The Trump administration`s claims and actions regarding refugees and asylum seekers have prompted lawmakers, lawyers, and courts to address a crucial question: What are the U.S. government`s obligations to refugees and asylum seekers? There are rights that are clearly articulated in works such as Hathaway and Neve, which are rooted in the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (the “Convention”) and the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (the “Protocol”) – which amends the Convention and acts as a separate treaty. But world leaders have become increasingly creative in their efforts to deny refugees access to potential host countries, and increasingly militaristic in their treatment as soon as they arrive, suggesting that the grey areas of treaties offer ways to circumvent them when (say) populist governments try to deliver on their draconian election promises. To broaden our sense of the rights of refugees and asylum seekers, I would suggest that the courts examine the work of the Convention and Protocol, which in both cases suggest a surprisingly humanistic approach to refugees and asylum seekers. In a series of blog posts from February 21, 2019 and February 7. In March 2019, I proposed that we return in particular to the work of the protocol, which consists of part of the notes, notes, minutes and letters distributed to Villa Serbelloni from 1965 by the negotiators involved in the drafting of the treaty. in Bellagio. This work has never been assembled into a coherent corpus, and to date no one has considered it as a means of interpreting the meaning of the 1967 Protocol. I am currently involved in both of these efforts.
My request is that, in accordance with the 1980 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, this work be consulted for the Protocol in order to reveal the intentions of the States that have acceded to it, which is particularly important for the United States (as well as for Cape Verde and Venezuela), since these three nations are parties to the Protocol, without ever having signed the Convention. In this post, I will focus in particular on the United States, which has strongly supported the negotiations on the Convention (whose accession was not adopted by the Senate) and for the Protocol. The United States eventually joined the international legal regime by acceding to the protocol by a 98-0 vote in the Senate. Since new refugee situations have arisen since the adoption of the Convention and the refugees concerned may therefore fall outside the scope of the Convention, there are different definitions of refugees worldwide, with countries and local districts even having different legal meanings and rights attributed to refugees.  Taking into account that the 28. The Convention relating to the Status of Refugees concluded in Geneva in July 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Convention) covers only persons who have become refugees as a result of events prior to I January 1951, we believe that the foreign policy interests inherent in our accession form the basis of our strong recommendation for the United States to accede. These foreign policy interests are to expand the image of the United States as a nation that cares about the persecuted and the individual at a time when this is becoming increasingly important. Second, it will strengthen our diplomatic competence and diplomatic efforts to try to achieve greater and more effective acceptance of humane and civilized norms in other countries for refugees.
These lead to solutions to refugee problems and solutions to refugee problems to solutions to broader problems and to the reduction of tensions and, ultimately, to peacekeeping. (10) I would argue that Congress` intentions in passing these laws (including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1980, which adopts the spirit and content of the 1967 Protocol) are important today for historical, political and legal purposes. .