'Seeking Security for Refugees'

Abstract

In this chapter I argue that there are two distinct consequences of Southeast Asian states' resistance to international refugee law. First, non-accession to the key international refugee law instruments, the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of
Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (hereafter
referred to as the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol respectively), has
enabled Southeast Asian states to argue that the instruments do not apply to
their asylum-seeking populations, thus denying the legitimacy of a potential
normative framework for the appropriate treatment of asylum-seekers.
Because Southeast Asian states have not acceded to international refugee
law or developed receptive policies towards refugees, these states are able to
claim that asylum-seekers are 'illegal migrants', which is technically true.
Second, the majority of Southeast Asian states have not been compelled to
accede to the international refugee law instruments or take humanitarian
responsibility for their asylum-seeking population. In this chapter, I argue
that because refugee security is unable to be enforced through international
law when it is not acceded to by states, there exists a disconnection between
the law's potential and its applicability in Southeast Asia. Therefore,
international refugee law is limited in being able to emancipate1 asylumseekers
in Southeast Asia.