A Global Solution to a Global Refugee Crisis

The author argues that the time is right to change the way that refugee law is implemented. Specifically, Hathaway advocates a shift towards a managed and collectivized approach to the implementation of refugee protection obligations. He contends that while the obligations under the Convention remain sound, the mechanisms for implementing those obligations are flawed in ways that too often lead States to act against their own values and interests, and which produce needless suffering amongst refugees. The author concludes with a five-point plan to revitalize the Refugee Convention

Who Should Watch Over Refugee Law

Amid celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Refugee convention of 1951, use caution in deciding how to strengthen and monitor its implementation. We must commit ourselves to a process of learning the lessons of human rights history, and of thinking hard and creatively about the context-specific goals of overseeing refugee law. The following essay is based on a talk delivered at the Global Consultation on International Protection convened by the International Council of Voluntary Agencies (ICVA) in Geneva on Dec. 11, 2001, on the occasion of celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Refugee Convention and the Ministerial Meeting of States Parties to the 1951 Refugee Convention and/or its 1967 Protocol, held Dec. 12-13, 2001. Under the author\u27s supervision, students in the University of Michigan Law School\u27s Program in Asylum Law produced research-based working papers to assist the ICVA and the UN HIgh Commissioner for Refugees in discussing implementation of the Refugee Convention. A complete version of this talk is to appear in issue 13 of Forced Migration Review in May 2002. This excerpt appears with permission of Forced Migration Review

International Refugee Law: The Michigan Guidelines on the Internal Protection Alternative

International refugee law is designed only to provide a back-up source of protection to seriously at-risk persons. Its purpose is not to displace the primary rule that individuals should look to their state of nationality for protection, but simply to provide a safety net in the event a state fails to meet its basic protective responsibilities.1 As observed by the Supreme Court of Canada, [t]he international community was meant to be a forum of second resort for the persecuted, a \u27surrogate,\u27 approachable upon the failure of local protection. The rationale upon which international refugee law rests is not simply the need to give shelter to those persecuted by the state, but ... to provide refuge to those whose home state cannot or does not afford them protection from persecution.

Why Refugee Law Still Matters

I am concerned that the singular importance of international refugee law is profoundly misunderstood. My more specific worry is that erroneous and competing claims by governments and the refugee advocacy community about the structure and purpose of refugee law threaten its continuing ability to play a truly unique human rights role at a time when no meaningful alternative is in sight

Who Should Watch Over Refugee Law?

On 13 December 2001, states committed themselves ... to consider ways that may be required to strengthen the implementation of the 1951 Convention and/or 1967 Protocol . It is wonderful that after half a century we may finally be on the verge of taking oversight of the treaty seriously