Redefining Refugee: A critical Analysis of the 1951 Refugee Convention

Abstract

The 1951 Refugee Convention, a bedrock of international refugee law, is more and more inadequate in addressing the complex and evolving nature of worldwide displacement. My research critically examines the definition of a refugee under the 1951 Refugee Convention, highlighting its limitations in light of latest challenges. The Convention's main focus on "well-founded fear of persecution" based on specific grounds, while historically significant, demonstrates insufficient for many human beings seeking protection. The paper explores how this definition preclude those fleeing situations of generalised violence, climate change, and other non-persecution-related threats. Furthermore, the Convention's firm framework and the challenges linked with its implementation are discussed. The paper explores the role of state sovereignty, international cooperation, and judicial interpretation in forming refugee protection. In conclusion, my research is an argument for a more comprehensive and adaptable definition of a refugee that is in line with the evolving humanitarian landscape. By re-evaluating the fundamental principles of refugee protection, the international community can better address the needs of displaced persons globally. “No one leaves home unless home is the mouth of a shark”