VOLUME XIII, No. 1 - History

CHALLENGES TO THE INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE REGIME AND THE REFUGEE DEFINITION

April 25, 2022

Part II

REGIONAL CONVENTIONS EXPANDING THE REFUGEE DEFINITION

The UN Declaration on Territorial Asylum in December 1967 was in fact only the initial step towards working out a broader definition of refugees in need of international protection. ¹ With the introduction of the institution of temporary protection, a step was taken towards a universal solution, which, however, took on a more complete form in the regional conventions, themselves prompted by regional conflicts of decolonization and the ensuing massive refugee flows in the developing world. The overview of regional conventions is crucial, since they represent a shift in refugee definition, from the individualized definition of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol towards a group definition of massive refugee movements.

The most comprehensive regional convention to address the problem of unrecognized refugees was the Organization of African Unity (OAU) Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa, adopted in 1969, which, by broadening the refugee definition, provided the right to asylum to a much wider range of refugees:

Article 1.
Definition of the term ‘Refugee’
[Paragraph 1 repeats the refugee definition of the 1967 Protocol.]

2. The term ‘refugee’ shall also apply to every person who, owing to external aggression, occupation, foreign domination or events seriously disturbing public order in either part or the whole of his country of origin or nationality, is compelled to leave his place of habitual residence in order to seek refuge in another place outside his country of origin or nationality. ²

A regional convention based on the definition of the OAU, yet aiming at a further extension of the refugee definition, was concluded as a result of the Central American Crisis in 1984. The Cartagena Declaration further reduced the number of people who would otherwise not have been able to obtain refugee status with new reasons for fleeing, and essentially started from the concept of the massive flow of refugees:

Section III. Article 3.
Hence the definition or concept of a refugee to be recommended for use in the region is one which, in addition to containing the elements of the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol, includes among refugees persons who have fled their country because their lives, safety or freedom have been threatened by generalized violence, foreign aggression, internal conflicts, massive violation of human rights or other circumstances which have seriously disturbed public order. ³

The significance of the extended refugee definitions of the OAU and the Cartagena Declaration was the reduction in the number of refugees left unprotected in the regions concerned. However, these refugees were declared by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees to be displaced/uprooted persons or forced migrants. The term ‘refugee’ continued to be applied exclusively to political/Convention refugees under the 1951 Convention. Therefore, asylum-seekers arriving by mass influx (i.e. forced migrants/uprooted persons) are the victims of generalized violence. It needs to be mentioned that forced migrants actually fall into the broader category of so-called ‘forcibly displaced people’; however, while forced migrants leave because of violent acts, forcibly displaced people become internally displaced in their home countries and/or cross national borders due to generally overriding circumstances (including, for example, natural/environmental disasters or famine). Most of them have applied for protection, right to asylum (pending applications) in a certain state, or at an international organization, or intend to apply for it. ⁴

In summary, the term refugee is in fact a collective term that includes several categories depending on the reasons for fleeing. There are quite a few, sometimes confusing and overlapping categories in the literature, apart from those already mentioned. ⁵ This article applies the most common and clearly defined terms, as illustrated in the table below.

REFUGEES

within national borders	outside national borders
—internally displaced people —forcibly displaced people	—political/Convention refugees —asylees/asylum-seekers —forcibly displaced people and forced migrants/uprooted persons

The regional solution of the OAU, which was applied to about 80 per cent of Africa, ⁶ has also had a beneficial effect on the universal improvement of the management of mass influx of refugees. However, there are large gaps in this universality. Contrary to most African countries, the majority of Asia-Pacific countries have still not signed the original UN Convention and Protocol, and instead follow the legally non-binding 1966 Bangkok Principles, which ‘inspire member states to adopt national legislation relating to the status and treatment of refugees and to provide a guide to dealing with refugee problems’. ⁷

Following the aforementioned 1967 UN Declaration on Territorial Asylum, the UNHCR focused on the issue of the massive flow of refugees in its Executive Committee (EXCOM) conclusions no. 15 (1979) and no. 19 (1980). These conclusions—consensus resolutions adopted by EXCOM member states—interpreted territorial asylum as temporary protection and thereby extended it to the mass influx of refugees. Accordingly, they reaffirmed the principle of no-return (non-refoulement), emphasizing that in the event of a mass influx of refugees, ‘at least temporary refuge’ had to be provided and that the principles of ‘international solidarity’ and ‘equitable burden-sharing’ had to be upheld; ⁸ in other words, these conclusions aimed at extending the institution of temporary protection. As James Hathaway explains, even though EXCOM conclusions are legally non-binding, they possess ‘strong political authority’, ⁹ the importance of which can be seen in the fact that various Asia-Pacific members of the EXCOM actually did not sign the UN Convention and Protocol (e.g. India and Pakistan). ¹⁰

However, Conclusion no. 22 (XXXII) (1981) of the EXCOM of the High Commissioner is of greater significance, dealing entirely with the case of mass influx, thus somewhat recognizing the priority of the problem over flight based on individual persecution. The large increase in the number of refugees in the developing world since the mid-1970s made it clear that in addition to the small number of individual political refugees, special attention had to be paid to the massive flow of refugees. This conclusion was based on a report by a group of experts who, on behalf of UNHCR (pursuant to Conclusion no. 19 of 1980), had examined in detail all the connections between temporary asylum and the problems related to mass influx.¹¹ In addition to the previous conclusions, no. 22 (1981) was the first to point out that the refugee issue had become particularly acute in various parts of the world, especially in developing countries, as a result of massive waves of forcibly displaced people. ¹² When defining the mass influx of refugees, those fleeing due to acts of violence as defined by the OAU were listed besides Convention refugees, and mass assessment was encouraged instead of an individualized procedure, but at the same time more was left to the discretion of states in this area. In addition, an important result of Conclusion no. 22 was that it already detailed the content of temporary protection and international solidarity. It laid down so-called basic minimum standards in the field of temporary protection, which defined the living conditions and rights to be granted to the persons admitted. ¹³

It is important to emphasize again, however, that since these conclusions are not legally binding, they function, in a sense, as political, practical, and moral compasses. So instead of a universal legal regime, there is an orientation model for nation states to follow. Concurrently, a combination of regional and national solutions has been developed through bilateral and multilateral conventions, legal harmonization, intergovernmental cooperation, and administrative jurisdiction. It is always the given country that decides how to interpret the refugee definition. Thus, decisions affecting refugees are made to a significant extent according to current domestic and foreign policy interests. International refugee law cannot prevent the interests of a state from being upheld; furthermore, not even countries that are signatories to the Convention and/or the Protocol can be forced to comply with the conclusions. ¹⁴ In general, therefore, refugee policy does not evolve from the perspective of refugees; their interests are only considered indirectly.

The area of the international refugee regime thus contains a number of contradictions, partly due to the complexity of the field and partly because of the instruments of international law and the international refugee regime. Firstly, the complexity of the area is characterized by the fact that fleeing is mostly the result of confusing situations rather than pure reasons. Political persecution, repression, generalized violence, economic crisis, and famine mostly overlap or occur simultaneously. Therefore, states that refuse admission often classify asylum-seekers as disguised economic migrants, and recognition as a refugee becomes dependent on political considerations since ¹⁵ the admission of refugees can symbolize both alliance and condemnation in international politics.

Secondly, as we have seen in the first part, although international law recognizes the right to seek asylum, it does not oblige countries to provide asylum. International law leaves the granting of asylum to the discretion of the states, i.e. the governments, which reinforces the role of domestic and foreign policy interests within the international refugee regime. This fact may make even the fate of officially recognized, Convention refugees uncertain and may contribute to the spread of restrictive behaviour towards refugees, which has intensified among governments from the 1980s, following the end of the Cold War, and then in the post-9/11 era, especially in developed countries. ¹⁶ This is particularly true in the case of the massive flow of refugees, which places a huge burden on host countries, although international assistance is provided to them to deal with mass influx and to find a lasting solution as this is a UN responsibility. The role of the UNHCR is so prominent because, while it cannot dissociate itself from political realities and aims to uphold its interests in the distribution of aid with the help of its international prestige, it can exert pressure to ensure the priority of supranational humanitarian ideas. The importance of the work of the UNHCR is therefore that, while striving to strike a balance between its humanitarian and political catalytic role, it can also act as a diplomatic mediator in times of crisis. ¹⁷ The regionalization of UNHCR’s mandate, of the refugee definition, and the international refugee regime can reinforce this role further.

Thirdly, there is a serious contradiction between the current international situation, the present needs, and the universal refugee definition in force. The refugee definitions in the above-mentioned regional conventions and the conclusions of the EXCOM of the High Commissioner constitute clear evidence of the fact that the most widely used refugee definition of the 1951 Convention amended by the Protocol has become outdated; what is more, it is often seen as a ‘relic of the Cold War’. A lot of experts are of the opinion that the UN definition is not in line with the requirements of the age and therefore needs to be modernized. ¹⁸; The universal refugee definition based on individual persecution cannot serve a proper purpose when the world is producing unprecedented volumes of massive refugee waves. This statement is also supported by the fact that, in practice, the treatment of refugees is characterized by flexibility, ad hoc solutions, and practicality at the regional level. ¹⁹ But while this type of symptomatic treatment of the problem highlights the need to develop and implement the guidelines of a comprehensive reform, it also benefits those who would be outside the scope of a more precise refugee definition (e.g. victims of environmental disasters). ²⁰Still others say the reform of the definition is impossible due to the lack of political consensus, and in fact the UNHCR has also been reluctant to expand its mandate. ²¹ As the past decades have shown, against the backdrop of UNHCR’s universal guideline, coordination, and counselling, it is regionally tailored, local solutions that offer the most successful outcomes. I therefore claim that instead of a model of global governance, the international refugee regime and the refugee definition itself should proceed in the direction of a model of regional governance.

CONTRADICTIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE REGIME

When reviewing the general criteria of the international refugee regime, the historian notes a contradiction that goes deeper than the aforementioned issues reveal, leading to further criticism of the modern principle and concept of the international refugee regime. The basic nature of flight itself and the multitude of historical examples—be it the expulsion of the Huguenots, the case of Rwandan refugees, of South Slavs, Iraqis, Syrians, Afghans, or most recently of Ukrainians—cast light on this contradiction all too clearly.

The individualized management of the refugee issue and its assessment based on individual persecution ignore the fundamental historical fact that persecution can always be traced back to social causes, and that fleeing is in fact a massive social phenomenon. The border-crossing of a few individuals, or even of a few families, does not constitute a refugee/migration crisis. Throughout history, mass exoduses have been the rule, which stem from the very nature of fleeing, since it is, in fact, the result of a kind of mass psychosis: it can even overwhelm and carry away those who otherwise would not set off. It is therefore surprising that the individually based refugee definition was born under the auspices of the modern refugee regime, and what is more, at the time of the largest-ever waves of refugees experienced since the Second World War. Even if it was hoped that these refugee waves would only be temporary, the individualized approach lacked any harmony with the challenges of the times and did not take into account the nature of the problem, i.e. the fundamentally mass character of refugee movements. It was obviously Cold War political interests working in the background that turned the principles guiding refugee issues into a policy tool. This view highlights the fact that there is no independent refugee policy in a modern sense, based on universal humanitarian principles. Beyond humanitarianism, the fate of refugee policy is always determined by other policies, and thus will always be at the mercy of the foreign and domestic policy interests of the parties involved.

This was the case in the Cold War era, when the 1951 UN Convention was signed to manage the situation of refugees in post-war Europe. Experts, such as Hathaway, point out that the Convention was designed to regulate the situation of political refugees appearing individually or in small groups, and was used mainly as a political tool in the East–West conflict. ²² (I would add that in this sense the UN Convention was essentially a European regional convention until its amendment by the 1967 Protocol. ²³) Only those refugees whose civil and political rights were at risk could become Convention refugees, a concept applied to practically everyone who managed to escape from communism through the death strip of the Iron Curtain and its affiliates around the world. ²⁴ However, the status could not be granted to those whose economic and social rights had been violated. This resulted in the fact that the Convention was lacking while it embraced a politically biased human rights position. ²⁵

Cold War considerations distorted the image and scope of the refugee regime, thus leading to a significant contradiction between the ‘universal’ refugee definition and reality. Procedural, financial, and legal norms were developed based on individual persecution in accordance with Cold War conditions. Although there was a pressing global need to deal with mass asylum applications, and refugee crises were predominantly caused by massive forced population movements, as we have seen, only a partial solution to their fate was found by extending the institution of temporary asylum. This, however, did not affect the essence of the universal refugee definition and the approach to granting refugee status. The individualized principles of the refugee regime were not in line with reality as the problem in connection with the refugee issue was not individual escape but the massive flow of refugees due to common causes. At the same time, individualized principles served the political interests of the Cold War effectively. However, with the end of the Cold War, the contradiction between political interests and the reality of the refugee regime intensified as its temporary historical raison d’être ceased to exist, while the permanent historical foundations of the refugee regime remained unchanged. ²⁶ All this is illustrated by UNHCR data: there are far more refugees in the world receiving temporary protection and humanitarian aid, i.e. asylum-seekers and internally displaced (91.9 million in 2020) than recognized/Convention/political refugees (20.7 million in 2020). ²⁷ Historical evidence reinforces this scenario, since political refugees have always been the minority among forcibly displaced people.

The unchanged validity and scope of the refugee definition of the 1951 Convention and the individualized aspect of the assessment of the right to asylum currently restrict rather than facilitate the right of refugees to enjoy asylum. This approach is also used by developed countries to repel refugees. However, since no significant reduction in refugee populations is expected in the foreseeable future, given that our world continues to struggle with armed conflicts, generalized violence, social tensions, population explosion, and environmental damage, the right to asylum needs to be adapted to admit masses of refugees. In addition, the refugee definition based on individual persecution needs to be supplemented by regionally determined categorizations applied locally, which facilitate cooperation and motivate solidarity among host countries. ²⁸

CONCLUSION

Historically, the international refugee regime became the responsibility of the international community due to the exponential increase in the number of refugees and globalization. As long as there were areas waiting to be resettled and there was a mass demand for workers, it was not difficult to find a solution to refugee issues. Under these circumstances, it was easy to cultivate the tradition of the humanitarian duty to provide asylum. Thus, in addition to labour demands, humanitarian considerations dominated decisions about the admission of refugees. However, this situation was changed fundamentally by the division and settlement of ‘virgin territories’, movements of national liberation in the developing world, population explosions, and the globalization of social, environmental, economic processes and problems, as well as the narrowing of individual opportunities.

Reforming all the elements of the refugee regime on a global scale may not be conceivable due to competing interests and the lack of consensus-based political will ²⁹characterizing the increasingly multipolar world of the twenty-first century. In fact, the history of the right to asylum proves that there is only a partial legal settlement, ³⁰ yet regional cooperation can offer flexibility sensitive to local needs, capacities, and interests. The further regionalization of the international refugee regime led by the UNHCR could also counter compassion fatigue and reluctant solidarity given the shared first-hand experience of host populations with refugee populations of similar cultural and religious affinities originating within their own region. Recent examples of compassionate regional welcomes include Syrian refugees and asylum-seekers in the Middle East and North Africa (since 2012), Venezuelan refugees and migrants hosted within South America and the Caribbean (since 2019), and Ukrainian refugees and asylum-seekers assisted in Central and Eastern Europe (since February 2022). ³¹

In my view, one of the most serious problems of the international refugee regime results mainly from the fact that the millennia-old tradition of providing asylum has taken a back seat to political considerations. The concept of asylum as a positive act of prosperous countries committed to humanitarian ideals has been significantly degraded, if not completely abandoned. Refugees have been increasingly seen as threatening the current order of things rather than as being in need, especially when displaced people arrive from remote, culturally alien places. This is because at the same time as the dimensions of the international refugee regime started to expand, political considerations came to dominate this field, and the refugee regime turned into one of the determining elements of international politics and diplomacy. To date, this implies the risk that, at the expense of humanitarianism, political interests are increasingly determining decisions about granting asylum. In order to balance humanitarian and political considerations, the UNHCR should be an active promoter of regional conventions and cooperation among nation states instead of moving in the direction of global governance.

I therefore propose that it is time to review the principles of the international refugee regime in terms of global regionalization, where nation states together with their region constitute the main actors in times of crisis and beyond. ³² The current international refugee regime based on the UN Convention and the regional conventions already has many of these elements in place which can be further developed by keeping the Convention definition as a universal compass in the waters of globalization, while encouraging the simultaneous regionalization of the international refugee regime and the refugee definition through the cooperation of nation states facing massive waves of forcibly displaced people. This approach would be more in line with states’ discretionary rights in determining refugee admissions and border crossings, while the regional emphasis could also reinforce historical ties, promote cultural affinity, and enhance solidarity.

In sum, rather than promoting the global governance model which keeps challenging nation states’ sovereignty and thus undermines solidarity—the cornerstone of assisting displaced populations within and across borders—there is an increasing need for regionalization within the international refugee regime. A globally regionalized refugee regime could build on historical ties, cultural and religious affinities, and through the very respect of sovereignty, it may engage states more in actions of solidarity.

The duty of the international refugee regime is enormous, and the future poses further challenges, be it dealing with dislocations resulting from international and domestic armed conflicts, the fight against terrorism, economic dislocations due to the energy crisis and ensuing unemployment, or sea-level rise. Organizations working in the field must find an acceptable balance between national and international interests, between institutions and authorities of global and regional outreach, while also cultivating the tradition of providing asylum and protection. The situation of the international refugee regime is thus more complex than ever, and without strengthening the regionalization of the UNHCR, settling the fate of the various categories of refugees on a global scale will remain inconceivable.

1
UN General Assembly, ‘Declaration on Territorial Asylum’, 14 December 1967, A/RES/2312(XXII), www.refworld.org/docid/3b00f05a2c.html, accessed 12 November 2021.
2
‘OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa, 10 September 1969’, www.unhcr.org/about-us/background/45dc1a682/oau-convention-governing-specific-aspects-refugee-problems-africa-adopted.html. (Italics for emphasis.) Note that the OAU, established in 1963, was replaced by the African Union in 2002.
3
‘Cartagena Declaration on Refugees, Adopted by the Colloquium on the International Protection of Refugees in Central America, Mexico and Panama, Cartagena de Indias, Colombia, 22 November 1984’, www.unhcr.org/about-us/background/45dc19084/cartagena-declaration-refugees-adopted-colloquium-international-protection.html. (Italics for emphasis.)
4
Judit Tóth, Menedékjog—kérdőjelekkel (Asylum Law—With Question Marks) (Budapest: Közgazdasági és Jogi Könyvkiadó, 1994), 18, 146.
5
See, for example, Frances D’Souza and Jeff Crisp, The Refugee Dilemma (London: The Minority Rights Group, 1985), 8; Menekültek. Az üldözés különböző formái. Jelentés a Nemzetközi Humanitárius Kérdések Független Bizottsága részére (Refugees. Different Forms of Persecution. Report to the Independent Committee of International Humanitarian Issues) (Budapest: Gondolat, 1991), 67.
6
Tóth, Menedékjog, 146.
7
Cf. Savitri Taylor, ‘Refugee Protection in the Asia Pacific Region’, Rights in Exile Programme, n. d., www.refugeelegalaidinformation.org/refugee-protection-asia-pacific-region, accessed 20 March 2022.
8
‘No. 15 (XXX) Refugees without an Asylum Country (1979)’ and ‘No. 19 (XXXI) Temporary Refuge (1980)’, in UNHCR, Conclusions Adopted by the Executive Committee on the International Protection of Refugees, 1975–2009, Conclusion No. 1–109 (UNHCR: December 2009), www.unhcr.org/en-my/578371524.pdf.
9
James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees under International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2021), 57.
10
Taylor, ‘Refugee Protection in the Asia Pacific Region’.
11
‘No. 19 (XXXI) Temporary Refuge (1980)’, in UNHCR, Conclusions.
12
‘No. 22 (XXXII) Protection of Asylum-seekers in Situations of Large-scale Influx (1981)’, in UNHCR, Conclusions.
13
Tóth, Menedékjog, 243–246.
14
Laura Barnett, Global Governance and the Evolution of the International Refugee Regime (UNHCR Working Paper 54, February 2002), 18–19.
15
Menekültek, 72, 76.
16
For the separation of asylum-seekers and refugees into bona fide and mala fide groups, see ‘No. 30 (XXXIV) The Problem of Manifestly Unfounded or Abusive Applications for Refugee Status or Asylum (1983)’, in UNHCR, Conclusions.
17
Menekültek, 51–56.
18
Guy S. Goodwin-Gill, ‘The International Law of Refugee Protection’, in The Oxford Handbook of Refugee and Forced Migration Studies, edited by Elena Fiddian-Qasmiyeh et al. (Oxford Handbooks Online, 2014), 45, www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199652433.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199652433-e021; Rosemarie Rogers and Emily Copeland, Forced Migration. Policy Issues in the Post-Cold War World (The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, 1993), 5, 30; Tóth, Menedékjog, 130, 134, 170
19
Kate Jastram, ‘Policy Brief 2, Regional Refugee Protection in Comparative Perspective: Lessons Learned from the Asia-Pacific, the Americas, Africa, and Europe’, Kaldor Centre, UNSW (November, 2015), www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/sites/kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/files/Policy_Brief_2_Regional_refugee_protection_in_comparative_perspective.pdf.
20
Menekültek, 77–79.
21
Itty Abraham, ‘Making the Convention “Universal”: Other Views of the Additional Protocol’, Völkerrechtsblog (26 May 2021), doi: 10.17176/20210527-135453-0; Barnett, Global Governance.
22
James C. Hathaway, The Law of Refugee Status (Toronto: Butterworth, 1991), 8.
23
Cf. B. S. Chimni, ‘The Geopolitics of Refugee Studies: A View from the South’, Journal of Refugee Studies, 11/4 (1998), 350–374, https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/11.4.350-a; and Abraham, ‘Making the Convention “Universal”’.
24
Note that restrictive exit policies together with deadly border barriers in communist countries (the Iron Curtain, Bamboo Curtain, Cactus Curtain, and Ice Curtain) kept about two thirds of the global population away effectively from migrating. See Éva Eszter Szabó, ‘The Iron Curtain Metaphor and the Fence Walls of the US and Hungarian Border Barriers. Part 1’, Hungarian Review, 10/2 (March 2019), 23–35, and Part 2, Hungarian Review, 10/3 (May 2019), 15–21.
25
Hathaway, The Law of Refugee Status, 8.
26
Tóth, Menedékjog, 130, 137.
27
UNHCR, Global Trends. Forced Displacement in 2020 (UNHCR, 2021), www.unhcr.org/flagship-reports/globaltrends/; UNHCR, Global Report 2020 (UNHCR, 2021), https://reporting.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/gr2020/pdf/GR2020_English_Full_lowres.pdf#_ga=2.49485350.1839982896.1636914614-43878343.1634042481.
28
Cf. Menekültek, 58–72; Tóth, Menedékjog, 170.
29
Barnett, Global Governance.
30
Tóth, Menedékjog, 172.
31
Cf. ‘Syria Fact Sheet, 31 March 2021’, UN OCHA Services – reliefweb (31 March 2021), https://reliefweb.int/report/syrian-arab-republic/syria-factsheet-31-march-2021; International Center for Migration Policy Development, Regional Migration Outlook 2021. Latin American and the Caribbean (ICMPD, 2021), 10, www.icmpd.org/file/download/51073/file/RMO_LAC_2021_EN_Final.pdf; UNHCR, ‘Operational Data Portal, Ukraine Refugee Situation’, unhcr.org (March 2022), https://data2.unhcr.org/en/situations/ukraine/location?secret=unhcrrestricted.
32
For an overview on new approaches to regionalism see Maria Lagutina, ‘The Global Region: A Concept for Understanding Regional Processes in Global Era’, The Journal of Cross-Regional Dialogues/La Revue de dialogues inter-régionaux (2020 Special issue), 15–39, https://popups.uliege.be/2593-9483/index.php?id=130.

CHALLENGES TO THE INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE REGIME AND THE REFUGEE DEFINITION

Éva Eszter Szabó

REGIONAL CONVENTIONS EXPANDING THE REFUGEE DEFINITION

REFUGEES

CONTRADICTIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE REGIME

CONCLUSION

Most recent

Newsletter signup

Like it ? Share it !

More
articles

CHALLENGES TO THE INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE REGIME AND THE REFUGEE DEFINITION

Éva Eszter Szabó

REGIONAL CONVENTIONS EXPANDING THE REFUGEE DEFINITION

REFUGEES

CONTRADICTIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE REGIME

CONCLUSION

Most recent

Newsletter signup

Like it ? Share it !

More articles

More
articles