The Refugee Convention: A Critical Analysis

This article provides a critical analysis of the 1951 Refugee Convention and its effectiveness in addressing the challenges of forced migration in the modern world. It examines the limitations of the Convention and calls for reforms to better protect and support refugees.

SURNAME 1
Name
Professor
Institution
Course
Introduction
The convention of United Nations in 1951 in relation to the status of refugees led to the
emergence of a system aimed for the provision of protecting people who are at the risk of being
persecuted in their home countries. Some countries have been willing to risk turning such
persons away. It is however so unfortunate that today, many countries can sign up to convention.
The wave of boat people in the recent past has paved way for an increased public demonstration
on the methods that are supposed to be applied in dealing with the illegal immigrants who are
constrained by our obligations under the convention.

SURNAME 2
The outcomes of convention for refugees on the humanitarian program were apparent
since 2000 when the immigration minister in the USA revealed that there was an action being
taken concerning the processing of offshore humanitarian visas so as to suspend them following
the indication that approximately 13,000 program allocations could be picked by the onshore
seekers of asylum. There are deterrent measures that have been controversial concerning the
departure from the practice and ethos that are put in place. Australia has lately featured itself as
one of the most generous countries around the globe as far as the reception of refugees is
concerned. The country has a highly developed settlement backing schemes and programs whose
major objective is having persons who can contribute to mainstream life with immediate effect.
Most parliamentarians are aware of the strengths of public feeling which is directed
against the ongoing boat arrivals. The recent asylums are thought to be either undeserving users
of the scheme who in most cases do not qualify for areas under the immigration program criteria
or even refugees who are seeking asylum through exercising their rights under the international
law that allows them to seek the asylum. The advocates for the refugees and commentators have
been blaming the government and journalists for the outpour of the public hostility and even
gave examples of labels given to the immigrants as ‘illegals’. The parliamentarians have
suggested that the refugee advocates and non-governmental organizations’ are misinformed and
do not have a touch or say in public opinion.
A portion of commentators have however argued that, the increase in the boat people or
entry into the country has been good since the immigrants provide an opportunity for the country
to display its generosity and maturity in the universal club of the seasonal asylum seekers in the
receiving states, which have been adapting with greater number of asylum seekers for a very
long period of time. The asylum seekers together with the reunion of their families make up the

SURNAME 3
huge number of immigrant groups in the western European nations in the recent past. The
immigrants who are asylum driven have high ranks above the concerns of the voters and there is
a widespread sentiment. Recent research shows that anti-immigration parties get up to 30%
support from the voters.
The advocates for the refugees argue that the government is supposed to educate the
refuges and the public about the signatories that the convention has and also about the situations
of human rights in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Education of the immigrants might make them
more familiar with the obligations and to the submission to the government of Australia through
international law. However, there are arguments that the more these immigrants get educated, the
more they end up with a conclusion that the convention based asylum structure are neither
influential nor rational in the guidelines for the provision of guidelines for the priorities of the
refugees in Australia. They are also likely to conclude that there are no priorities in the
alleviation of the plight of the people who are displaced by conflicts that happen within
Afghanistan and Iraq.
The UNCHR has championed the lead to international action on safeguarding the rights
of the refugees. This was established in 1950 after the resolution of the UN general assembly in
1949. The latter was originally founded on the assumption that the post war asylum seekers’
situation would be solved with immediate effect. Today, it is on a five year mandate.
The UNCHR mandates asylum seekers in terms that are identical to convention that is
expanded by the protocol. The mandate describes it crucial function as the universal protection
that tries to make sure that asylum seekers return to their country voluntarily where they had fled
in fear of persecution. Almost five decades after its adoption of the refugee convention, the

SURNAME 4
adoption is the only solitary global tool for the defense of refugees and the UNHCR is in the
process of urging the western countries to respect the foundations of the international refuges
structure.
The international system of asylum has been under so much pressure in the last two
decades and neither the states nor the advocates are willing to call for a review. The NGOs have
feared that the federal governments would just end up seizing the chance to rationalize their
grievances. The regimes have been unenthusiastic to invite disapproval and they fear that they
would incur added obligations in case they give room for the international asylum. Most
countries have however invested so much in refugee determination schemes. The government
departments that are sizeable, the entire systems, countrywide and worldwide levels have been
committed in the implementation and promotion of convention.
The reappearance of the asylum pursuers in the late 1990s that was linked with the rapid
emergence of smuggling of persons globally appeared to be tipping several federal states or even
a number of members of parliaments over the verge. The Austrian presidency of the European
Union came up with the idea of substitution of the convention with an EU law that would
oversee the rights of asylum seekers and which would meet the current needs instead of utilizing
the ones belonging to the geopolitically out-of-date instances. In the same year, the liberal party
of Germany called in influence for default from the convention on the basis that the latter would
be an abuse of invitation and a gateway to unregulated and unrestricted migration. The
convention was also criticized by the UK home secretary saying that it was too broad for the 21st
century and that it did not have an adequate guide to the policies in the current generation where
economic migration is rampant. The asylum structure is near collapse in today’s different
universe. The international asylum has been described by many leaders in the past as being open

SURNAME 5
to exploration and manipulation by the non-refugees arguing that it needs to be made tougher
through its administration or the review of the actual treaty in itself.
As the 1951 refugee convention reaches its 6th decade, there is a heated debate on if the
convention has reached its importance. Several problems have been identified with the
convention by the commentators in the last decade.
The refugee convention of the United Nations in regards to the evacuees was adopted in
December 1951 after the resolution made by the United Nations Assembly in 1950 and it took
effect in the year 1954. The convention defines a refugee as a person owed to a well-established
fear of maltreatment on the basis of religion, ethnic group, race, political affiliation or partisan
opinion outside the nation of his nationality and is not able to avail him or herself of the defense
of that country.
The fear or prosecution came up from the events owing to the world war two mostly in
Europe until the extension of the protocol which was meant to provide cover to the refugees
throughout the universe. The obligations of the convention fall in the receiving governments and
are put into practice after those individuals seeking asylum enter the country and makes the
refugee status claim. The claims are then assessed since the laws forbid sending the asylum
seekers back to the country where they expect to face persecution if they attempt to go back. The
claims are investigated to verify whether it is true that if the person would face persecution if
they go back.it is also not legal for any country to penalize asylum seekers on entering the
signatory illegally.

SURNAME 6
The western signatory governments in the guidance of UNHCR came up with the process
of identifying refugees. As the administrative and legal systems differ, the primary fears are
almost the same. The claims laid by the asylum seekers are assessed based on the possibility of
the victim to face persecution. .decisions to accommodate the asylum seekers are then made on
the basis of the credibility of the information that the client gives with assistance from the
information at hand concerning the state of the country from which the asylum seeker is fleeing.
The low burden of proof is needed in the refugee decisions.
The 1951 convention was not developed to be a mechanism that could share burdens. The
Pact was not intended to be a weight-sharing system. Refuge searchers are attracted to specific
nations by a scope of clear aspects-nearness, family and ethnic network systems, work openings
and pay levels, the liberality of welfare frameworks, dimensions of resistance inside existing
social orders, and the openness of assurance frameworks. In Europe a year ago 70 percent of
shelter searchers looked for insurance in only four nations Germany, Britain, Switzerland, and
the Netherlands.
Several federal states have put efforts in their assurance frameworks, and also safeguard
their procedures as reasonable and just. Anyway elucidation of the Pact's enigmatically
expressed grounds and criteria differs generally. States are essential to be specialists in
oppression in Germany and France.
Acknowledgment proportions are all the more noteworthy of a nation's political needs, or
its mentality to movement, or the heaviness of numbers it has needed to manage, or its strategic
associations with 'sending' nations, than the 'validity' of outcast cases. In 1990 Canada
acknowledged 71 percent of on-shore haven claims, contrasted and Finland's 0.3 percent. In 1997

SURNAME 7
Canada acknowledged 83 percent of Somalis and 84 percent of Sri Lankans as displaced people;
the UK acknowledged 0.5 percent of Somalis and 0.3 percent of cases from Sri Lankans.
Generally speaking, acknowledgment rates in EU nations during the 1990s have been in the
request of 10-15 percent, contrasted and Australia's 32 percent. The rate of acknowledgment of
Afghani shelter searchers in 2001 was around 90 percent in Australia, and 30 percent in the UK.
Acknowledgment proportions turned out to be generally immaterial to results in various
nations. While most refuge searchers are regarded as not achieving Pact conditions, the
requirements of most people are self-evident, and snowballing quantity has been given option,
typically brief, occupant status. The quantity of haven assets in Europe bringing about Pact status
has really been surpassed ever since 1992 by the quantity given a type of occupant status on an
optional premise.
Conclusion
The Genera refugee convention of 1951 formed the instrument of basic refugee
protection by offering neither inclusive nor an elastic reaction to the intricacy of the forced
migration of people happening nowadays. It is mutilating the reactions and redirecting the assets
of Western nations from creating cognizant and moral reactions to these developments. The issue
with the Convention can likewise be abridged in more straightforward terms, of what it does
exclude. It doesn't present any privilege of help on outcasts except if and until they achieve a
signatory nation. It provides no freedom of help on the 'inside dislodged' by any elasticity of the
resourcefulness. It has no obligation on administrations not to tyrannize their citizens, or to
safeguard their peaceful comeback. It forces no constituent for averting mass expressions, for
weight sharing amid states, for assuring fast aid for those out of luck, or for expanding the

SURNAME 8
viability of universal assets the convention has lagged behind and its policies needs to be revised
so as to fit today's developing challenges. Through its agencies, the UNCHR ha tried to settle
asylum seekers in different parts of the world. There is however need for reformations in the
strategies laid in trying to provide basic needs for these refugees.

SURNAME 9