Signing the refugee convention
By acceding to Refugee convention, Pakistan would be able to distinguish between asylum seekers and refugees.
The Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, approved at a special United Nations conference, entered into force in 1954. In 1967, the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees was promulgated for the purpose of expanding the scope of the convention. As a result, the protections afforded under the convention were available to persons in any part of the world, afflicted by any conflict without geographical or time-related restraints.
Having received waves of Afghan refugees over the past three decades, Pakistan today is managing the largest refugee population in the world. Yet it is still not a signatory to the 1951 refugee convention or its 1967 protocol. The result is that the issues associated with hosting refugees are being addressed through ad hoc and discretionary policies.
Pakistan is already bound by a number of human rights instruments and Islamic precedents that protect and give rights to refugees. In fact, the genesis of refugee rights has its origin in the Hijra of the Holy Prophet (pbuh). Many of these obligations mirror those stipulated under the refugee convention.
There are misgivings that the convention would be applicable to certain other categories of individuals presently living in Pakistan. This is a legal misperception, as the convention does not apply to them. The arrival and stay in Pakistan of economic migrants are not within the scope of its legal provisions. Its very first article, which defines the term refugee, would not be applicable to this category of individuals. Besides, the provisions of the refugee convention and its protocol do not have to be accepted in their entirety.
Accession to the convention would provide for a sound legal basis with which to address refugee problems along the porous Afghan border, illegal migration and human trafficking.
Accession to the convention does not impose a legal obligation on states to admit refugees on a permanent basis, to integrate them or to naturalise them. State sovereignty eclipses all these issues. No such obligations would be imposed on Pakistan if it were to accede. By doing so, Pakistan could strengthen its ability to distinguish between those in genuine need of international protection and those on the move for economic reasons. The potential for increased international support would be enhanced, while the economic strain of caring for refugees could be eased.
The convention is also not a self-executing treaty. It would have to be applied through national refugee legislation, which would be on Pakistan’s terms. This would give Pakistan ample time to work on the issues of practical execution.
The convention sets out repatriation as the best solution for refugees. This should assuage the fears of those who believe refugees would prefer to stay on in Pakistan.
That fact that discussions are now taking place on the possibility of accession is encouraging. Bearing in mind the obvious benefits of doing so, aided by our nation’s proud tradition of assisting the displaced, we must see the process through.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 5th, 2011.
Having received waves of Afghan refugees over the past three decades, Pakistan today is managing the largest refugee population in the world. Yet it is still not a signatory to the 1951 refugee convention or its 1967 protocol. The result is that the issues associated with hosting refugees are being addressed through ad hoc and discretionary policies.
Pakistan is already bound by a number of human rights instruments and Islamic precedents that protect and give rights to refugees. In fact, the genesis of refugee rights has its origin in the Hijra of the Holy Prophet (pbuh). Many of these obligations mirror those stipulated under the refugee convention.
There are misgivings that the convention would be applicable to certain other categories of individuals presently living in Pakistan. This is a legal misperception, as the convention does not apply to them. The arrival and stay in Pakistan of economic migrants are not within the scope of its legal provisions. Its very first article, which defines the term refugee, would not be applicable to this category of individuals. Besides, the provisions of the refugee convention and its protocol do not have to be accepted in their entirety.
Accession to the convention would provide for a sound legal basis with which to address refugee problems along the porous Afghan border, illegal migration and human trafficking.
Accession to the convention does not impose a legal obligation on states to admit refugees on a permanent basis, to integrate them or to naturalise them. State sovereignty eclipses all these issues. No such obligations would be imposed on Pakistan if it were to accede. By doing so, Pakistan could strengthen its ability to distinguish between those in genuine need of international protection and those on the move for economic reasons. The potential for increased international support would be enhanced, while the economic strain of caring for refugees could be eased.
The convention is also not a self-executing treaty. It would have to be applied through national refugee legislation, which would be on Pakistan’s terms. This would give Pakistan ample time to work on the issues of practical execution.
The convention sets out repatriation as the best solution for refugees. This should assuage the fears of those who believe refugees would prefer to stay on in Pakistan.
That fact that discussions are now taking place on the possibility of accession is encouraging. Bearing in mind the obvious benefits of doing so, aided by our nation’s proud tradition of assisting the displaced, we must see the process through.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 5th, 2011.