The 1951 Refugee Convention: Implications for the Future

 Does the legal framework for refugees need to be updated?

Hi dels! This blog post will be the last in the series on the 1951 Refugee Convention. Today’s blog post will discuss the future of the Convention and new factors driving displacement. 

Since World War II, the number of “persons of concern,” which includes refugees, asylum seekers, and internally displaced persons (IDPs), has exponentially increased. At the end of 2019, 79.5 million people were forcibly displaced, with 26 million of them classified as refugees (UNHCR Global Trends 2019). Refugee returns are also decreasing, meaning that refugees are returning to their originating countries less than before. Accordingly, not only are there a higher number of refugees than before, but a larger percentage of these refugees require permanent resettlement options, rather than repatriation. This has not only put a strain on existing refugee and asylum processes ill-equipped to handle such numbers, but it has also exposed the need for solutions that target the causes of this mass displacement, in addition to mitigating the current effects. 

Refugee trends since the end of World War II (Beauchamp).

Trends in the number of refugees returning to their originating countries (UNHCR Global Trends 2019).

Furthermore, children make up a growing portion of displaced peoples. In 2019, 40% of the refugee population was under 18, which equates to roughly 32 million children (UNHCR Global Trends 2019). This raises new concerns, as existing refugee and asylum mechanisms are largely not designed to accommodate unaccompanied minors. 

These trends are only likely to be further exacerbated by new challenges. The UNHCR has highlighted climate change as a growing cause of displacement; with the increase in extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and water pollution, “18.8 million new disaster-related internal displacements [were] recorded in 2017” (United Nations). This presents new problems, as “climate refugees” are not recognized as refugees under the 1951 Convention definition, and, therefore, cannot obtain the assistance and benefits associated with refugee status. Similarly, famine and poverty continue to drive displacement, but these populations are not considered under the 1951 Convention. 

The trends in displacement and the myriad of situations not considered under the 1951 Convention or the 1967 Protocol lead to an important question: Should the 1951 Convention be updated? Scholars and practitioners disagree; some argue that the 1951 Convention will soon fail to cover the majority of displaced peoples and will be rendered obsolete, while others worry that updating the law will result in countries taking the opportunity to back out of their previous commitments under the Convention. 

Those that believe the Convention should be updated argue that it is underinclusive, limiting the classification of refugees to those experiencing political persecution. This fails to account for new groups, such as climate refugees: “The upsurge of climate refugees seen in recent times is unprecedented; yet, they are not legally protected under the international refugee law regime” (Bandopadhay). They also argue that the Convention does not account for those refugees that have a “moral but not yet legal right to asylum,” including those whose claims are subject to differing legal interpretations on a state-by-state basis, such as LGBTQ rights (Ferracioli). 

On the other hand, opponents argue that reform is not only unlikely but dangerous: “Legal reform in the refugee protection regime is unlikely because of the lack of political will on the part of many states. Abandoning the current Convention also presents great danger to the plight of refugees. There is strong agreement among scholars and practitioners that if states attempted to negotiate a new Convention in the current political climate, they would adopt an even weaker set of legal norms, one that would leave even more vulnerable people outside its scope” (Ferracioli).

Considering this, do you think the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol are still sufficient? Where do new global challenges like climate change fall within refugee law? Are these new challenges viable reasons to seek asylum? 

Sources:

Bandopadhay, S. (2020, May 28). Opinion – Updating the 1951 Convention for Refugees. Retrieved February 26, 2021, from https://www.e-ir.info/2020/05/28/opinion-updating-the-1951-convention-for-refugees/

Beauchamp, Z. (2017, January 30). 9 maps and charts that explain the global refugee crisis. Retrieved February 26, 2021, from https://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/30/14432500/refugee-crisis-trump-muslim-ban-maps-charts

Ferracioli, Luara. “The Appeal and Danger of a New Refugee Convention.” Social Theory and Practice, vol. 40, no. 1, 2014, pp. 123–144. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/24332266. Accessed 13 Feb. 2021.

The UN Refugee Agency. (n.d.). The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. Retrieved February 26, 2021, from https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/about-us/background/4ec262df9/1951-convention-relating-status-refugees-its-1967-protocol.html

UNHCR Global Trends 2019: Forced Displacement in 2019. (2020, June 18). Retrieved February 26, 2021, from https://www.unhcr.org/globaltrends2019/

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. (n.d.). Climate change and disaster displacement. Retrieved February 26, 2021, from https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/climate-change-and-disasters.html