Writer: Carson Phillips
Editor: Catherine Donohue
12/5/23
On November 5th, 47 people were killed by an Israeli airstrike on a refugee camp located in the Gaza Strip. In total, more than 9,700 Palestinians have been killed as a result of the Israel-Hamas war, and 24,808 have been wounded. Around 1,400 Israelis have been killed, and over 5,000 have been injured.
Following World War I, unprecedented numbers of refugees were unsettled from their homes. The UN elected to create a set of principles to protect refugees and created the 1951 Refugee Convention. The Convention guarantees certain rights to refugees, such as the right to not be expelled from the country they entered (except in very specific circumstances), to not be punished for entering said country, to non-discrimination, to social protection, to housing, land, and property, to education, and decent work. The 1967 Protocol expanded these rights to include universal refugees, as the 1951 Convention only declared these rights for European refugees. The United States has signed onto the Protocol but not the Convention, though it is still liable for most of the points specified in the Convention since it signed onto the Protocol in 1968.
Unfortunately, the 1951 Refugee Convention is not without its shortcomings. One particular imperfection is that the Convention defines a refugee as someone who is escaping persecution because of their race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a certain social group. While refugees seeking protection from persecution certainly should be protected, this definition neglects refugees who intend to leave their country because of famine, natural disaster, or war. The disregard means that countries could deny these types of refugees entry into their borders while claiming that these refugees are not accounted for in the Convention’s definition of a refugee.
The EU’s disjointed response to the 2015-2016 European refugee crisis was one of the first major events to expose the flaws of the 1951 Refugee Convention. At least one million largely Syrian refugees poured into the European Union, seeking asylum from war and persecution. Some EU member countries like Germany, Sweden, and Italy accepted the majority of the refugees, while most others tightened their borders. Right-wing parties gained popularity by advocating for anti-immigration policies, echoing the European public’s angst in response to the large influx of refugees. In September 2020, the EU passed the New Pact on Migration and Asylum, which imposes new restrictions on the admission of refugees and echoes the anti-immigration sentiment of European right-wing parties.
More recently, the integrity of the 1951 Refugee Convention has come into question in relation to the increase in refugees fleeing from the Hamas-Israeli War. Particularly, Egypt has closed its border to the hundreds of thousands of refugees escaping from the Gaza Strip. These refugees may not fit the UN’s definition of a refugee, however, the UN has also stated that countries must allow refugees to cross their borders when there are “large-scale arrivals of people fleeing objective circumstances of origin, such as conflict.” Egypt is also a member of the African Union, which issued its own, broader definition of a refugee, as well as the protections ensured for refugees in the “Convention governing specific aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa.” This convention declares that any type of “external aggression” constitutes a refugee, which would include refugees fleeing the Gaza Strip. Egypt has undoubtedly violated the terms of the AU’s convention and, arguably, the UN’s as well. It is unclear how the UN or the AU will respond to Egypt’s defiance, but it may encourage other countries to follow suit by ignoring a convention’s principles. Unfortunately, as is common in international agreements, the AU’s Convention is not binding and fails to provide enforcement mechanisms. The 1951 Refugee Convention is legally binding; however, one could argue that Egypt has not violated the conditions of this convention.
The flaws of international refugee law stem from a lack of involvement and commitment from the international community. The pacts that regulate international refugee law suffer from an inability to ensure that countries comply with their ordinances and narrow definitions that unfairly neglect the rights of some refugees. The colossal number of Palestinian refugees fleeing from Gaza may incite changes in international refugee law, however, any new regulations should aim to correct these shortcomings if they intend to elicit the best possible outcomes for refugees and the countries involved.
References
Benhabib, Seyla. “The End of the 1951 Refugee Convention? Dilemmas of Sovereignty,
Territoriality, and Human Rights.” Jus Cogens, vol. 2, no. 1, 28 July 2020, pp. 75–100, https://doi.org/10.1007/s42439-020-00022-1.
Frankel, Julia. “These Numbers Show the Staggering Toll of the Israel-Hamas War.” AP
News, 27 Oct. 2023, apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-death-toll-numbers-injured-5c9dc40bec95a8408c83f3c2fb759da0.
Kirisci, Kemal. “The 1951 Refugee Convention Is Falling Short of Its Mission. Could the
Global Compact on Refugees Help?” Brookings, 26 July 2021, www.brookings.edu/articles/the-1951-refugee-convention-is-falling-short-of-its-mission-could-the-global-compact-on-refugees-help/.
Kontorovich, Eugene. “MSN.” Www.msn.com, 29 Oct. 2023, www.msn.com/en-
us/news/world/egypt-s-border-closure-flouts-international-law/ar-AA1iQyhl. Accessed 13 Nov. 2023.
Sullivan, Becky, and Bill, Chapell. “Israeli Military Hits Gaza’s Largest Refugee Camp.” NPR,
“The 1951 Refugee Convention.” Unhcr.org, www.unhcr.org/about-unhcr/who-we-are/1951-
Opmerkingen