Does the 1951 Refugee Convention matter? Legal instruments of refoulement across parties and non-parties to the convention

Emma Empociello

Chercheuse associée au Centre Émile Durkheim

Abstract: In examining migration policies in the Middle East, the issue of non-signatory states is frequently highlighted as a unifying characteristic in the region. This study compares the actions of European Union member states, as signatories, with those of Jordan, a non-signatory, to explore how adherence to the 1951 Refugee Convention impacts decisions during border closures. Most research on refugee law has focused on international agreements that restrict access to asylum within the European Union or highlighted the reasons for non-adoption of the Geneva Convention in the Middle East. This article contrasts legal approaches in Greece, Hungary, and Jordan, demonstrating how, despite relying on different legal frameworks, all three states have negotiated terms within their asylum laws concerning access for Syrian refugees. By examining the limitations of an international division based solely on Geneva Convention membership, the study reveals how discretionary decision-making around refugee admissions has driven border closures. Through the 2015-2016 closures, this analysis shows that international law becomes a site of negotiation, effectively closing borders and marking an international compromise on the limits of protection for refugees.

Début : 20 novembre 2024 à 14:30
Fin : 20 novembre 2024 à 17:00
site Sciences Po Bordeaux, salle B233
Partager
Retour à tous les événements passés