Today marks the 70th anniversary of the ratification of the 1951 Refugee Convention, which was created in response to the aftermath of the atrocities of World War Two. The Convention is built on the basis of the ancient customary “right of asylum”, in which the international community provides support and protection to those forced to flee from their countries of origin. The Convention formalised this right and made it part of international law that state parties to the treaty recognise the duty to protect those in need of asylum, as a legal obligation. The Convention and its Protocol defines the term ‘refugee’ and outlines the rights of refugees as well as the legal obligations of states to protect them. Its second foundation is the Principle of ‘Non-Refoulement’, which will be explained later in this Info Series.
The Refugee Convention is a piece of international human rights law and legislation, which steps in when groups of people can no longer rely on their state to protect their most fundamental rights. It differs from other pieces of human rights legislation - like the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) - due to its emphasis on care. Its focus is on the symptoms of state-sponsored human rights abuses, not their causes.
In our 12th Info Series instalment, we will unpack the Q&A session we ran on our social media stories. We also go into more detail about the Convention - unpacking notable gaps as well as issues that result from it - and discuss related refugee topics. Read on for more information on the questions we asked yesterday on our social media stories.
As of January 2020, 146 countries are parties to the 1951 Convention. 147 are parties to the 1967 Protocol that came after the ratification of the 1951 Convention, which broadens the applicability of the Convention. Specifically, the 1967 Protocol removes the geographical and time limits that existed as part of the 1951 Convention. These limitations restricted the Convention to persons who became refugees due to the events occurring in Europe before the 1st of January 1951. 143 countries have ratified both the Convention and Protocol to date.
But not all countries who ratified the Convention, have become parties to the Protocol - or vice versa. Madagascar and Saint Kitts and Nevis are parties only to the Convention, and Cape Verde, the USA and Venezuela are parties only to the Protocol. Turkey, interestingly, is a party to both the Convention and Protocol, but maintains the geographical limitation that exists in the Convention.
The answer is the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Despite the Convention being ‘legally binding’, there is actually no body that monitors compliance of state parties to the legal obligations enshrined in the Convention. The Convention states that complaints should be referred to the ICJ, but no nation has ever done this as of yet. The UNHCR has ‘supervisory’ responsibilities, calling itself the Conventions ‘guardian’, but does not have the mandate, authority or power to enforce the Convention. There is also no formal mechanism for individuals to file complaints.
If an individual were to make complaints, they can do it either through the UN Human Rights Committee under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, or, with the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. But, again, no one has ever done so in relation to violations of the Convention. States do have the power to levy international sanctions against perpetrators, but none have done this.
Three common tactics are thus used when a violation (or violations) occurs: 1) public shaming in the media, 2) verbal condemnation of the state committing the violation by the UN or individual nations, or 3) resolutions are passed through the UN to condemn human rights abuses. Yet, these approaches have limited success and do not deter states from violating these rights
Under the Convention, they are not recognised as refugees. Syrian refugees - approximately 4 million of them - have been given temporary protection refugee status by the UNHCR. This is because Turkey, interestingly, is a party to both the Convention and Protocol, but maintains the optional geographical limitation that exists in the Convention (which was permitted when the Refugee Convention was first created). Thus, Turkey only recognises refugees from Europe as having refugee status. The point of the 1967 Protocol was to protect all refugees, no matter where they came from. But by opting out of the geographical limitation, Turkey has no legal obligations towards non-European refugees and they cannot claim the rights laid out in the Convention.
So people from Syria, Afghanistan or any other non-European country cannot be recognised in Turkey, which has posed, continues to pose, a huge problem as many refugees from non-European countries enter into Turkey. For example, within the past few months, at least 1000 Afghans have crossed the Iran-Turkey border every day due to the resurgence of violence in Afghanistan, and this number is likely to increase in the coming months.
As well as Turkey, the Congo, Madagascar and Monaco also maintain the optional geographical limitation.
So all of those answers were correct… According to the Convention, a refugee is “someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion”. This definition is overly narrow, and limits refugee status to a narrow group - those who are directly persecuted. It ignores those who have very strong reasons to leave their country, but do not fall under the definition of direct, personal persecution, which is basically “people who are fleeing a conflict zone simply because it’s too dangerous to stay”. These people can be grouped as follows:
Internally Displaced People (IDPs) - these people are still within their country of origin and have not crossed an international border, but are displaced and are in need of protection. For example, in Afghanistan, there are currently at least 4 million IDPs in need of support. There are an estimated 270,000 Afghan’s who have become internally displaced since the beginning of 2021, with the number likely to continue to increase due to the resurgence of violence in recent months. But, as per the Convention, the definition includes that a refugee has to be someone who resides outside of their country of origin, thus excluding IDPs from being classified as refugees under the Convention.
Then, there are people who are fleeing violence without direct persecution. For example, in the Congo, many have been subjected to violence and war, but not in a direct or ‘personal’ way. Thus, lack of proof can lead to indirect persecution, which results in the exclusion of these people from being considered a refugee.
People fleeing due to being displaced by environmental disasters and climate change events, like floods, droughts, earthquakes etc. Climate change is displacing more than 20 million people annually. The UN forecasts estimate that there could be anywhere up to 1 billion environmental people on the move by 2050. Despite already being an overwhelming and constantly growing threat, this does not classify as a reason for refugee status. Most likely, climate change will be the biggest cause for displacement and migration in the very near future.
Asylum seekers are also not refugees. They are still in the process of getting asylum, they are still waiting for their claim to be heard and a decision to be made on their application. While they are in this process, they are not eligible for any of the refugee rights enshrined in the Convention until they receive a positive decision and are granted refugee status.
Also, the controversially discussed and debated topics of people who flee because of economic reasons. This is a European and Western centric narrative that has been adopted in strengthening rhetorics and narratives of ‘economic migrants’ who choose to leave their country based on the wish for a better, more secure life and future. This, though, is nothing but a neo-colonialist assumption, which simply ignores the life-threatening dangers of poverty. But because poverty is not recognised as a reason for flight by the Convention, there is plenty of room for Europe to successfully use the narrative to justify its human rights abuses, including pushbacks and the fortification of its borders.
You can read more about the differences between ‘migrant’, ‘refugee’ and ‘asylum seeker’ in our Info Series #4.
Despite the widely held belief that the Global North is under threat from migrants, it is actually the Global South, which hosts most people on the move. Approximately half of all displaced people are IDPs, and of the rest - refugees, asylum seekers and Venezuelans displaced abroad - 85% are hosted in developing countries, and 73% in neighbouring countries.
%20%5BMyths%20%20Beliefs%5D.png)
You can read more about the mistaken belief that most people are fleeing to Europe, Australia and the United States in our Info Series #2.
According to the OHCHR, under international human rights law, the Principle of Non-Refoulement “guarantees that no one should be returned to a country where they would face torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and
other irreparable harm”. This principle is enshrined in the 1951 Geneva Refugee Convention, as well as multiple other regional and international treaties and frameworks, including, but not limited to, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) and the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (ICPPED).
The principle is characterised by its absolute nature, which does not allow for any exceptions. This means that it is prohibited to refoule under international human rights law any persons, regardless of their status, where there is substantial and sufficient ground for believing the returnee would be at risk of irreparable harm and torture. The principle applies to all persons, irrespective of citizenship, nationality, statelessness, or migration status.
However, the principle has been criticised for its emphasis on placing a negative obligation on the state to do no harm, but not a positive obligation to assist. The principle supposedly gives anyone the right - including refugees - not to be expelled back to a place where they will be in danger, but it does not give people the right to escape the danger in the first place. Non-Refoulement itself also only grants temporary protection and shelter until the refugees can return to their country of origin. Critics have called for a positive right to migrate and establish a life in a new country - the concept of ‘safe passage’ - and the right to permanent settlement, rather than simply a temporary status. Temporary status can always be revoked whenever the state government decides it is safe for you to go home.
The principle of non-refoulement is also the reason why categorisation of so-called “safe (third) countries” is important. One especially important discussion on this is whether Turkey is a safe third country. To read why it is not, go to our Info Series #5.
Yes they are. As previously mentioned, they violate the Principle of Non-Refoulement, as defined in the Convention. The right to seek safety and asylum is a fundamental human right, and pushbacks do not take into account due process and ignore peoples calls for asylum.
They also violate numerous articles of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The European Union has adopted the principle of Non-Refoulement in its own legislation, making it binding for all member states.
To read more about why pushbacks are illegal, read our Info Series #1.
No. Despite what parts of the media and states frame it as, there is no correlation between the existence of Search and Rescue missions and people making dangerous crossings at sea. Rather, increased crossings were just a continuation of a trend that already existed, independent from SAR NGOs operating. We wrote an Info Series this year on this exact topic, so if you want to read more about it, check it out here. It is also worth remembering that Search and Rescue missions safe lives and that it is normally, the duty of states to carry them out.
The answer is that a staggering 71 countries still criminalise same-sex sexual activities across the world. And 15 countries also criminalised gender identity and/or gender expression of transgender people. A further 11 countries impose the death penalty or have the legal possibility to impose the death penalty for private, consensual same-sex sexual activity.
It is estimated over 175 million queer individuals worldwide live under persecutory environments. Life for many people who are part of LGBTQIA+ communities is incredibly difficult, even in countries where they are not criminalised on the basis of their sexuality. Refugees who have fled their country of origin for fear of persecution based on their sexuality, are forced to prove to immigration authorities that they are queer during their asylum process. They also need to show that there is a genuine threat to their life due to their sexuality. But, since someone's sexuality or gender identity is something inherent in one’s identity, rather than something external, it poses challenges in determining the credibility of an applicant’s claims. Read our most recent Info Series #10, where we interview a legal expert on European asylum law for LGBTQIA+ refugees.
None. There are no ‘illegal migrants’ contrary to popular belief. The term is legally, morally and factually incorrect. Even if there are undocumented people in the European Union, it does not constitute a crime in almost all countries. However, even in countries where violations of immigration law are considered criminal offenses, committing a criminal offence does not make a person ‘illegal’.
If you want to understand why the term is incorrect and why the correct term is ‘irregular migration’, please read our Info Series #11 on why migration is not illegal.
Today marks the 70th anniversary of the ratification of the 1951 Refugee Convention, which was created in response to the aftermath of the atrocities of World War Two. The Convention is built on the basis of the ancient customary “right of asylum”, in which the international community provides support and protection to those forced to flee from their countries of origin. The Convention formalised this right and made it part of international law that state parties to the treaty recognise the duty to protect those in need of asylum, as a legal obligation. The Convention and its Protocol defines the term ‘refugee’ and outlines the rights of refugees as well as the legal obligations of states to protect them. Its second foundation is the Principle of ‘Non-Refoulement’, which will be explained later in this Info Series.
The Refugee Convention is a piece of international human rights law and legislation, which steps in when groups of people can no longer rely on their state to protect their most fundamental rights. It differs from other pieces of human rights legislation - like the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) - due to its emphasis on care. Its focus is on the symptoms of state-sponsored human rights abuses, not their causes.
In our 12th Info Series instalment, we will unpack the Q&A session we ran on our social media stories. We also go into more detail about the Convention - unpacking notable gaps as well as issues that result from it - and discuss related refugee topics. Read on for more information on the questions we asked yesterday on our social media stories.
As of January 2020, 146 countries are parties to the 1951 Convention. 147 are parties to the 1967 Protocol that came after the ratification of the 1951 Convention, which broadens the applicability of the Convention. Specifically, the 1967 Protocol removes the geographical and time limits that existed as part of the 1951 Convention. These limitations restricted the Convention to persons who became refugees due to the events occurring in Europe before the 1st of January 1951. 143 countries have ratified both the Convention and Protocol to date.
But not all countries who ratified the Convention, have become parties to the Protocol - or vice versa. Madagascar and Saint Kitts and Nevis are parties only to the Convention, and Cape Verde, the USA and Venezuela are parties only to the Protocol. Turkey, interestingly, is a party to both the Convention and Protocol, but maintains the geographical limitation that exists in the Convention.
The answer is the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Despite the Convention being ‘legally binding’, there is actually no body that monitors compliance of state parties to the legal obligations enshrined in the Convention. The Convention states that complaints should be referred to the ICJ, but no nation has ever done this as of yet. The UNHCR has ‘supervisory’ responsibilities, calling itself the Conventions ‘guardian’, but does not have the mandate, authority or power to enforce the Convention. There is also no formal mechanism for individuals to file complaints.
If an individual were to make complaints, they can do it either through the UN Human Rights Committee under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, or, with the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. But, again, no one has ever done so in relation to violations of the Convention. States do have the power to levy international sanctions against perpetrators, but none have done this.
Three common tactics are thus used when a violation (or violations) occurs: 1) public shaming in the media, 2) verbal condemnation of the state committing the violation by the UN or individual nations, or 3) resolutions are passed through the UN to condemn human rights abuses. Yet, these approaches have limited success and do not deter states from violating these rights
Under the Convention, they are not recognised as refugees. Syrian refugees - approximately 4 million of them - have been given temporary protection refugee status by the UNHCR. This is because Turkey, interestingly, is a party to both the Convention and Protocol, but maintains the optional geographical limitation that exists in the Convention (which was permitted when the Refugee Convention was first created). Thus, Turkey only recognises refugees from Europe as having refugee status. The point of the 1967 Protocol was to protect all refugees, no matter where they came from. But by opting out of the geographical limitation, Turkey has no legal obligations towards non-European refugees and they cannot claim the rights laid out in the Convention.
So people from Syria, Afghanistan or any other non-European country cannot be recognised in Turkey, which has posed, continues to pose, a huge problem as many refugees from non-European countries enter into Turkey. For example, within the past few months, at least 1000 Afghans have crossed the Iran-Turkey border every day due to the resurgence of violence in Afghanistan, and this number is likely to increase in the coming months.
As well as Turkey, the Congo, Madagascar and Monaco also maintain the optional geographical limitation.
So all of those answers were correct… According to the Convention, a refugee is “someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion”. This definition is overly narrow, and limits refugee status to a narrow group - those who are directly persecuted. It ignores those who have very strong reasons to leave their country, but do not fall under the definition of direct, personal persecution, which is basically “people who are fleeing a conflict zone simply because it’s too dangerous to stay”. These people can be grouped as follows:
Internally Displaced People (IDPs) - these people are still within their country of origin and have not crossed an international border, but are displaced and are in need of protection. For example, in Afghanistan, there are currently at least 4 million IDPs in need of support. There are an estimated 270,000 Afghan’s who have become internally displaced since the beginning of 2021, with the number likely to continue to increase due to the resurgence of violence in recent months. But, as per the Convention, the definition includes that a refugee has to be someone who resides outside of their country of origin, thus excluding IDPs from being classified as refugees under the Convention.
Then, there are people who are fleeing violence without direct persecution. For example, in the Congo, many have been subjected to violence and war, but not in a direct or ‘personal’ way. Thus, lack of proof can lead to indirect persecution, which results in the exclusion of these people from being considered a refugee.
People fleeing due to being displaced by environmental disasters and climate change events, like floods, droughts, earthquakes etc. Climate change is displacing more than 20 million people annually. The UN forecasts estimate that there could be anywhere up to 1 billion environmental people on the move by 2050. Despite already being an overwhelming and constantly growing threat, this does not classify as a reason for refugee status. Most likely, climate change will be the biggest cause for displacement and migration in the very near future.
Asylum seekers are also not refugees. They are still in the process of getting asylum, they are still waiting for their claim to be heard and a decision to be made on their application. While they are in this process, they are not eligible for any of the refugee rights enshrined in the Convention until they receive a positive decision and are granted refugee status.
Also, the controversially discussed and debated topics of people who flee because of economic reasons. This is a European and Western centric narrative that has been adopted in strengthening rhetorics and narratives of ‘economic migrants’ who choose to leave their country based on the wish for a better, more secure life and future. This, though, is nothing but a neo-colonialist assumption, which simply ignores the life-threatening dangers of poverty. But because poverty is not recognised as a reason for flight by the Convention, there is plenty of room for Europe to successfully use the narrative to justify its human rights abuses, including pushbacks and the fortification of its borders.
You can read more about the differences between ‘migrant’, ‘refugee’ and ‘asylum seeker’ in our Info Series #4.
Despite the widely held belief that the Global North is under threat from migrants, it is actually the Global South, which hosts most people on the move. Approximately half of all displaced people are IDPs, and of the rest - refugees, asylum seekers and Venezuelans displaced abroad - 85% are hosted in developing countries, and 73% in neighbouring countries.
You can read more about the mistaken belief that most people are fleeing to Europe, Australia and the United States in our Info Series #2.
According to the OHCHR, under international human rights law, the Principle of Non-Refoulement “guarantees that no one should be returned to a country where they would face torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and
other irreparable harm”. This principle is enshrined in the 1951 Geneva Refugee Convention, as well as multiple other regional and international treaties and frameworks, including, but not limited to, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) and the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (ICPPED).
The principle is characterised by its absolute nature, which does not allow for any exceptions. This means that it is prohibited to refoule under international human rights law any persons, regardless of their status, where there is substantial and sufficient ground for believing the returnee would be at risk of irreparable harm and torture. The principle applies to all persons, irrespective of citizenship, nationality, statelessness, or migration status.
However, the principle has been criticised for its emphasis on placing a negative obligation on the state to do no harm, but not a positive obligation to assist. The principle supposedly gives anyone the right - including refugees - not to be expelled back to a place where they will be in danger, but it does not give people the right to escape the danger in the first place. Non-Refoulement itself also only grants temporary protection and shelter until the refugees can return to their country of origin. Critics have called for a positive right to migrate and establish a life in a new country - the concept of ‘safe passage’ - and the right to permanent settlement, rather than simply a temporary status. Temporary status can always be revoked whenever the state government decides it is safe for you to go home.
The principle of non-refoulement is also the reason why categorisation of so-called “safe (third) countries” is important. One especially important discussion on this is whether Turkey is a safe third country. To read why it is not, go to our Info Series #5.
Yes they are. As previously mentioned, they violate the Principle of Non-Refoulement, as defined in the Convention. The right to seek safety and asylum is a fundamental human right, and pushbacks do not take into account due process and ignore peoples calls for asylum.
They also violate numerous articles of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The European Union has adopted the principle of Non-Refoulement in its own legislation, making it binding for all member states.
To read more about why pushbacks are illegal, read our Info Series #1.
No. Despite what parts of the media and states frame it as, there is no correlation between the existence of Search and Rescue missions and people making dangerous crossings at sea. Rather, increased crossings were just a continuation of a trend that already existed, independent from SAR NGOs operating. We wrote an Info Series this year on this exact topic, so if you want to read more about it, check it out here. It is also worth remembering that Search and Rescue missions safe lives and that it is normally, the duty of states to carry them out.
The answer is that a staggering 71 countries still criminalise same-sex sexual activities across the world. And 15 countries also criminalised gender identity and/or gender expression of transgender people. A further 11 countries impose the death penalty or have the legal possibility to impose the death penalty for private, consensual same-sex sexual activity.
It is estimated over 175 million queer individuals worldwide live under persecutory environments. Life for many people who are part of LGBTQIA+ communities is incredibly difficult, even in countries where they are not criminalised on the basis of their sexuality. Refugees who have fled their country of origin for fear of persecution based on their sexuality, are forced to prove to immigration authorities that they are queer during their asylum process. They also need to show that there is a genuine threat to their life due to their sexuality. But, since someone's sexuality or gender identity is something inherent in one’s identity, rather than something external, it poses challenges in determining the credibility of an applicant’s claims. Read our most recent Info Series #10, where we interview a legal expert on European asylum law for LGBTQIA+ refugees.
None. There are no ‘illegal migrants’ contrary to popular belief. The term is legally, morally and factually incorrect. Even if there are undocumented people in the European Union, it does not constitute a crime in almost all countries. However, even in countries where violations of immigration law are considered criminal offenses, committing a criminal offence does not make a person ‘illegal’.
If you want to understand why the term is incorrect and why the correct term is ‘irregular migration’, please read our Info Series #11 on why migration is not illegal.
