Introduction
On July 28th, 1951 the United Nations conference in Geneva approved a multilateral treaty known as Convention relating to the Status of Refugees case study. It defines the term refugee and lays out the rights of persons who are allowed to live in a foreign country as well as the duties of the foreign country that allows the Refugees case study sanctuary. This treaty is also known as the 1951 Refugee Convention. The treaty also sets apart the persons who cannot be considered as Refugees case study, for example war criminals. It sanctions visa-free travelling for Refugees case study who hold travel documents.
The first country to endorse the convention was Denmark where it was made into a law on April 22nd, 1954. The convention was originally restricted to the safety of European Refugees case study after the Word War II, before the year 1951, but it had a provision that allowed countries to extend the protection to Refugees case study from other origins as well. In 1967 the Protocol relating to the status of Refugees case study came into force on October 4th. Also known as the 1967 protocol, it eliminated the geographical limits on the definition of Refugees case study and allowed the provisions of the 1951 convention applicable to refuges without any limitation of origin (United Nations, 1970).
As of April 2015, there are 145 parties to the 1951 Convention and 146 to the 1967 protocol. The most recent signatory to both the treaties was the President of Nauru, Marcus Stephen who became a party on June 17th, 2011 and complied on the 28th of the same month. Three countries, the United States, Venezuela and Cape Verde are signatories of the protocol only, while three others – Madagascar, Nevis and Saint Kitts – only to the convention (UNHCR, 2012).
The 1951 Convection is based on the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ Article 14 that identifies the right of individuals to seek out sanctuary in other countries to escape persecution in their own. A refugee may be eligible for the rights provisioned in the convention and additional benefits in the host states (Convention relating to the Status of Refugees case study, Article 5.)
Who is involved, key interests, concepts etc
Our work is based on the 1951 Refugee Convention that is the main legal document defining Refugees case study and laying out the rights and duties of the stakeholders, i.e., the Refugees case study and the countries that allow asylum. It is the responsibility of the countries to protect the Refugees case study.
The principle governing the whole subject is non-refoulement that declares that a refugee should not be sent back to the country where they their freedom or life is at risk. This principle is now regarded as a canon of international law. The guardian for the Protocol and the Convention is the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees case study (UNHCR). The law expects the countries to cooperate in assuring the protection of the rights of Refugees case study.
The Refugee Convention of 1951 seems to be in a state of general abandonment but it gained 10 new signatories in the year 1993 and brought the number of parties to the convention and the protocol to 127 in 1994. Additionally, the executive body of the UNHCR stressed the convention and the protocol to be the core of the international law for Refugees case study (Fitzpatrick, 1996).
People crossing international borders to save their lives or to protect their freedom result in crucial issue in international safety. The legal recognition for the protection of such persons is exclusively taken by the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees case study 1951 specially the definition stipulated in article 1 and the proscription of refoulement in article 33. The convention and the protocol operate on an approach that is adapted to the criterion of the status of Refugees case study and the associated benefits. This approach has both its features and its drawbacks. The good thing of the approach is that it validates the idea of individual’s human rights, whereas the drawback is the weakness in covering the situations that may not be explicitly defined like, war, famine, civil unrest etc. This is why the convention and the protocol afford the protection in combination with the standards of reception and assistance that are based on broader notions of suffering and need (Goodwin-Gill, 1998).
What is currently going on, situation currently of the issue etc.
The 1951 Convention is not suitable to address the issue
This treaty was signed over 65 years ago was meant for an age that is no longer too relevant in today’s world. Back then the flow Refugees case study and global migration was quite different and had much different factors than the Refugees case study of today. But the convention is still a corner stone in the comprehension of migration despite its outdated and fake division about migrants’ legality. The problem is not only in the drafting of the convention but is much deeper than historic twists. It greatly misrepresents the issue of immigration in the 21st century. The humanitarian approach to the Refugees case study becomes more difficult as a result of this convention instead of becoming easier.
The object of the convention was to protect the 20 to 30 million Refugees case study within Europe that were displaced by the World War. It was termed as one of the largest movement of population in the history. This too was in the year 1945, six years prior to the development of the convention in 1951. Therefore the convention at the time of its birth was already outdated. Over half a billion dollars, most of which had been contributed by the US, had already been spent on the settling of most of them except from about 400.000. The US did not want to shoulder the whole responsibility by herself for all migrations in the future; therefore the convention put the responsibility on the countries that the migrants reached themselves (Moss, 2006).
The rights provisioned un the 1951 Refugee Convention is still in applied. However, many argue that the issue of migration has had some fundamental changes that call for a review of the laws requiring a new treaty or convention that addresses new concepts of warfare and nation-states. Even though the treaty is considered to be archaic, the rule of non-refoulement is still the basis of refugee issues.
The definition of ‘refugee’ given by the Convention does not make much sense now with the evolution of immigration issues and the rise in influx. The major reason for the movement of Refugees case study ever since 1980 has been internal conflicts and unrest within nation-states as opposed to the beleaguered oppression by a despotic government. Other reasons include natural disasters and famines. The population of Refugees case study around the globe has seen dramatic spikes after the end of cold war, that was 10 million in 1984 has now risen. The USCR estimates report it to be around 35 million while UNHCR estimates claim it to be 22 million (Moss, 2006). The suffering of these people and the need to alleviate their plight is obvious. But, only a fraction of these numbers show individual fear of persecution that fits the definition of the convention. Individual evaluations of the cases would be worthless, and the need of hour is humanitarian assistance.
In addition to the criteria set in the convention to be archaic and non-inclusive, the drafting of the convention is very unclear and ambiguous. A prevailing trend in this aspect is ‘creative interpretation extension of the canons of the convention by the judges, trying to embrace the modern day migrants and scenarios under the convention’s protection, while the governments try to legislate to contain the ever-increasing number of immigrants (Hathaway, 1998). The people who cannot return to their native reasons due to serious reasons and threat but those threats are not stipulated within the convention then their fate is left hanging in the balance upon the discretion of the government. The governments usually act by conferring a temporary or sometimes lesser humanitarian status to these people. The international law regarding Refugees case study has recently seen much evolution while its contentiousness has also grown. Though, as the evolution of Refugees case study over the decades, the law does not reflect the duties of UNHCR and can be accused of not being based on the realities on the ground for Refugees Case Study Help (Holborn, 1975).
When the nascent United Nations discussed a convention for the protection of Refugees case study after WWII, the focus was on the then current migrations in Europe and the migrations in the past, before 1951. It was not foreseen that the in the future the major reason of migration would be to escape from persecution over the globe after 65 years or that there would be need of a refugee treaty in the 21st century. Now for the past three decades the influx is from the developing world to the most developed regions of the west the detractors of the convention have challenged the virtues of the treaty and termed it as archaic and outmoded.
This article reviews the effectiveness of this convention in protecting Refugees case study that escape persecution in this era. It is noted that many regimes fail to offer security and welfare to considerable size of population. Today there are powerful non-state actors that target certain communal groups through new methods of persecution.
The main fault that lies with this convention is that this convention was aimed at a totally altered age. Some subsequent precise complications in its execution in this day’s quite diverse realm have been recognized by scholars as well as investigators:
- The refugee definition provided by the convention is obsolete, so is the idea of banishment as per a resolution to the refugee complications
- it discusses upon no privilege of support on expats except they move to a country that is a cosigner, this inflicts not a single responsibility on nations not to pursue or banish their own inhabitants, also it levies no obligation for liability distribution among countries
- the haven way is giving a possibility for rough relocation also is connected to human trafficking as well as law-breaking
- it takes no excuse for the effect (administrative, economic, communal) of huge amounts of haven pursuers on drawing states
- it paves way for the injustice of consequences among Refugees case study from ‘camp’ and ‘Convention’. Importance is specified for the existent on spot, based on their freedom of movement, instead of those having the utmost requirement
- there exist great inequality among what the West devote to treating haven pursuers, and the amount they give to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees case study (UNHCR) in lieu of the global refugee struggle
- haven pursuers do not provoke communal empathy like the ‘obvious’ (as shown on T.V.) do
- it has nurtured basic as well as ill-fated depictions of haven pursuers like either dogmatic and therefore ‘authentic’ as well as eligible, or financial and therefore ‘offensive’ besides unfit.
Conclusion:
The heart of all the criticism on 1951 UN refugee Convention is because it is proven to be obsolete and out-dated. This agreement was established for a dissimilar time than ours now. Although West’s haven arrangements could have managed fine till the termination of the Cold War, these were not made with this age’s bulk refugee discharges as well as the migrant arrangements in cognizance.
James Hathaway has encouraged the replacement of this out-dated Convention by an additionally justifiable model of global refugee decree that is going to permit further virtuous things to be carried out for additional immigrants than is conceivable with the existing rule. The little sectional of Refugees case study that currently discover firm safety in advanced countries may find a decrease in the comparative rights with such an arrangement, however a decrease in the Cadillac of the little might, I consider, deliver bicycles for the countless (Hathaway, 1998).
References
“Treaty Series – Treaties and international agreements registered or filed and recorded with the Secretariat of the United Nations” (PDF) 606 (8791). United Nations. 1970: 268. Retrieved 2013-10-19.)
UNHCR: 1951 to Today : retrieved from; http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49da0e466.html)
Convention relating to the Status of Refugees Case Study, Article 5.)
United Nations High Commission for Refugees case study. (2012). Text of Convention. Retrieved 5 May 2012. Archived 7 June 2012 at the Wayback Machine.
Fitzpatrick, J. (1996). Revitalizing the 1951 Refugee Convention. Harv. Hum. Rts. J., 9, 229.)
Goodwin-Gill, G. S. (1988). Nonrefoulement and the new asylum seekers(pp. 103-121). Springer Netherlands.)
Moss, D. (2006). Coca Cola Case Study Case Study SolutionReview of Asylum Policies and Procedures in The Bahamas: Are Current Policies and Procedures Consistent with International Instruments for the Protection of Refugees case study?.
Hathaway, J. C. (1998). Can International Refugee Law Be Made Relevant Again?.
Holborn, L. W., Chartrand, P., & Chartrand, R. (1975). Refugees case study, a problem of our time: the work of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees case study, 1951-1972 (Vol. 2). Scarecrow Press.
Related Samples
