Refugee Convention Research Articles

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

Recognising Palestinian Refugees: Applicability of Article 1D of the 1951 Refugee Convention in Turkey

Abstract The special international regime for Palestinian refugees established by Article 1D of the 1951 Refugee Convention has yet to receive sufficient attention in Turkish asylum literature. Although Turkish law has incorporated Article 1D, neither scholars nor practitioners have pushed for its implementation. This research contends that Palestinians should be recognised as refugees in Turkey. Despite Turkey only granting refugee status to individuals from Europe due to the Convention’s geographical limitation, this article argues that an exception should be made for Palestinians. To this end, this article addresses how Article 1D of the 1951 Refugee Convention applies in Turkey by focusing on the interplay between the Convention and Turkish laws and regulations, as well as considering recent case law in other jurisdictions, particularly in Europe. By doing so, it aims to demonstrate that it is possible, though challenging, to improve the legal status of Palestinians in Turkey, mainly through strategic litigation.

International Protection for Criminals: To Grant or Not to Grant? Lessons from Australia, Belgium, and Canada

ABSTRACT Refugee law requires States to protect those who may face persecution in their country of origin. This protection, however, is not extended to those who, because of their acts, are considered to be undeserving of it. Similarly, the 1951 Refugee Convention allows the return to persecution of those who are considered a danger to the host country’s community. International human rights law, however, forbids States from returning anyone, regardless of their actions, to a place where they may face irreparable harm, such as arbitrary deprivation of life or torture (the non-refoulement obligation). Thus, forced migrants with a criminal background may find themselves in a situation in which they cannot benefit from refugee status but also cannot be returned to their country of origin. The uncertainties associated with this situation can be challenging for both migrants and States. Against this background, the current contribution explores how three States – Australia, Belgium, and Canada – regulate the situation of criminal migrants in need of international protection. More specifically, it identifies who these countries exclude from protection status, how they assess non-refoulement claims, and the measures they use to regulate the situation of these migrants. Lastly, this article evaluates whether currently applicable domestic measures comply with States’ human rights obligations. As there seems to be a lack of sustainable solutions for these migrants in the countries analysed, a reformed international protection procedure is proposed. This reformed procedure would allow the possibility of granting these migrants temporary status, subject to conditions, which, after a certain number of years, could lead to permanent residence.

Perlindungan Hukum bagi Warga Rohingya yang Ditolak oleh Warga Aceh

The Rohingya currently find that they are no longer getting a good response from the people around Aceh, especially in the West Aceh section, because some of them refuse some assistance from some of the surrounding communities and leave the refugee camp. This writing method uses a normative method with a juridical-normative approach which leads to legislation and applicable law. The results of this study will discuss the protection of rohingya citizens who fled their country because there were human rights issues where they fled from the government of another country and many victims of rohingya citizens were used as objects of human trafficking and then some of them fled to the West Aceh area and the stigma of the people of Aceh at that time changed from positive to negative due to the behavior of the rohingya citizens themselves and indeed Indonesia has not become a country that is a party to the 1951 refugee convention and the 1967 Protocol but Indonesia still respects the rights of asylum seekers such as the rohingya citizens themselves.

Governance and duty in global refugee education: a Kantian perspective

The broad adoption of the human-rights based approach to refugee education has not only accentuated the link between education provision and the realization of human rights; it has re-framed refugees as right-bearers. This conceptual shift from ‘refugee as victim’ to ‘refugee as right-bearer’ carries with it immense implications also for the way we think of the duty-bearers of refugee education. Once we re-conceptualize refugees as right-bearers, we acknowledge, too, the primacy of duty-bearers and ‘global moral obligations’. In this article, I first consider the history of global governance of refugee education, dating back to the ratification of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention. In tracing the shifting role of stakeholders in refugee education, I note, in particular, how the burden of responsibility of education policy and provision has oscillated between local host communities and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Next, I look at how rights and responsibilities are conceptualized in forced displacement context, that is, in the absence of a nation-state—traditionally considered the primary duty-bearer of human rights. Finally, I turn to Kant’s duty-based ethics, and suggest a Kantian perspective can help expand our understanding of duties and duty-bearers in global refugee education.

Islamic Legal Perspectives on Refugee Protection and Welfare: A Case Study of Malaysia

This article examines the refugee crisis in Malaysia from the perspective of Islamic law, addressing the challenges arising from the absence of a formal legal framework for refugee protection. Through a legal normative approach and in-depth interviews with Islamic authorities and NGOs, this study investigates Islamic principles related to refugee welfare. The findings of this study reveal that Malaysia has an ethical and legal responsibility under Islamic law (domestic and legal normative) to protect and support refugees despite not signing the 1951 Refugee Convention. This study emphasises the potential role of Islamic authorities as part of the government body in administering, coordinating, and implementing Islamic welfare efforts to meet the needs of refugees. By aligning refugee support with Islamic values, Malaysia can improve its ability to provide comprehensive care and protection to refugees, fulfilling religious and humanitarian duties. This integrated approach could serve as a model for other Muslim-majority countries, promoting a more inclusive and compassionate response to the global refugee crisis.

Afghan Women Are Under Threat from the Taliban: A Great Test of the Turkish Government and the Courts

Abstract This article examines how Türkiye evaluates the protection requirements of Afghan women fleeing from persecution in Afghanistan. It considers whether Türkiye grants refugee status to Afghan women as members of a ‘particular social group’ or on other Refugee Convention grounds. It analyses the jurisprudence of Türkiye’s Administrative Courts and Regional Administrative Courts concerning international protection claims lodged by Afghan women between August 2021 and June 2023 to determine whether Türkiye follows a gender-sensitive interpretation of the Refugee Convention and respects the principle of non-refoulement.

The Poor Integration Results of the Common European Asylum System Compared to the Temporary Protection Directive: The Case of the Netherlands

AbstractTaking the case of the Netherlands, we compare integration outcomes of the traditional asylum reception system (implementing the Refugee Convention), applied to, for example, Syrians and Afghans, and the EU’s Temporary Protection Directive (TPD) which is applied to Ukrainians. We show that the TPD is not just less costly for receiving countries but also results in much faster labor market integration. While rapid integration is an important policy goal, the traditional asylum system is not effective, and talents are underutilized. We show how spatial and temporal aspects of the asylum procedures for Common European Asylum System (CEAS) refugees lead to slow integration, while Ukrainians under TPD work immediately and can build connections in Dutch society.

The Locus of Persecution Reconsidered: Risk of Re-Trafficking, Cumulative Harm, and Failure of State Protection

Abstract Persecution, a core concept of the 1951 Refugee Convention’s definition of ‘refugee’, is generally thought to entail both serious harm and a failure of State protection. The predominant view in refugee law is that the harm a refugee fears will take place within their country of origin. Yet, trafficked persons who fear (transnational) re-trafficking experience harm mainly outside the country of origin. As such, their asylum claims raise difficult doctrinal issues, in particular regarding how the State of origin can be expected to protect against harm taking place outside its territory. This article seeks to answer this question by examining trafficking-based asylum claims from the United Kingdom and Germany and the relationship between future risk, harm, and State protection. It argues that to understand effective State protection against re-trafficking, it is necessary to pay attention to the individual types of harm experienced in the trafficking context and to their sequence. This allows an understanding of persecution as cumulative, with the State of origin’s failure to protect against harm experienced in its territory resulting in additional harm experienced outside the country. This understanding of persecution resolves the doctrinal issues raised by trafficking-based asylum claims and has wider implications for individuals who experience harm in the context of irregular migration.

Financial Crimes as ‘Serious Non-Political Crimes’: Consequences for the Concepts of Seriousness and Unworthiness in Exclusion Law

Abstract Financial crimes were recently recognized by the Conseil d’État, France’s supreme administrative court, as ‘serious non-political crimes’ for the purposes of exclusion under article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention. Such an extension of the scope of article 1F(b) raises questions regarding the seriousness threshold of article 1F(b) and its link to bodily harm. A first approach would be to establish the indirect relationship between financial crimes and bodily harm. Another approach would be to discard the concept of bodily harm as being pivotal in understanding the scope of the exclusion clauses. This second solution would have crucial implications for the theoretical underpinnings of the exclusion clauses of article 1F of the Refugee Convention, namely on the concept of unworthiness. In this regard, the recognition of financial crimes as rendering an asylum seeker unworthy of protection highlights the link between exclusion and moral and societal concerns.

Indonesia's responsibility towards Rohingya refugees: analysis of the 1951 Refugee Convention

The Acehnese people refused the boat carrying more than 200 Rohingya migrants in early 2024; therefore, UNHCR is pleading with the Indonesian authorities to allow them to disembark. The UNHCR report states that there are currently 1,608 Aceh refugees, including 140 survivors from the previous year. People are increasingly worried about the impact of the significant influx of Rohingya individuals in Aceh. Indonesia's acceptance of those seeking safety for humanitarian reasons has significantly affected the Acehnese population. Indonesia is being pressured to provide assistance to Rohingya refugees despite not being a signatory to the Refugee Convention. The issue at hand is whether Indonesia is legally obligated to help Rohingya refugees under the Refugee Convention. This study utilized normative legal research, commonly known as document analysis involving a qualitative examination of secondary data sources. The investigation included sources such as books, papers, and treaties, specifically focusing on the Refugee Convention of 1951. Indonesia, as it is not a signatory to the Refugee Convention, does not have a legal duty to aid the Rohingya refugees in Aceh based on the Refugee Convention. This study employed normative legal research, analyzing documents qualitatively with secondary sources like books, articles, and treaties, notably the 1951 Refugee Convention. Consequently, since Indonesia has not ratified the Refugee Convention, it is not bound by legal obligations to assist the Rohingya refugees in Aceh. However, Indonesia still maintains a responsibility according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Utilizing Eurocentric Temporary Protection Directive as a Global Approach of Refugee Protection

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.

Gender in European Union Asylum Law: The Istanbul Convention as a Game Changer?

Abstract The European Union (EU) has historically been a proactive player in advancing equality between women and men, and fighting gender-based discrimination. The past two decades have also seen the EU becoming a major actor in asylum law, with several EU secondary law instruments and a large amount of case law in EU Member States relating to the application of the 1951 Refugee Convention. Yet, these two areas of EU legislation – gender equality and asylum – have yet to become consistently connected. Similarly, judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union addressing gender-related elements of asylum cases are scarce. Could the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul Convention) help bridge the gap? The Istanbul Convention identifies gender-based violence as an extreme form of discrimination and contains a whole chapter dedicated to women in the context of migration. This article sheds light on the yet-to-be-realized potential of the Istanbul Convention to amplify the protective power of the Refugee Convention in the EU. While at present neither the Common European Asylum System, nor its new iteration in the New Pact on Migration and Asylum, fully meets the standards of the Istanbul Convention, it may be expected that the EU’s accession to the treaty will further encourage a gender-sensitive approach in EU asylum law. The Istanbul Convention may well be a game changer for the protection of female asylum seekers, and possibly also for asylum seekers with other gender identities.