Refugee definition in international law The definition of the term "refugee" in international law is a very wide issue which can be conceived from many different points of view. One of the best ways how to deal with it is to focus on only one part of the generally most widely accepted definition of a refugee. This is the definition according to the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. According to this document a refugee is a person who "owing to a 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 to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country..." This definition is more than fifty years old and still actual. It has been adopted in response to the Second World War and the mass refugee flood. The missing interpretation of the term "persecution", which is the fundamental element of the Geneva Convention refugee definition, is still one of the biggest problems of refugee law. The aim of my thesis is to find out whether the missing definition of the term "persecution" is really such a serious imperfection as it is brought out sometimes. I try to answer this question through researching the...

This thesis concerns persons recognised as refugees based on the criteria set by Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (CSR1951) and residing in a Contracting State. It appraises the exclusion of CSR1951 refugees from participation in elections of their countries of asylum pursuant to a citizenship voting qualification, which most countries set. It is emphasised that, since neither the CSR1951 refugees nor their country of asylum know when or indeed whether cessation of CSR1951 refugee status may occur, their exclusion may last for an indeterminate period of time. CSR1951 confers on recognised refugees a host of civil, social and economic rights in their country of asylum; voting rights are absent. Concomitantly, while the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (and regional human rights treaties) pronounce that all persons are entitled to have their rights respected, protected and promoted, Contracting States are permitted to reserve two rights for their (full) members: the right to enter and remain in their country, and the right to vote in its elections. The central claim of this thesis is that recognised CSR1951 refugees are a special category of non-citizen residents, due to their unique political predicament. They are unable to participate in elections of their country of origin, do not enjoy its diplomatic protection and consular assistance abroad, and – most fundamentally – are unable or unwilling, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, to return to it for an indeterminate (and potentially protracted) period. It is submitted that recognised CSR1951 refugees should be entitled to vote in elections of their countries of asylum, notwithstanding general citizenship qualifications imposed by these countries. At present, treaty law does not require countries of asylum to enfranchise their recognised CSR1951 refugees. Hence, this thesis explores a gap in international refugee law and international human rights law between de lege lata and de lege ferenda; it is an exercise in ‘progressive development of the law’. Its inquiry is located in the international domain, and concerns, in principle, any Contracting State which admits and recognises CSR1951 refugees. References to national or regional practices serve solely an illustrative purpose.

Turkey has been among a limited number of states that signed the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and adopted the geographical limitation / furthermore, among a very few number of states that still maintains this limitation. The aim of this thesis is to analyze the significance of geographical limitation and what has brought the changes to Turkish asylum policies in respect of this reservation. Turkey is expected to abolish the geographical limitation during the European Union harmonization process. In this thesis furthermore, the role of the European Union within this process will be put forward.

[pt] Este trabalho apresenta a constituição histórica dos regimes de proteção aos refugiados em suas três esferas - global, regional e nacional -, assumindo sua complementariedade na consolidação da proteção aos deslocamentos forçados. Partindo de uma pressuposição construtivista, esta abordagem apresentará os marcos de proteção ao refúgio como construtos históricos fomentados dentro de interações sociais e que estão em fluxo contínuo de especificação sobre os novos carecimentos humanos. Nessa perspectiva construtivista que integra abordagens interdisciplinares para os estudos internacionais, será empregado o vocábulo regime em relação às construções de proteção, com normativas, princípios e vias procedimentais em torno da temática do refúgio. Assim, emoldurado por uma estrutura cronológica, a pesquisa começará da esfera mais ampla da Convenção de 1951, passando pela esfera Regional para culminar no marco de proteção nacional ao refugiado. Especial enfoque será dado à esfera regional na ampliação da definição de refugiado, que se concretiza na América Latina por meio da Declaração de Cartagena de 1984, a fim de superar os limites eurocêntricos da definição clássica. Tal abordagem da região está conectada ao Brasil que incorpora na lei 9.474/97 a definição clássica internacional e a definição ampliada de graves e generalizadas violações de direitos humanos de Cartagena. Traçado o caminho, esta dissertação apresenta dentro do marco do regime nacional de refúgio a resposta brasileira ao fluxo de venezuelanos por meio da Operação Acolhida. Portanto, analisaremos os eixos da gestão migratória militarizada brasileira, que ocorre com forte proeminência das Forças Armadas. A esse respeito, o trabalho destaca a simultaneidade da lógica humanitária e securitária da resposta nacional, que demonstra ambivalência entre proteger o venezuelano e proteger-se dele. / [en] This work presents a historical constitution of the refugee protection regimes, in their three spheres - global, regional, and national – assuming its complementarity in consolidating the protection to the forced displacement. Starting from a constructivist presupposition, this approach will present the refuge protection framework as historical constructs fostered within social interactions, and which are in a continuous flow of specification over the new human needs. From this constructivist perspective that integrates interdisciplinary approaches to the international studies, the word regime will be used, in relation to the constructions of protection, with norms, principles and procedural pathways, around the theme of refuge. Thus, framed by a chronological structure, this research will start from the broader sphere of the 1951 Convention, passing through the sphere Regional, to culminate in the framework of national refugee protection. Special focus will be given to the regional sphere in expanding the definition of refugee, which takes place in Latin America, through the 1984 Cartagena Declaration, to overcome the Eurocentric limits of the classic definition. This approach of the region is connected to Brazil, which incorporates in law 9.474/97 the international classical definition and the expanded definition of serious and widespread human rights violations in Cartagena. Tracing this path, this dissertation presents, within the framework of the national refugee regime, the Brazilian response to the flow of Venezuelans, through the Operation Welcome. Therefore, we will analyze the axes of this Brazilian militarized migratory management, which occurs with strong prominence of the Armed Forces. Thus, this work highlights the simultaneity of the humanitarian and security logic of this national response, which demonstrates ambivalence between protecting the Venezuelans and protecting ourselves from them.

Plus de soixante ans après sa signature, qui sont les personnes bénéficiaires de la qualité de réfugié au sens de l’article 1A de la Convention de Genève relative au statut de réfugié de 1951? En effet, si cette convention compte parmi les plus ratifiées au monde et n’a jamais été remise en cause, celle-ci fait pourtant l’objet de polémiques croissantes portant sur sa capacité à protéger les personnes contraintes de s’exiler. Elle s’applique par ailleurs dans un contexte politique de suspicion grandissante à l’égard des demandeurs d’asile. On peut donc se demander qui sont aujourdh’ui les personnes qui se voient reconnaître la qualité de réfugié ? A cette fin, l’étude s’appuie sur une analyse comparée des jurisprudences de plusieurs pays occidentaux : Australie – Belgique - Canada - Etats-Unis - France – Grande-Bretagne – Nouvelle-Zélande. Elle s’appuie aussi sur une analyse systémique de l’article 1A et ses interprétations jurisprudentielles à la lumière des évolutions du droit international des droits de l’homme et du droit international humanitaire. Ainsi, l’analyse met en lumière plusieurs points. Plus que les motifs invoqués ou la nature des mauvais traitements craints, c’est sur le caractère individuel ou collectif des persécutions que se dessine une ligne de fracture entre les Etats occidentaux. En effet, ces derniers ont, de manière convergente, fait évoluer leur interprétation de la qualité de réfugié quand les requérants invoquent des persécutions individuelles. C’est ainsi que les individus craignant d’être persecutés en raison de l’expression de leurs opinions politiques ou religieuses dissidentes, ou du libre exercice de leurs droits fondamentaux, quel que soit leur genre ou leur orientation sexuelle, se voient aujourd’hui communément reconnaître la qualité de réfugié. Dans le cadre de ces persécutions individuelles, les Etats ont aussi développé de manière convergente une interprétation assouplie des agents de persécution, acceptant ainsi de protéger les personnes fuyant des mauvais traitements perpétrés par des agents étatiques et des personnes privées. En revanche, il existe encore de nombreuses divergences entre les Etats lorsque les individus revendiquent fuir des persécutions collectives. S’appuyant sur la reconnaissance d’une interprétation plus ou moins individualiste de la qualité de réfugié, les personnes craignant d’être persécutées en raison de leur race, de leur nationalité ou de leur appartenance à un groupe religieux ne doivent pas satisfaire aux mêmes exigences pour se voir reconnaître la qualité de réfugié. Et dans le contexte actuel où de plus en plus de personnes fuient des persécutions collectives perpétrées dans un Etat en situation de conflit armé, ces divergences sont d’autant plus importantes. / Sixty years after its signatory, who can be qualify as a refugee under the 1951 Refugee Convention relating to the Status of Refugee ? If it is one of the most ratified treaty of the world, it’s relevance have nevertheless recently been questioned and some commentators don’t hesitate to speak of an outdated Convention. Moreover, it applies in a political context of clear suspicion against asylum-seekers. So, we can wonder who can nowadays qualify as a refugee among the million of persons fleeing their home ? To answer to this question, the study focuses on judicial review of many industrialized countries, such as Australia – Belgium – Canada – United States – France – Great-Britain and New Zealand. A systemic interpretation of Article 1A and its judicial interpretation in the light of both international human right law and international humanitarian law also helps to conduce the study. First, the analyse reveals that it is not on the motives of persecution neither the nature of the treatment feared that we can observe similarities or differences between the countries. It is on individual or collective persecutions. When asylum seekers look for international protection based on individual persecutions, States have commonly adopted a dynamic interpretation of article 1A . Persons who have a well-founded fear of being persecuted because they have freely express their dissent political or religious opinion, their sexual orientation, or because they refuse to conform to the roles and identities attributing to their gender, can be recognised as refugees in all the countries of the study. In the context of individual persecutions, States have also commonly developed an evolutive interpretation of the persecution agents. They protect all the persons who risk to be persecuted by state agents or non-state agents. On the contrary, there are many continuing and growing divergences between States when persons flee collective persecutions because of their race, their nationality of their belonging to a religious group. They keep on developing a different interpretation of the individualist definition of the refugee. And while more and more person ask for international protection because they flee collective persecutions during an armed conflict, these divergences are even more important.

This thesis explores the impact of the Syrian refugee crisis on the Common European Asylum System. It evaluates the extent to which the European Union was able to implement a common asylum system, identifies discrepancies between different European countries, primarily Germany and Hungary, and briefly examines the roots of these differences. To this end, the structure of the international refugee protection regime and the German and Hungarian asylum systems are analyzed. Furthermore, the thesis explores how the governments of the two countries perceive the rights of refugees and how their views have affected their handling of the crisis. The case studies of Germany and Hungary have revealed that the treatment of Syrian refugees varies enormously within the EU. Hence, the implementation of the Common European Asylum System has not been achieved, which can be attributed to the deficiencies within the system and the growing ideological rifts within the EU.