Burden or Responsibility: The Legal Mandate for Managing Refugee Flows
Image by Anfaenger from Pixabay
The Four Arcs of Refugee Protection
The 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, often referred to as the “Bill of Rights for Refugees” or the “Magna Carta for Refugees”, served to entrench the foundational principles of refugee protection in international law (Fontaine, 2007, p.149). The evolution of international refugee protection under these two frameworks can be traced through four arcs, showcasing a legal mandate that is no longer a static set of obligations but a dynamic, evolving framework designed to respond to the complex realities of modern displacement. Initially, the 1951 Convention was geographically and temporally limited. It was built on objective criteria linked to specific groups from designated countries or regions, primarily focusing on addressing individuals fleeing political persecution in Europe after World War II; raising critiques relating to the Convention’s outdated, strict framework that would make it ill-equipped to address modern refugee crises (Ibid., p.150,154). Gradually, however, the scope of protection expanded to “make the definition of refugee global" (Aleinikoff et al., 2020, p.58). Through this progression, the 1967 Protocol allowed international protection to apply to those fleeing conflicts beyond Europe and events occurring after 1951, which previously had not been covered (Fontaine, 2007, p.154).
Thereafter, the second arc expanded the scope of protection undertaken by the UNHCR, international organisations, and NGOs; growing from their original mandate solely centred on advocating for basic rights to now including "hundreds of millions of dollars [of investment] on refugee education, health, and livelihoods projects" accompanied by a dramatic budget increase from $9 million in 1971 to over $3 billion today (Aleinikoff et al., 2020, pp.7,58). By including specialised programs for vulnerable groups and mobilising resources, the framework moved beyond a mere humanitarian response; aiming instead to offer refugees a path to stability and self-sufficiency.
Following this effort, the third arc moved to providing refugees with additional rights “beyond those enshrined in the Convention to include norms from later adopted human rights instruments"; including the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, and international labour conventions, among others (Ibid., p.58). These documents created a multi-layered legal system to expand the reach and depth of refugee protection.
Finally, the fourth arc of this progression highlights the increasing involvement of various responders in refugee protection. Although historically the responsibility for refugee protection lay mainly with host states and the UNHCR, the protracted and widespread nature of modern conflict led to "private sector actors—seeing both moral obligations and opportunities for profit—[to enter] the refugee protection space" (Ibid.). Considering that the UNHCR has been criticised for being a “prisoner of ‘panic legacies’ and ‘literally, fighting the previous war’”, the private sector’s increasing participation highlights how refugee protection is now framed as a shared responsibility (Betts et al., 2017, p.58, 77).
Non-Refoulement and Burden-Sharing
Central to refugee law is the principle of non-refoulement. Entrenched in international law and bolstered by subsequent international agreements, this principle has now become a universally recognised norm (Ibid., p.6). Initially outlined in the 1933 Convention, this principle protects refugees by preventing their repatriation to countries where they could face danger (Aleinikoff et al., 2020, p. 2). However, despite being considered to have reached the status of customary international law, the development of non-refoulement as a jus cogens norm is not without contention; particularly given the room for derogations and exceptions under the Refugee Convention itself. For example, the Convention excludes certain individuals from its protections if there are serious reasons to consider that they have committed crimes or pose a national security threat (Fontaine, 2007, p.22). This allows states to apply a balancing test, where national security concerns often outweigh the risks of human rights violations.
In addition to non-refoulement, the Convention was also designed to function based on a system of international cooperation; emphasising the need for Contracting States to share the burdens arising from global refugee crises. Responsibilities are distributed, albeit unequally. This inequality stems from the Convention’s system of optional declarations which allows States to delimit their obligations geographically, often limiting their responsibilities to specific regions (Blay et al.,1990, p.557). A 1998 UNHCR paper emphasised the unprecedented economic strains resulting from the unequal distribution of burden-sharing responsibilities: including the increased demand for food, energy, employment, environmental pressures from the overuse of natural resources, and social and political tensions arising from the integration of refugees from different cultural, ethnic, or religious backgrounds (UNHCR Executive Committee, 1998; Aleinikoff et al., 2020, p. 52).
This issue is exacerbated by the allowance of reservations under the Convention which permits States to become party to the Convention without being bound by all its provisions (Blay et al., 1990, p. 557). This creates a delicate balancing act: "on the one hand, the need to attract wider participation by allowing Contracting States to define the scope of their obligations" and "on the other hand, the need to ensure that the object and purpose of the treaty are not undermined through the use of reservations" (Ibid.). The Convention aims to partially address this issue by prohibiting reservations to provisions embodying its core objectives, such as “refugee definitions, non-refoulement, access to elementary education, non-discrimination, and the right to due process” (Ibid.). While most reservations are not inconsistent with the Convention’s aims, certain reservations concerning penalties for illegal entry and expulsion, for example, are "arguably incompatible with the Convention’s object and purpose" (Ibid.).
Challenges in Implementation
The global refugee system has long been criticized for its narrow focus on humanitarian aid. This approach is often deemed insufficient, emphasising the need to “move beyond the humanitarian silo [...] to prioritize jobs, education, and economic empowerment for refugees" (Hathaway, 2018, p.173). This highlights a fundamental flaw in the international legal framework; one that centres around immediate humanitarian relief rather than sustainable solutions, showcasing a commitment to refugee protection that remains superficial. Further, the humanitarian field is "dominated by a dogmatic insistence that reciting international law is the most effective way to influence state behaviour" (Betts et al., 2017, p. 209). This adherence to legal rhetoric, while important, often fails to bring about substantive change in state practices. Although the Convention offers some durable solutions, such as Article 34 aiming to "facilitate the assimilation and naturalization of refugees", it does not establish "special arrangements to ensure they are realisable in a timely and durable manner" (Ibid., pp.47-48). This gap underscores the inadequacy of the Convention's current framework.
These shortcomings in refugee law are further reflected in the shifting geopolitical and economic realities surrounding refugee management. One of the most significant developments in refugee laws has been the "non-entrée" policies adopted by states in the Global North. These policies represent a shift away from the open-door policies that characterised the postwar era; now necessitating visa requirements and legal doctrines denying refugee status to asylum seekers who pass through "safe countries" (Ibid., p. 7). These measures illustrate the increasing resistance to providing asylum and the growing perception in the North that the Refugee Convention should not be viewed as a "blank check" for admitting refugees. Instead, these policies seek to deter refugees from even reaching the borders of developed states to keep refugees effectively “out of sight of mind”; underscoring the global inequality in the distribution of refugee protection (Betts et al., 2017, p.41).
Conclusion
The legal framework governing refugee protection has evolved significantly from its origins in the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, adapting to the shifting complexities of displacement. Yet, despite these developments, the international refugee system remains constrained by structural limitations and geopolitical resistance; reflecting a fundamental tension between legal commitments and political realities. While the principle of non-refoulement has been widely recognised, its practical implementation is often tempered by national security concerns and discretionary state policies. Likewise, the burden-sharing ideal remains aspirational rather than enforceable. Reservations, non-entrée policies, and an increasing reliance on deterrent measures have exacerbated global inequalities; shifting the weight of refugee protection onto states with fewer resources. The contemporary refugee regime requires a paradigm shift: moving beyond a crisis-driven response towards a more sustainable, rights-based approach. Ultimately, the challenge lies not only in strengthening legal commitments but in ensuring their consistent and equitable application.
Bibliography
Aleinikoff, T.A., & Zamore, L. (2020). The arc of protection: Reforming the internationalrefugee regime. Stanford University Press.
Betts, A., & Collier, P. (2017). Refuge: Transforming a broken refugee system. Penguin UK.
Blay, S.K., & Tsamenyi, B.M. (1990). Reservations and declarations under the 1951
Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the status of refugees. International Journal of Refugee Law, 2(4), 527-561.
Fontaine, P.M. (2007). The 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the status of refugees: Evolution and relevance for today. Intercultural Human Rights Law Review, 2, 149. https://www.stu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2019/04/2-10-Fontaine.pdf
Hathaway, J.C. (2018). Refuge: Transforming a broken refugee system. International Journal of Refugee Law, 30(1), 173-178. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eey015
UNHCR Executive Committee. (1998). Annual theme: International solidarity and burden-sharing in all its aspects: National, regional and international responsibilities for refugees. U.N. Doc. A/AC.96/904, 7 September. Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4a54bc2f0.html