This article examines the case law at different tiers of Pakistan’s judiciary in order to map its engagement with international refugee law. Pakistan hosts one of the largest refugee populations, with no national legislation on refugees. Neither has Pakistan ratified the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (Refugee Convention).
Nevertheless, this article shows that Pakistan’s judicial engagement with the Refugee Convention has been meaningful and instructive. Rahil Azizi v The State is used to illustrate how domestic courts can utilize the principle of non-refoulement as well as article 31 of the Refugee Convention to deal with the situation of refugees unlawfully in the country of refuge. The judgment instructs the State that the application of existing domestic law for illegal foreigners on refugees should be nuanced and sensitive to their distinct vulnerabilities.
Further, it is argued that by creatively weaving together UNHCR-Host State Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs), constitutional, and international law obligations, courts in non-signatory states can ensure stronger protection for refugees vis-à-vis ad hoc and regressive government policies.
This article explores the Turkish Council of State’s engagement with core specialised instruments of international refugee law in cases involving “non-European” refugees, the group which falls outside of Türkiye’s protection obligations under the Refugee Convention as per Türkiye’s geographical limitation.
Based on systematic review of more than 110 Council of State judgments referencing different provisions of the Refugee Convention in cases that came before that court between 1998-2023, the article shows how this engagement has been a constant of the past three decades despite being inconsistent in terms of its scope and effect in different periods: The engagement is sometimes substantive with the wording and the spirit of the Refugee Convention deciding the outcome of the case in benefit of the non-European refugees concerned; other times it is self-serving with the court drawing authority from the Refugee Convention to justify Turkish authorities’ restrictive measures or interpretations as well as their assertion of authority; yet other times, it is a non-substantive and no-cost engagement involving mere in-passing referencing of certain Refugee Convention provisions as applicable law.
Notwithstanding this inconsistency, the continuous recourse to Refugee Convention provisions (even though Türkiye is not bound by those treaty provisions vis-à-vis non-European refugees) over time and to different effects suggests that Türkiye’s highest administrative court regards the Refugee Convention as a benchmark or standard to be followed, beyond what is required by Türkiye’s treaty obligations and domestic law.
What role did Lebanon play in the establishment of the international refugee law regime? Through a legal-historical approach, this chapter examines Lebanon’s involvement between 1946 and 1967 in creating the legal norms and supporting institutions focused on the protection of refugees. Based on a close reading of the travaux préparatoires of the main legal instruments, this chapter shows how Lebanon has been involved in the international refugee law project from the very beginning, and how Lebanese representatives to the United Nations (UN) in fact advocated for remarkably progressive understandings of some of these norms.
The chapter finds that Lebanon is both an outsider and an insider to the international refugee law regime. While remaining non-signatory to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol, the chapter shows how Lebanon was heavily involved in creating the legal norms and supporting institutions focused on the protection of refugees. Its engagement concerned the question of asylum as expressed in the UDHR and through the UN Declaration on Territorial Asylum, as well as refugee status and the institutions of protection, as formulated through e.g. the 1951 Convention, its 1967 Protocol, and the UNHCR Statute. The chapter argues that Lebanon’s progressive stance when it comes to the individual’s right to asylum is particularly noteworthy – both when seen through a historical and through a more contemporary lens.
International refugee law permeates a plethora of international, national and local arenas and is developed, interpreted and applied by a wide range of very different actors. In this diversity of contexts, how do we best study the role and place of this body of law? This article advocates for the application of ethnographic approaches in the study of international refugee law, where the positivist legal approach heavily dominates the field. It argues that ethnography’s contribution to knowledge on international refugee law lies not only in its methods, but also in its perspectives on questions of power, knowledge, reflexivity and subjectivity. The article illustrates the value of the ethnographic approach through three vignettes focusing on (i) the concept of ‘refugee’; (ii) refugee rights-claiming and rights-mobilization; and (iii) actors and processes in the creation and spread of international refugee law norms.
The 1951 Refugee Convention and Non-Signatory States: Charting a Research Agenda
Maja Janmyr
At the end of 2020, 149 States were party to the 1951 Convention, its 1967 Protocol, or both. Forty-four members of the United Nations, however, were not party to either of these core instruments. What is the influence of the 1951 Refugee Convention in non-signatory States? How do non-signatory States engage with, and help to create, the international refugee regime?
Taking these questions as its starting point, this article aims to chart a new research agenda focusing on the relationship between non-signatory States and the 1951 Convention. It argues that a closer examination of this relationship is necessary to make an informed opinion about the relevance of the 1951 Convention more broadly. By bringing this dimension to the study of international refugee law, it thus seeks to disrupt the emphasis on signatory States in contemporary discussions of the relevance and importance of the 1951 Convention.
More concretely, the article argues that the Convention continues to structure States’ responses to refugees, and plays a central role not only in States that are party to the Convention, but also in key non-signatory States. The article details the many ways in which international refugee law norms are spread and used in non-signatory States, and how, by being present and active in global fora such as the UNHCR Executive Committee, and in negotiating soft law instruments drawing on the Convention, these States also participate in the evolution and interpretation of international refugee law.
Non-Signatory States and the International Refugee Regime
Maja Janmyr
Forced Migration Review, No. 67 (2021)
Many of the world’s top refugee-hosting countries have not acceded to the 1951 Refugee Convention and yet they engage with the international refugee regime in a number of ways. Not only are international refugee law norms being disseminated and adopted in these States but also non-signatory States often participate in the development of international refugee law by being present and active in global arenas for refugee protection.
Special Feature: Non-Signatory States and the International Refugee Regime
Forced Migration Review, No. 67 (2021)
The FMR special feature on non-signatory states is a collaboration between Forced Migration Review and the BEYOND project at the University of Oslo. The 9 articles featured in this issue reflect on the status of refugee protection in non-signatory states and the various ways these states engage with the international refugee regime.