The Contemporary Limitations of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees

DOI: https://doi.org/10.62517/jel.202514201

Author(s)

Zhibo Fan

Affiliation(s)

T.C. Beirne School of Law, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, 4072, Australia

Abstract

The 1951 Refugee Convention's definition of a refugee is based on the five elements of "well-founded fear" and "persecution", but due to its historical context, its scope of protection fails to encompass contemporary refugee issues such as climate change and internal displacement. Regional conventions (e.g., the Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa) offer lessons for reform by expanding the subject matter of persecution and recognizing collective exile. This paper proposes to include climate refugees, internally displaced persons, etc. in the protection system through flexible paths such as supplementary protocols and expanding legal interpretations, so as to enhance the adaptability and inclusiveness of the conventions and respond to modern refugee crises. The reform should safeguard the core principles of the Convention while incorporating regional practices to build a human rights protection framework that better meets contemporary needs.

Keywords

1951 Refugee Convention; Climate Refugees; Internally Displaced Persons; Supplementary Protocols

References

[1] Bagaric, B. (2020). Reforming the Approach to Political Opinion in the Refugees Convention. Fordham International Law Journal, 43(3), 503. [2] Fontaine, P.-M. (2007). The 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees: Evolution and relevance for today. Intercultural Human Rights Law Review, 2, 149. [3] Raicevic, N. (2022). Definition of refugee in international law. South East European Law Journal (SEE Law Journal), 10, 8. [4] Rowan, B. C. (2013). You Can't Go Home Again: Analyzing an Asylum Applicant's Voluntary Return Trip to His Country of Origin. Catholic University Law Review, 62(3), 733. [5] Goodwin-Gill, G. S., & McAdam, J. (2021). The refugee in international law (4th ed.). Oxford University Press. [6] Foster, M. (2002). Causation in context: Interpreting the nexus clause in the Refugee Convention. Michigan Journal of International Law, 23(2), 265. [7] Plender, R. (1977). Admission of refugees: Draft Convention on Territorial Asylum. San Diego Law Review, 15(1), 45. [8] Mathew, P. (1994). Sovereignty and the right to seek asylum: The case of Cambodian asylum-seekers in Australia. Australian Year Book of International Law, 15, 35. [9] Mendel, T. D. J. (1992). Problems with the international definition of a refugee and a possible solution. Dalhousie Journal of Legal Studies, 1, 7. [10] Fox, W. (2024). Death at the door of relief: The criminalization of humanitarian work and asylum. Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights and Social Justice, 30(2), 471. [11] Sinha, M. K. (2003). Protection of refugees in Africa: A regional perspective. ISIL Year Book of International Humanitarian and Refugee Law, 3, 150–171. [12] Matas, D. (1993). Innocent victims of civil war as refugees. Manitoba Law Journal, 22(1), 1. [13] Worster, W. T. (2012). The evolving definition of the refugee in contemporary international law. Berkeley Journal of International Law, 30(1), 94. [14] McKeever, D. (2015). Evolving interpretation of multilateral treaties: Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations in the Refugee Convention. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 64(2), 405.