Overview: time to stop paying homage to the Convention and to fix it

As noted in chapter 11, the definition of a refugee was first advanced about fifty years ago. At the international law level, it has remained (effectively) unchanged during this period. Likewise at the domestic law level, although as we have seen the definition has been subject to relatively minor statutory modifications.

The Refugee Convention has been ratified by well over one hundred nation states and is one of the most important and successful international humanitarian documents. In Australia, the refugee issue is of widespread social and political importance. It is perhaps the most emotive and divisive social issue of our time. This level of interest in refugee issues was greatly heightened in 2001 when the Australian parliament introduced legislation and border control mechanisms to prevent asylum seekers entering Australia without a visa. This polarised public opinion and resulted in a groundswell by many people and refugees, culminating in many pro-refugee organisations. The preparedness of so many people in the community and community groups to assist asylum seekers is, like any altruistic act, of course commendable. However, the emotion that has manifested in this area masks serious failings associated with the Convention definition of a refugee.

In this chapter we provide a normative evaluation of the Convention. Is the document morally sound?