While there exists in the literature on refugees’ rights a broad consensus on the existence of an overlapping and common ground between IHRL and IRL, gaps continue to exist in state implementation of these two legal systems. Concepts of sovereignty and border control continue to take predominance when refugees are the rights-bearers, and this tendency is more pronounced in the event of complementary protection. This thesis investigated the recent creation of a temporary protection status in the Danish Aliens Act by legal method and political case study to understand the interrelation of these systems, as manifested by the ECHR and the Refugee Convention. The legal analysis revealed the amendments’ misinterpretation of the principle of good faith of treaty interpretation. The political reasoning behind the amendment was used to shed light on domestic alignment with international law, in order to clarify the political and moral function of human rights. It was suggested that the main challenge to such misinterpretations remains the separation of human rights with its inherent moral purpose.