+61480015851
International Law and Human Rights - 1951 UN Refugee Convention - Law Assessment Answer
Download Solution
Order New Solution
Internal Code: 1AGFCJ
Law Assessment Answer
Assignment Task: Refuge convention: Why might state be reluctant to ratify international human rights Convention? Issues The 1951 UN refugee convention is often criticised for being obsolete as it was designed for a different era. It was not designed for today’s refugee influx although the western countries have seemed to be coping well with it until the end of cold war. It will summarise problems and issues, which have been recognized as a result of the refugee convention procedure by researchers over the last decade (assembly, 2014). It will also discuss the challenges and obstacles as to why a state might be reluctant to ratify an International Human rights convention. The statistics indicated in this paper are from the UNHCR or the USCR together with legal examples to reference these concerns. The definition With the flow of refugees globally, the refugee convention does not seem to be consistent in defining refugee definition. The major reasons for refugee flows have been more likely to be as a consequence of natural disaster, civil war, sectarian violence which has attempted individual persecution by a despotic government since 1980s. Post the end of cold war, the refugee population has significantly increased. There are 35 million according to USCR and 22 million according to UNHCR refugees globally. The dilemma and the need of these refugees are apparent (cook, 2012) and are highlighted through the media and through the risk they take to flee to a new country for a better life. However, Article 2A(1) of the refugee convention 1951, allows only for minorities to establish a personal ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ which makes the case by case screening pointless. For this reason, a state might not ratify refugee convention because of their lack of knowledge about the refugee’s back ground or if they are legitimate refugees. Discrepancies of clarification and application The main reason for the development of refugee convention was to deal with European refugees posts WWII, not a burden-sharing mechanism creating more problems for the international community. Reasons for people seeking asylum now is more due to employment opportunities, cultural and religious networks and better welfare systems. In 2011, 70% of the asylum seekers population sought asylum in European countries, such as Britain, Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands (Cook, 2012). The western countries have significantly invested in systems in regards to providing fair and just screening of the refugees. The governments must be their own agent and instrument when it comes to persecution in Germany and France, but not in UK as the convention is vague in terms of its clarification and criteria. Moreover, in Canada and USA the people who are persecuted under China’s one child policy are accepted as refugees as they form part of the ‘particular social group’, nonetheless not in Australia Forsythe, 2012). The migration channel Western countries have since the 1980s, have become significantly pressurised as they are used as a migration channel for people seeking asylum. This pressure escalation at times when there are no opportunities for skilled workers and business investors in countries like Australia (Ghandhi, 2012). It has been predicted by the UN that there are about 125 million outside their land searching for better environment where they can feel safer and have financial stability. The wealth inequalities between the poor countries and rich countries currently are 70:1 which continues to remain as a motivation for migration. Since 1985, the population of the asylum seekers in European countries is more than the population of legal foreign labours (Ghandi, 2012) Non-departure The length of the stay involved in the screening process makes it hard to remove refugees from there. (UK is known to have the average processing time ‘fairer, faster, firmer system in July 2000 was 13 months. During this period asylum seekers settled in the country. Considering its capacity Australia is the only western country that repatriates the failed asylum seekers (keeping in mind that they include an increasing number of illegal visa ‘over stayer’ crowd). The compulsory detention of the people who arrive illegally has made it occasionally tough and controversial to send the the boat people (asylum seekers) who have failed to gain refugee status back to their countries Hafner- burton, 2012). Only a minority of rejected asylums actually ever leave the country where they have been rejected to be given refugee status or a few leave voluntarily in other cases. There has been acknowledgment made by the UK Home Office that up to two third of the failed asylum seekers disappear. In 1999, 71160 applications were received by the UK and less than 8000 failed asylum seekers left the country voluntarily or were deported. The attempt to remove failed asylums from a country with liberal democracy on a large scale may not be conceivable; however it is worth mentioning that, without the prospect of deportation the complete screening of the asylum seekers is pointless. This could be a reason why a state might be reluctant to ratify the convention at the first place. The deportation The controversial element of non-refoulement is the core principle of the refugee convention, which protects refugees no matter where they are. As an alternative solution to the right of individuals to stay home and enjoying the fundamental human rights, the convention very well has institutionalised the concept of exile as a solution for the dilemma of refugees (Mapp, 2014). Exile is just not the alternative solution for refuge dilemmas in a modern era of globalisation. The UNHCR continues promoting the resettlement of refugees in third countries such as Australia only in the cases where they really cannot be either sent back to their countries due persecution or for a various reasons cannot be settled in the country they sought asylum in the first place (Hafner-Burton, 2012). Government concerns and government hypocrisy A major reason that turns away a state to ratify the refugee convention is the true fact that the principle of non-refoulement promise does not the take an account of the possible impacts that it may bring to the countries. No limitations and restriction are allowed on the number of asylum seekers. Further more, full authority is given to anything the asylum seekers are competent of achieving. Screening the refuges and their settlement is a massive financial concern. In Australia the off-shore humanitarian program costs are counterbalanced by the generated revenue of the skilled migration intakes (Mapp, 2014). It is significantly loathed by the refugee advocates to set price for refugees as it assumes to be regarding them as numbers. The refugee right’s advocates believe them empowerment of individual asylum seekers is the chief strength of the convention. The commentators believe that unfortunately the convention fails to consider the importance of state needs and that is a serious issue. The abilities of a state in terms of what it can do for refugee protection depends on the possibilities and chances that have been given by a state’s domestic political environment rather than international treaty (Mapp, 2014). In reality, the countries do not believe the convention otherwise they would have not hinder the people seeking protection in their countries and rather would have assisted them. However, what is noticed today is that the western countries from one side are clutched under the pressures of antagonistic public and from the other side the enshrined obligations of the convention which has brought them into an obstinate situation. in one hand Lip service is rewarded for honouring and enshrining the obligation and provisions of the refugee convention while on the other hand great funding is spent on keeping the asylum seekers out of the state. In 2013, the Australian government allocated an extra $124 million for border protection as a response to the escalation on the number of illegal boat arrivals which almost all were given refugee status (Posner,2014). Inequities Due to the inconsistency between what the western countries spent on the asylum seekers and what is spent on the refugee camps, the responsibilities of the west have been questioned. Of course, what has been spent on the 1.2 asylum seekers in the world to meet the needs of the 22.3 million seeking protection is several times more that the budget by the UNHCR (Posner, 2014). By 1990, Canada and the European OECD countries accredited to be spending USD5 billion every year for refugee screening, which is about ten times the budget that the UNHCR allocated to them. The UNHCR budget for refugee processing this year is USD1.7 billion with additional funding for Kosovo. The UK has very well its own refugee budget of BRP1.5 billion with a further BRP600 million on providing its asylum seekers with social support. The UK contributed BRP15 million to the UNHCR. Canada’s donation to UNHCR is CAD 14 million, apart from spending about CAD500 million on the asylum seekers. The cost of illegal boat arrivals in Australia alone was about $200 million in 1999-2000. Process of refugees puts it about roughly $370 million with core contribution of $14 million to UNHCR (Posner, 2014). Public perception Most of the refugees that scape persecutions flee to neighbouring countries, which are relatively poor, which are demonstrated in the social media clearly. However; seeking asylum in western countries have raised concern around the real intentions of the refugees rather than public sympathy. An example of this is the Kosovars asylum seekers who were given temporary protection (Szmukler, Daw & Callard, 2014). In Europe refugee acceptance rates are low, yet 11% of refugee applications were recognised to be in those countries. As a result, the public perceives that asylums seek protection due to social and financial reasons. Equal to the countries with high acceptance such as Canada or Australia, the practice of convention appears to be creating more doubt and distrust instead of support. Conclusion The ‘Geneva’ refugee convention is interpreted broadly and has vague definition in terms of its criteria. It does not really gives a complete flexible response to the movement and influx of refugees globally today. In fact, it is altering the responses and is moving away the resources of western countries developing clear ethical responses. Why a state might be reluctant to ratify the refugee convention is as discussed earlier. The length of the time asylum seekers are processed creates an opportunity for their settlement, which later on makes it hard to remove them. further more, The non-refoulement principle does not take into account the potential impacts that it may bring to the state financially and politically. Processing asylum seekers is very costly. It is several times more that the allocated budget by UNHCR which may pressurise the states financially. Moreover, the governments are concerned by the public perception. With an increase in refugee inflow to western countries, the public conclude that they are not actual refugees fleeing persecution but are economical refugees. The problem of the convention perhaps can be addressed through filling the gaps it’s missing. It does not mention anything about the refugee rights unless they made it to a signatory state. It does not impose any obligation for governments not to oppress the asylum seekers. There is no indication towards the states capacity to accept a refugee, which continues to be, problems of the convention. And the refugee issues will continue to remain a major dilemma in the world, as not all states will ratify the refugee convention and even if they do not necessarily implement its provisions.This Law Assessment has been solved by our Law experts at My Uni Paper. Our Assignment Writing Experts are efficient to provide a fresh solution to this question. We are serving more than 10000+ Students in Australia, UK & US by helping them to score HD in their academics. Our Experts are well trained to follow all marking rubrics & referencing style.