Why The Refugee Convention Should Be Amended: Problems And Suggestions

Definition of Refugee and Forced Migration

1. Why the refugee convention be amended?

2. How and what impact will the amended refugee convention have?

The United Nations Convention associated with the standing of refugees was formed in the year 1951. It is popularly referred as The Refugee Convention. It has been created to protect the rights of people who have a threat of mistreatment in their respective countries. It came into action on 22^nd April 1954. The convention was formed following the events of the disastrous World War II wherein millions of people were forced to move within Europe. Hence, forced migration came into existence as a result of the dislocation. As per one of the US State Department report it has been recognized as one of the biggest inhabitant movement across the world (Berg, 2011). Initially, it was restricted to protect European refugees. However, in the year 1967, a protocol was released with a modification which removed such restriction and expanded its coverage owing to global displacement problem.

The Convention clearly states who a refugee is and all the rights i.e. legal, social etc that an individual is entitled to from the countries who are a part of the convention. Any individual residing outside their base country and is reluctant to return due to rational threat of harassment on the basis of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political group is considered as a refugee (Nasr, 2016). However, the convention not only defines a refugee but also recognizes those who are not entitled for such rights like war criminals, any person who has committed some major non-political crime or any person who is found culpable of acts opposing the doctrine of the United Nation. It is the accountability of the state to safeguard an individual once he or she has been confirmed as a refugee. However, forced migrants comprises of both refugees as well as people who are forced to move within the country. Clearly, refugees are a sub category of forced migrant. The international law does not safeguard internally displaced people. Also no support is provided to them as is granted to a refugee. Millions of individuals are migrating as per the International Association for the Study of Forced Migration (IASFM) (Joseph, 2016). However, the number of individuals migrating within the country were almost double than refugees in the late 1990’s.

However, as per article 33 of the said convention, the state cannot propel refugees to go to a region where they have a risk of maltreatment excluding those who pose to be a threat to the country’s security or community. This primary principle is commonly referred as the principle of non-refoulement. Also, no penalty can be imposed on the refugees for entering and departing without consent as per Article 31 of the convention. Hence, the countries who have signed the document cannot confine their liberation of movement. Refugees have multiple of rights but at the same time are also liable in terms of the maintenance of law and order in their respective host country. Certain rights granted to refugees are the right to housing, the right to education, the right to access the courts, the right to work, the right to freedom of religion, the right to be issued identity and travel documents. However, no such rights are entitled to internally displaced people. Global security and solving crucial problems of refugees is the primary responsibility of United Nation High Commissioner for refugees (UNHCR).

Challenges Faced by Refugee Convention

Globally, 142 countries commonly called as state parties have signed the document in agreement with both the Refugee Convention as well as its Protocol. However, United States of America is amongst the three countries which have approved to the Protocol while there are two other countries supporting the convention. Non-discrimination, non-penalisation, and ‘non-refoulement’ are few of the fundamental principles governing the said Convention.  “The 1951 Convention specifies three durable solutions for refugees: to return to their own country voluntarily (“voluntary repatriation”); to integrate in the country where they find themselves (“local integration”); or to resettle in another country (“third country resettlement”)” (Koser, 2015). Amongst all the countries, Australia has been foremost contributor for relocation of refugees. Its off-shore humanitarian program is widely popular and well received globally.

1. As stated above, The Refugee Convention, a 60 year old convention was established to guard basic rights of the refugees. However, in the contemporary world, due to difference in the dynamics of forced migration, the convention faces some major problems which need to be rectified. Hence, it should be amended. One of the major problems is that it is an age old convention and today’s scenario is entirely different from what it used to be. Firstly, there is major flaw in the definition of refugee as far as the model of forced migration is concerned. A refugee has a risk of harassment due to political and civil reasons from their own country. However, in today’s world, monetary adversity and hostility are the major causes for refugee dislocation. So the large number of refugees in the 21^st century does not comply with the above explained definition and the Convention stands archaic. The reunion has encouraged classification of refuge seekers as either opinionated and thus 'genuine' and lawful and commendable, or economic and thus rude and dishonest and unworthy. 

Another set of drawback of the said convention includes lack of support to refugees till the time they reach their host country. Also, the countries have no compulsion of not maltreating their own citizens and there is no requisite of load distribution between states. Irregular distribution of resources is another setback of the convention. There has also been rapid increase in people smuggling which makes forced migrant more helpless. “Along the Mediterranean Sea route alone, some analysts estimate that smugglers extracted up to $US1 billion from migrants during the record high year of 2014.” (Koser, 2015)

Issues with Asylum Seekers and Load Sharing

An individual is considered as an ‘asylum-seeker’ till the time he or she has been approved as a refugee (Cole, 2015). There are several issues as far as asylum channel is concerned as they promote uneven relocation and is mostly associated with corruption. The said convention does not take into account key issues in terms of political, monetary and communal factors that affect the host country with regards to huge numbers of asylum seekers. Also, it does not give preference to those in utmost need but to those who has the capacity to pay. Moving forward, there is great discrepancy on what is being spent and what is being accorded to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) for sustaining the asylum seeker (Millbank, 2000). Presently, large number of individuals who are displaced within the country are beyond UNHCR’s authorization which is a major challenge for the forced migrant. The convention is considered remnant of cold war. It operated smoothly till the end of the Cold War, but did not premeditate today’s global resettlement. In Europe, official foreign workers have always been less than the asylum seekers since the year 1985.

Further, conflict between understanding and relevance of the convention is the other key problem. Germany, Britain, Switzerland and the Netherlands are the four countries in Europe which accounts for majority of asylum seekers who migrates in the said countries owing to wide array of factors such as service opportunities, closeness, liberality of safety systems etc. There is no intention of load sharing. The majority of asylum seekers do not meet the refugee criteria due to its unclear definition, they are normally granted momentary inhabitant status. The whole procedure of refugee status determination is expensive. In Western countries, asylum system works as a resettlement guide. The convention entitles any individual to apply for refugee status and enter the country. Receiving states have to undergo the whole status determination process despite of the fact that most of the  applications are foul which in turn takes a lot of time, due to which asylum seekers arrange their way out in the host country and it becomes difficult to remove them even if they have failed to meet the said criterion. The absence of substantive official requisite power of the UNHCR and UN documentation in general is a well documented one, but gradually seems to be a matter of particular concern given the compassionate crisis being faced on actual basis.

Discrepancies in Resource Distribution

Moreover, the Convention has adopted the concept of exile to protect refugees. In today’s era, the ideology of the global community has been reformed completely. Hence, exile is not a suitable resolution to refugee problems. There is no restriction in the number of people who can apply for the said status and the receiving states are under the obligation to provide complete legal support to them. Moreover, the amount spent on the asylum seeker is way higher than what is actually spent to meet the demands of deserving refugees. Gender based indiscrimination is also a drawback of the said convention. Also, public in the host country do not sympathize with the asylum seeker in the same way as they do with the apparent refugee.

2. Although, UNHCR who is considered as a sentinel of the Refugee Convention is constantly adapting to cope up with the altering conditions related to forced migration. It is clearly evident from the above drawbacks that amendment of the Refugee Convention is highly recommended. Nowadays, inhabitant expansion, food and energy constraint, urbanization, ecological degradation are some of the major causes of forced migration. The concept of refugee should be redefined so that it includes recent displacements as it considers only 5 grounds. “The Norwegian Refugee Council released a report revealing that 32.4 million people were forced to flee their homes in 2012 on account of natural disasters, such as floods, storms and earthquakes” (McAdam, 2013).  A large number of individuals are internally displaced because of such calamities with few opting for international migration. Protection of such people is not covered in the Convention. Hence, efficient steps should be taken such as before time caution system for calamities, vigilant city development etc which will reduce international migration. Also, citizenship of both the countries should be granted to these forced migrant. Australia supports enhanced regional security system which helps in the reduction of number of people crossing the border. Further, UNHCR should alter the system of safeguarding and support to bring out the changes in work and site of refugee flows.

 Identification of the actual reasons of forced migration is required for the protection of their rights. Continuous advancement of global guiding values should be done for forcibly displaced people. Avoiding the situations that trigger forced migration is the best way of protection (Zetter, 2014). Keeping in mind the current trend of globalization, more countries should become a part of the updated convention.  Further, extra consideration should not be on the people but on the groups and stipulation of civilized support. Thus, this particular change will make the countries liable for dislocation. This would in turn make the states accountable to support the countries of primary asylum. One of the major drawbacks of the convention which is the growing numbers of people smuggling can be overcome by plummeting the requirement for long distance asylum seekers. An efficient and well-organized approach is required to guard and support individuals who are internally displaced which will reinforce the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement. “Mandatory detention of asylum seekers was introduced in Australia in 1992 as an enforcement arm of new universal visa and regulated entry requirements” (Birrell & Millbank, 2011). This particular step provided a way of segregating the prohibited and authorized foreign national. However, it was not well accepted. Australia possibly will leave from the said convention. This way country can widen and amend clauses related to on-shore asylum seekers who are big trouble in the present time. Further, supplementary efficient immigration program are needed to exhibit load distribution with greatly impacted countries. Lastly, “protection should apply to all individuals with similar needs, regardless of the cause of displacement” (Betts, 2014). 

Conclusion

At the end, we conclude that undoubtedly The 1951 Refugee Convention provides authorized structure for the worldwide protection of refugees. However, due to globalization, it faces immense pressure. One of the key issues of the 21^st century is immigration. Hence, the age old convention should be updated consistently to overcome forced migration challenges that are on a rise.

References:

Berg, C., (2011), Why cling on to an outdated refugee convention? Available at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-19/berg-why-are-we-clinging-to-an-outdated-refugee-convention/3577538 / (Accessed 06^th September 2017)

Nasr, L., (2016), International Refugee Law: Definitions and Limitations of the 1951 Refugee Convention Available at https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/humanrights/2016/02/08/international-refugee-law-definitions-and-limitations-of-the-1951-refugee-convention/ (Accessed 06^th September 2017 )

Joseph, O.A., (2016), Forced Migration and Climate Change: How it Challenges the 1951 Refugee Convention- Refugee Aware Available at https://refugeeaware.org.uk/forced-migration-and-climate-change-how-it-challenges-the-1951-refugee-convention/ (Accessed 06^th September 2017)

Cole, P., (2015), What’s Wrong with the Refugee Convention Available at https://www.e-ir.info/2015/11/06/whats-wrong-with-the-refugee-convention/ (Accessed 06^th September 2017)

Millbank, A., (2000), The Problem with the 1951 Refugee Convention Available at https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp0001/01RP05 (Accessed 05^th September 2017)

Zetter, R., (2014), Protecting Forced Migrants Available at https://www.ekm.admin.ch/content/dam/data/ekm/dokumentation/materialien/mat_schutz_e.pdf (Accessed 06^th September 2017)

Koser, K., (2015), AUSTRALIA AND THE 1951 REFUGEE CONVENTION Available at https://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/australia-and-1951-refugee-convention (Accessed 06^th September 2017)

McAdam, J., (2013), What to do about climate migration Available at https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/what-do-about-climate-migration (Accessed 05^th September 2017)

Birrell, B. & Millbank, A.,(2011), Why Australia should abandon the Refugee Convention Available at https://theconversation.com/why-australia-should-abandon-the-refugee-convention-4003 (Accessed 05^th September 2017)

Betts, A., (2013), Survival Migration: Failed Governance and the Crisis of Displacement   Available at file:///C:/Users/hp/Downloads/1662807_1533179452_Betts%20(3).pdf (Accessed 05^th September 2017)