For instance, it doesn't extend to the millions of people displaced within their own countries. To be fair, the convention does not protect every displaced person in the world – but nor was it designed to. For instance, gender-related persecution is now accepted as founding a refugee claim. Indeed, the drafters were well aware that refugee protection was not a way to bypass migration controls – on the contrary, refugee status determination exposes people to the most extreme vetting imaginable.Īlthough drafted in the 1950s, the convention's definition of a refugee has proven itself capable of a dynamic interpretation over time. It also contains exclusion clauses to keep out people who are suspected of committing very serious crimes, such as murder or terrorism. It doesn't provide a "blank cheque", but carefully balances the needs of refugees and governments. The convention remains the most comprehensive statement we have of the rights and obligations of refugees, supplemented by international human rights law. In the other camp are those who think the treaty is too generous and somehow responsible for the large numbers of refugees we see around the world today.Ĭuriously, the convention is somehow too narrow and too broad at the same time simultaneously blocking yet facilitating access to protection. In one camp are those who think the treaty is too old to respond to the displacement challenges of the 21st century, such as climate change and disasters. Critics of the United Nations Refugee Convention tend to fall into two camps.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |