The 1951 UN Refugee Convention, despite enduring principles such as non-refoulement, has been widely undermined by state practices of deterrence, selective application, and underfunding of the UNHCR.

Its narrow definition of a refugee excludes those fleeing famine, disasters or economic hardship, while the absence of strong responsibility-sharing mechanisms leaves low- and middle-income countries bearing most of the burden.

Critics argue that states often hollow out protection in practice while blaming the Convention itself, and that more effective responses require earlier interventions, regulated migration pathways and genuine international cooperation rather than further restriction.

That grand old thing is getting on a bit.  Still significant and still functioning wearily, the United Nations Refugee Convention of 1951 has suffered abuse, subversion and neglect from state parties.  At times, it is only honoured in the breach.  At other times, it is not honoured at all.  After three-quarters of a century, it is easy to forget the hot ideal that streaks through the document: that it contains, as Christopher Bentram aptly remarks, “a kind of substitute citizenship” for those who have left their country of origin and find their bonds “broken by the threat of prosecution.”  It was the first of its kind to expand the focus of protection beyond narrowly designated groups.  (Consider, in this regard the 1933 Convention relating to the International Status of Refugees, applicable to Russian, Armenian and “assimilated” refugees.)

From the start though, the concerns and ambivalent approach of certain States, notably wealthier ones, were registered.  The original 1951 document maintained that a refugee was an individual outside their country of nationality or habitual residence with a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a social group or political opinion arising from........

© Eurasia Review