Introduction

Refugee law — once designed to offer temporary protection to those fleeing danger — is now facing unprecedented challenges.

The phenomenon of forced displacement has assumed unprecedented dimensions in the twenty-first century, driven by a confluence of armed conflict, political persecution, environmental degradation, and systemic human rights violations. According to recent reports by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the global refugee population has reached record levels, posing significant challenges to the existing legal frameworks designed to offer protection and durable solutions to those in flight.

The international refugee law regime, primarily embodied in the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, was originally conceived to provide temporary sanctuary to individuals facing persecution, with the ultimate objective of facilitating voluntary repatriation, local integration, or resettlement. However, the contemporary realities of protracted displacement, non-traditional causes of flight such as climate change, and increasingly restrictive state practices have revealed critical limitations within the current legal order.

United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Status of Refugees and Stateless Persons convened under General Assembly resolution 429 (V) of 14 December 1950

Article 1 – Definition of the term “refugee”

A. For the present Convention, the term “refugee” shall apply to any person who:

(1) Has been considered a refugee under the Arrangements of 12 May 1926 and 30 June 1928 or under the Conventions of 28 October 1933 and 10 February 1938, the Protocol of 14 September 1939 or the Constitution of the International Refugee Organization;

Decisions of non-eligibility taken by the International Refugee Organization during the period of its activities shall not prevent the status of refugee being accorded to persons who fulfil the conditions of paragraph 2 of this section;

(2) As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

In the case of a person who has more than one nationality, the term “the country of his nationality” shall mean each of the countries of which he is a national, and a person shall not be deemed to be lacking the protection of the country of his nationality if, without any valid reason based on well-founded fear, he has not availed himself of the protection of one of the countries of which he is a national.

B. (1) For this Convention, the words “events occurring before 1 January 1951” in Article 1, section A, shall be understood to mean either (a) “events occurring in Europe before 1 January 1951” or (b) “events occurring in Europe or elsewhere before 1 January 1951,” and each Contracting State shall make a declaration at the time of signature, ratification, or accession, specifying which of these meanings it applies for its obligations under this Convention.

(2) Any Contracting State that has adopted alternative (a) may at any time extend its obligations by adopting alternative (b) using a notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

C. This Convention shall cease to apply to any person falling under the terms of section A if:

(1) He has voluntarily availed himself of the protection of the country of his nationality; or

(2) Having lost his nationality, he has voluntarily reacquired it; or

(3) He has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality; or

(4) He has voluntarily re-established himself in the country which he left or outside which he remained owing to fear of persecution; or

(5) He can no longer, because the circumstances in connection with which he has been recognized as a refugee have ceased to exist, continue to refuse to avail himself of the protection of the country of his nationality;

Provided that this paragraph shall not apply to a refugee falling under section A (1) of this article who can invoke compelling reasons arising out of previous persecution for refusing to avail himself of the protection of the country of nationality;

(6) Being a person who has no nationality, he is, because the circumstances in connection with which he has been recognized as a refugee have ceased to exist, able to return to the country of his former habitual residence;

Provided that this paragraph shall not apply to a refugee falling under section A (1) of this article who can invoke compelling reasons arising out of previous persecution for refusing to return to the country of his former habitual residence.

D. This Convention shall not apply to persons who are at present receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance.

When such protection or assistance has ceased for any reason, without the position of such persons being definitively settled by the relevant resolutions adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, these persons shall ipso facto be entitled to the benefits of this Convention.

E. This Convention shall not apply to a person who is recognized by the competent authorities of the country in which he has taken residence as having the rights and obligations that are attached to the possession of the nationality of that country.

F. The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person concerning whom there are serious reasons for considering that:

(a) He has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes;

(b) He has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge before his admission to that country as a refugee;

(c) He has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

DEFINITIONS: WHAT EXACTLY IS A REFUGEE, AN ASYLUM SEEKER, AND A MIGRANT?

The terms “refugee,” “asylum seeker,” and “migrant” are used to describe people who are on the move, who have left their countries, and who have crossed borders.

The terms “migrant” and “refugee” are often used interchangeably, but it is important to distinguish between them, as there is a legal difference.

Refugee?

A refugee is a person who has fled their own country because they are at risk of serious human rights violations and persecution there. The risks to their safety and lives were so great that they felt they had no choice but to leave and seek safety outside their country because their government could not or would not protect them from those dangers. Refugees have a right to international protection.

Asylum Seeker?

An asylum seeker is a person who has left their country and is seeking protection from persecution and serious human rights violations in another country but who hasn’t yet been legally recognized as a refugee and is waiting to receive a decision on their asylum claim. Seeking asylum is a human right. This means everyone should be allowed to enter another country to seek asylum.

Migrant?

There is no internationally accepted legal definition of a migrant. Like most agencies and organizations, we at Amnesty International understand migrants to be people staying outside their country of origin who are not asylum seekers or refugees.  

Some migrants leave their country because they want to work, study, or join a family, for example. Others feel they must leave because of poverty, political unrest, gang violence, natural disasters, or other serious circumstances that exist there.

India’s Refugee Policy:

• India does not have a specific law to govern refugees but relies on existing laws like the Foreigners Act of 1946. 
• India is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention or the 1967 Protocol. 
• The decision of whether to treat a person or group of persons as refugees is taken on a case-by-case basis. 
• According to the Indian National Bar Association, India provides a home to a large number of refugees from neighboring countries. 

Conclusion
The question remains: will refugee law evolve to offer meaningful protection and pathways to belonging? Or will it continue to confine millions to a permanent state of exile?
The answer will shape not only the lives of refugees but also the moral and legal fabric of the global community for decades to come.

Contributed By: Arzoo Kala (Intern)