Problems with the International Definition of a Refugee and a Possible Solution

The Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees\u27 definition of a refugee is no longer viable. It was originally designed to deal with the limited refugee situation that existed forty years ago. Both the passage of time and the internationalization of refugee problems have weakened the effect of the definition to the point where a majority of de facto refugees do not even come within its ambit. Many of those who should be covered by the definition are not afforded protection under the national schemes designed in accordance with the Convention\u27s provisions. The UNHCR tries to deal with refugee situations as they arise but without guaranteed, long-term funding, the response is woefully inadequate. It is clear that a new regime governing refugees needs to be promulgated. An international proposal for dealing with refugees must be acceptable to state governments to gain acceptance. It should also take into account current practices with regard to refugees. I suggest that a proposal based on the idea of temporary refuge and envisaging eventual voluntary repatriation would be most acceptable to all involved. In practice, most refugees already remain in the country of first refuge. Western states, through the UNHCR, already foot a large part of the bill for these refugees and would be amenable to increased funding if they could also renounce the obligation to accept large numbers of refugees as citizens. A treaty, codifying a scheme along these lines, would regularize current practices and provide enhanced protection for refugees

Time for the Security Council to Restructure

The core political entity at the United Nations is the Security Council. The Security Council is comprised of five permanent members – the Republic of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (until its demise in 1991), the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America – and ten non-permanent members elected from the General Assembly for a term of two years. A great deal of power is vested in the Security Council, with special powers accorded to the permanent members. There may well be a need for a small executive group within the United Nations to effectively carry out its mandate. It is less clear, however, that the five states listed above should have permanent membership in this elite club. The arrangement of the Security Council immediately brings two questions to mind. The first is whether the current composition of the Security Council reflects modern international power broking reality? The second is whether there should be any members who sit permanently on such an important body

Problems with the International Definition of a Refugee and a Possible Solution

The Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees\u27 definition of a refugee is no longer viable. It was originally designed to deal with the limited refugee situation that existed forty years ago. Both the passage of time and the internationalization of refugee problems have weakened the effect of the definition to the point where a majority of de facto refugees do not even come within its ambit. Many of those who should be covered by the definition are not afforded protection under the national schemes designed in accordance with the Convention\u27s provisions. The UNHCR tries to deal with refugee situations as they arise but without guaranteed, long-term funding, the response is woefully inadequate. It is clear that a new regime governing refugees needs to be promulgated. An international proposal for dealing with refugees must be acceptable to state governments to gain acceptance. It should also take into account current practices with regard to refugees. I suggest that a proposal based on the idea of temporary refuge and envisaging eventual voluntary repatriation would be most acceptable to all involved. In practice, most refugees already remain in the country of first refuge. Western states, through the UNHCR, already foot a large part of the bill for these refugees and would be amenable to increased funding if they could also renounce the obligation to accept large numbers of refugees as citizens. A treaty, codifying a scheme along these lines, would regularize current practices and provide enhanced protection for refugees

Time for the Security Council to Restructure

The core political entity at the United Nations is the Security Council. The Security Council is comprised of five permanent members – the Republic of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (until its demise in 1991), the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America – and ten non-permanent members elected from the General Assembly for a term of two years. A great deal of power is vested in the Security Council, with special powers accorded to the permanent members. There may well be a need for a small executive group within the United Nations to effectively carry out its mandate. It is less clear, however, that the five states listed above should have permanent membership in this elite club. The arrangement of the Security Council immediately brings two questions to mind. The first is whether the current composition of the Security Council reflects modern international power broking reality? The second is whether there should be any members who sit permanently on such an important body