refugee Law

ABSTRACT This article examines the case law at different tiers of Pakistan’s judiciary in order to map its engagement with international refugee law. Pakistan hosts one of the world’s largest refugee populations, with no national legislation dealing with refugees. Nor has it ratified the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (Refugee Convention). Nevertheless, this article shows that Pakistan’s judicial engagement with the Refugee Convention has been meaningful and instructive. Rahil Azizi v The State is used to illustrate how domestic courts can utilize the principle of non-refoulement, as well as article 31 of the Refugee Convention, to deal with the situation of refugees unlawfully in the country of refuge. The judgment instructs the State that the application of existing domestic law for illegal foreigners or refugees should be nuanced and sensitive to their distinct vulnerabilities. Further, it is argued that, by creatively weaving together UNHCR–host State memoranda of understanding with constitutional and international law obligations, courts in non-signatory States can ensure stronger protection for refugees vis-à-vis ad hoc and regressive government policies.

Displaced by Climate Change: Navigating Legal Framework for ‘Climate Refugees’ in International Environmental Law

Climate change assumes the role of a catalyst, amplifying its impact across diverse facets of human security. Some of the most evident consequences of climate change include food insecurity, water scarcity, unequal access to resources, disease proliferation, and natural calamities such as earthquakes, avalanches, tsunamis, and mudslides, disrupting life and livelihoods and promoting migration and displacement, whether voluntary or forced, temporary or permanent, internal or across borders. Although climate change finds a place on the agendas of most countries, the interest of nations to shoulder the burdens arising from mass migration propelled by climate change is lacking. The profound scope of this evolving narrative remains unaddressed. This article unveils the rapidly emerging category of ‘climate refugees’ and distinguishes it from conventional refugee archetypes. The subsequent part brings forth the limitations of the existing international legal frameworks, such as the Refugee Convention of 1951, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and the Paris Agreement, inadequately underscoring the unpredictable and varied experiences of climate refugees, and proposes to revisit the international legal framework for safeguarding the individuals impacted by displacement arising from climate-related factors.

International Refugee Law and Bangladesh: Navigating Sovereignty and Humanitarian Obligations

This article critically evaluates the intricate navigation between national sovereignty and international refugee law in Bangladesh, specifically concentrating on the nation’s mechanisms of the protracted Rohingya refugee crisis. As a non-signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention, Bangladesh's legal obligations are initially motivated by the influence of international humanitarian norms, regional considerations, and domestic policy frameworks. This paper examines Bangladesh’s efforts to mediate its sovereign prerogatives with its moral and legal obligation to serve sanctuary to displaced populations. Through critical evaluation of legislative endeavors, governmental reactions, and the efforts of international actors such as the UNHCR, the article enunciates Bangladesh's multifaceted obstacles in its mandate to develop global refugee standards while indicating its domestic needs. The study articulates by proffering strategic suggestions aimed at liberalizing Bangladesh’s mechanisms with international refugee protection protocols, thereby contributing to both the strategy on refugee administration and the progression of legal mechanisms in South Asia.

A Looming Crisis: Exploring the Precarious Legal Status of ‘Climate Refugees’ Under International and Human Rights Law

As climate change worsens, millions of people around the world will be displaced, further exacerbating conflicts and resource scarcity. In recent years, individuals displaced by climate change have sought legal recognition as 'climate refugees' under the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1951. This paper argues that the Convention, originally designed to address persecution-based displacement, lacks provisions for those fleeing environmental crises. This paper explores alternative legal frameworks relating to the status of 'climate refugees' under international and domestic law, with a focus on recent judicial opinions. It also examines alternative frameworks for refugee claims, including human rights treaties, as well as regional agreements such as the 1984 Cartagena Declaration on Refugees and the 2009 African Union Kampala Convention. These mechanisms offer potential pathways for recognizing and protecting those displaced by climate change beyond the narrow definition of the 1951 Refugee Convention. The paper concludes that regional agreements, modeled after the Kampala Convention, provide the most practical and enforceable solutions for addressing the complex legal challenges posed by climate-induced displacement.

Refugee Precarity and Collective Transformation: Ongoing Struggles for a Liberatory Praxis in Urban South Africa

South Africa is a significant destination for forced migrants fleeing conflict and seeking better futures. Although South Africa is a signatory on international refugee conventions and protocols, in practice, asylum seekers face bureaucratic delays, uncertainty, and obstacles in obtaining refugee status or residency permits, which creates challenges in accessing employment, accommodation, and other forms of social inclusion. In response, many forced migrants network with kin and neighbours, self‐organise, and connect to various migrant associations, faith‐based groups, and supportive social spaces. Within these spaces of migrant solidarity, this article focuses on the transformative potential of refugee‐led collective organisation, political action, alliance building, refugee research, and everyday forms of welcome within forced migrant communities. Through a review of literature alongside examples from our research in Cape Town, the article explores some of the opportunities and obstacles to building solidarity in refugee collective worlds. We refer to this potential for a liberatory praxis as an ongoing struggle. On the one hand, forced migrant precarity, mistrust, and trauma create obstacles to their participation in community organising or engaged academic research. However, while forced migrants experience waiting and exclusion, they also create possibilities of hope through what Gramsci (1971) referred to as “renovating and making critical already existing activities” of their lived experiences. Overall, the article concludes with reflections on how theorising and building deeper alliances with academic and community spaces may generate a more liberatory praxis <em>with</em> and <em>for</em> forced migrants in urban South Africa.

Limiting the Right to Access Asylum: A Case Study of Latvia’s Response to the Migration Crisis on the Latvia-Belarus Border

Abstract As the numbers of attempted illegal crossings on the Latvia-Belarus border soared in the summer of 2021, the Latvian government responded with a complete suspension of asylum applications as well as directing its security forces to push those trying to enter Latvia illegally back into Belarus. This Article provides a legal assessment of Latvia’s response to the migration crisis under the 1951 Refugee Convention, the European Convention on Human Rights and European Union law. The study focuses in particular on whether Latvia is breaching its international obligations by limiting the right to submit asylum applications. It considers the validity of the justifications invoked by Latvia. It also explores whether there are any legal implications from the fact that the influx of migrants is a part of a hybrid attack organised by Belarus to create pressure on the European Union’s borders. The conclusion is that the initial suspension of asylum applications breaches the obligation of non-refoulement. It also suggests that the regimen currently in force is not ensuring genuine and effective access to the asylum procedure and is, thereby, again breaching Latvia’s obligations under the principle of non-refoulement.

Recognizing international protection. How institutional arrangements affect asylum decisions

ABSTRACT More than 70 years after the adoption of the United Nations’ 1951 Refugee Convention, there still exists large cross-country differences in terms of protection recognition. In this article, we argue that cross-country differences are likely due to different opportunity structures: because international protection stems from the administrative-legal procedures through which claims are examined, we investigate the institutional arrangements that make up Refugee Status Determination systems. We collect original data covering 14 European countries, Canada and South Africa over the years 2000–2020 and test the relationship between institutional arrangements and recognition rates. We find that the actors involved in the decision-making process matter: a plurality of actors likely leads to fairer outcomes, depending on which procedure or stage these actors are involved. Importantly, we report that extensive procedural rights, and guarantee of their enjoyment on the part of asylum seekers, significantly correlate with asylum seekers’ chances to see their claim recognized.

International and temporary protection in EU law: legal frameworks and challenges of practical implementation

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.

Legal Protection For Syrian Refugees In Jordan

This Study Aims To Clarify The Nature Of The Rights And Guarantees Provided By International Humanitarian Law To Syrian Refugees In Jordan. Study Employed Both The Legal Method And The Case Study Method. The Findings Indicate That Jordan Is Deeply Committed To Covenants Related To Refugee Rights, Particularly The International Covenant On Civil And Political Rights And The International Covenant On Economic, Social, And Cultural Rights. Jordan Has Ratified Most Of The Relevant Covenants And Agreements. Despite Not Being A Signatory To The 1951 Refugee Convention, Jordan Has Approached The Issue Of Syrian Refugees With A High Level Of Humanitarianism. The Jordanian Government Refers To Syrian Refugees As "Guests" Rather Than Refugees. The Study Recommends The Development Of A Clear And Specific National Strategy For Dealing With Refugees, Particularly If The Crisis Persists For Many Years. Additionally, It Emphasizes The Importance Of Considering The Unique Circumstances Of Asylum Seekers, Such As The Burden Of Proof And Their Psychological Condition.

Refugee Rights and International Law: Evaluating the Efficacy of Global Humanitarian Responses to Forced Displacement

The increasing scale of forced displacement due to conflict, persecution, and environmental crises has brought refugee rights to the forefront of global humanitarian discourse. This article critically examines the efficacy of international law in protecting refugee rights and assessing global responses to the growing refugee crisis. Through an analysis of key international legal frameworks, such as the 1951 Refugee Convention and the role of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the study evaluates the adequacy of current policies in addressing the challenges faced by refugees. It highlights gaps in protection, such as unequal burden-sharing among nations, restricted access to asylum, and prolonged displacement in refugee camps. Case studies from various regions reveal how inconsistent application of international law undermines refugees’ access to fundamental rights, including safety, healthcare, and education. The article argues for stronger international cooperation, better policy implementation, and more robust legal mechanisms to ensure the protection of refugee rights. It concludes by offering recommendations for improving global humanitarian responses and creating more equitable and sustainable solutions for forced displacement.

Refugees in the Global North: dynamics, dilemmas, and constructive engagement.

The movement of refugees across borders has become a persistent feature of contemporary global society. Despite the protections offered by the 1951 Refugee Convention, which has been ratified by some 146 states, countries in the Global North have adopted a variety of contradictory and incoherent policy responses to refugees and migrants. These responses have been influenced by anti-immigrant public sentiment and growing popular demands to restrict and manage cross-border movements. The dynamics and dilemmas of contemporary refugee movements and policy responses create challenges for advocates and practitioners. Refugee policies have been complicated by the phenomenon of 'mixed migration', where migratory patterns reflect the intersection of economic choices and forced migration. Within this context, we propose that policies of many prosperous countries, which thus far focus almost exclusively on restriction, be guided by considerations of shared responsibility and human dignity.

“Livability” and “Ungratefulness”: A Refugee Critique of the Law and Humanitarianism

Critical refugee studies (CRS) conceptualizes refugees’ lived experience as a site of theory‐making and knowledge production with and for refugees. As co‐founders of the Critical Refugee Studies Collective (CRSC), and as scholars with refugee backgrounds, we theorize alongside our refugee partners to offer a refugee critique of refugee law and humanitarianism. Departing from the 1951 Refugee Convention definition of “refugee,” whose restrictive legal and historical framing cannot account for the complex conditions that displace human beings, we offer the concept of “livability” to name the mundane, creative, and fearless possibilities of living that undergird refugees’ claims to move audaciously. Furthermore, departing from humanitarian narratives that expect refugees to be forever thankful for having been rescued, we propose the concept of “ungratefulness” to describe refugee refusal to exhibit gratitude and deference for the space they have been allowed. Our critique emerged from sustained engagement with refugee partners through in‐person and virtual gatherings organized by the CRSC. Together, we argue that livability and ungratefulness constitute examples of “epistemic disobedience” of the colonial and unilateral knowledge production about refugees, as they call attention to distinctly discernible refugee agency and epistemology that break with the historically appointed role of refugees as seen entirely through a lens of precarity and gratitude.

Exploring public opinions on Rohingya refugees residing in India: An empirical study

The Rohingya population is widely acknowledged as one of the most persecuted minority groups worldwide. The ongoing tripartite conflict involving the Rohingya, the Rakhine, and the Myanmar military has resulted in numerous clashes and massacres, leading to forced displacement. Countries such as Bangladesh, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Pakistan, and India have recorded an influx of Rohingya immigrants. While extensive studies have been conducted on the Rohingya in Myanmar and Bangladesh, there has been a limited scholarly focus on the Rohingya in India. This article aims to fill this gap in the literature. It is important to note that India is neither a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention nor the 1967 Protocol, which addresses refugee status and protections, nor does it have a domestic refugee law. Consequently, refugees in India are not officially recognized as a distinct group and lack legal protection against exploitation and abuse. This situation leaves them vulnerable to various forms of mistreatment, including exploitation, violence, and limited access to employment, education, and healthcare. Although the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees designates the Rohingya as refugees, the current Bharatiya Janata Party government views this stateless community as illegal migrants and a perceived threat to India. This stance raises important questions: (i) How does the Indian population perceive and internalize this interpretation? (ii) What are their attitudes toward the Rohingya, and what policy options do they prefer? To address these inquiries, the authors of this article analyzed data from the Sinophone Borderlands Indo-Pacific Survey, a large-scale online survey organized by one of the authors. In addition, interviews were conducted with Rohingya individuals residing in India to gather firsthand perspectives.

The Legal Protection for Refugees in Oman

The Sultanate of Oman is not a State party to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (the 1951 Refugee Convention) and its 1967 Protocol, which establish refugee rights and obligations. In addition, there are no specific national laws or administrative regulations governing the right to asylum. However, the Basic Statute of the Sultanate of Oman and the Foreign Residency Law in Oman explicitly grant the right to asylum to a specific category of individuals, who are political refugees. The Basic Statute of Oman refers to political asylum briefly, while the Foreign Residency Law in Oman includes several rules that detail this right, from granting political asylum to withdrawal and deportation. In addition, there are cases of refugee protection based on practice that are related to domestic legal standards. This paper seeks to examine the current legal framework for the protection of refugees in Oman, the reality of refugees in Oman based on practice, and will also clarify the challenges that affect the asylum processes and refugee rights.

Invisibilization of the unwanted Others? Feminist, queer, and postcolonial perspectives on the 1951 Refugee Convention’s drafting

The 1951 Refugee Convention represents the legal cornerstone of today’s global refugee protection, which is supposed to apply to all refugees regardless of their origin, gender identity, or sexual orientation. But did the Convention’s drafters have such a complex approach in mind? This paper analyzes the Convention’s drafting at the United Nations and the final conference in the late 1940s and early 1950s from feminist, queer, and postcolonial perspectives. By drawing on subalternity and absence, and using interpretive analysis of historical sources, the paper focuses on politics—who was (not) involved in debates—and policy—who was (not) considered under the refugee definition. The analysis reveals pervasive asymmetries, with western androcentrism inherently shaping the drafting. The western, white, heterosexual man was the standard filter for the powerful decision-maker and the protection subject, whereas women, LGBTQ+ and colonized people were neglected in politics and policy. Their exclusion was not merely a side effect of the political landscape at the time but reflects the reproduction of western androcentric power, which ultimately invisibilized the subaltern Others in the creation of international refugee law.

Is There a Need to Expand the Refugee Definition?

This article examines the urgency of protecting against displacement caused by climate change under international law and questions why Rohingya displacement has not been resolved even though it has been protected by international law, whether the harmonization of human rights approaches, national law, and international law towards refugees and climate refugees. This paper uses a literature review method and a normative legal approach by reviewing national and international human rights law. The findings of this paper suggest that many Rohingya continue to flee to safer countries, often taking enormous risks, including dangerous ocean crossings. The impacts of climate change can be categorized as persecution; the Refugee Convention requires that such persecution be due to race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership of a particular social group. Persecution alone is not enough. The difficulty is that the impacts of climate change are largely indiscriminate and not related to specific characteristics such as a person's background or beliefs. The Rohingya people have experienced violence, discrimination, and persecution for decades, and the international community has failed to protect them effectively. The international community has allowed Myanmar to carry out genocide against the Rohingya without taking any action, even though United Nations member states are obliged to protect their population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. National, international, and human rights laws play an important role in determining the legal status and rights of refugees in a country. All three must be embedded and integrated, starting from international law and its derivatives to national law, which contains humanitarian rights.