The UN Refugee Convention 1951 was crafted to support the refugees legally and morally. Many European states benefitted from the convention after World War II. However, it is a matter of irony that many of these same states are in favour of close borders now, whenever people are seeking refuge as the victims of war, ethnic cleansing, political or communal clashes, etc.

The refusal to allow the refugees to enter revictimises the refugees, which goes against many principles of international human rights and refugee law. To stop such revictimisation, the burden or responsibility-sharing principle emerged. This is disguisedly mentioned in articles 1(3), 55, 56 of the UN Charter, several UNHCR ExCom Conclusions (89, 22, 55, etc.), the preamble of the UN Refugee Convention 1951, and some UNGA resolutions. However, many states seem reluctant to bring responsibility sharing into actual practice claiming that the same would cause a financial, social, political, or communal imbalance in their country.

The member states, international agencies, partners, civil society, and the Global Refugee Forum formed under the Global Compact on Refugees need to come up with such iconic and dynamic solutions to handle current and forthcoming refugee crises. Only, this whole of society approach can potentially ensure a better future for refugees and their protection.

Global Compact on Refugees (GCR) 2018 came out as a response to promote equitable burden-sharing during mass displacements following the international principle of responsibility sharing. The principle focuses on providing protection, giving assistance, and pursuing solutions to refugee crises. These three aims are incorporated in the GCR in the form of four objectives, i.e., a) alleviate pressure on the host countries, b) enhance self-reliance of the refugees, c) expand third-country solutions, and d) improve conditions in the origin country to ensure safe and dignified return. These objectives must be fulfilled to respect, protect, and fulfill the human rights obligations toward the refugees.

Unfortunately, many states tend to avoid sharing the burdens of sheltering the refugees and opt for providing financial assistance to the host countries only. They often say that the refugees might pose a risk to the national security. But they often ignore the fact that the same risk is now being incurred by the current host country alone. Hence, giving financial assistance does not serve the true purposes of the GCR.

From a critical perspective, it is not a long haul to differentiate between the refugees posing security threats and refugees needing international protection. A mere protection-sensitive border reception procedure following the 10-Point Plan of Action by UNHCR would have helped in the process. We may call it a lack of will or a prisoner's dilemma (both parties endeavor to protect themselves via unilateral action rather than carrying the costs that also have the benefits of cooperation) instead. The phrase prisoner's dilemma rightly portrays the current stances of refugee protection and a global norm of non-compliance with international treaty obligations for refugees.

Such non-compliance is creating huge complications for the middle-income and least-developed host countries. Only financial aid is not helping these countries, as the refugees are incessantly using the scarce resources and physical spaces. At a certain point, financial burden sharing starts decreasing, but the host countries' sufferings of carrying the burden continue.  This has happened in the case of the Rohingyas as well, as the whole situation has experienced major fund cuts. Presumably, the fund will start decreasing even more in the forthcoming days.

A similar future waits for other refugees in some other host countries. However, this is not what the Refugee Convention 1951 preaches or the Global Compacts on Refugees 2018 aspires to achieve. A common approach by all concerned states is necessary to utilise the burden-sharing mechanism as a distributive device. However, it should not resemble the Intergovernmental Consultations on Asylum and Immigration 1992 which promotes sharing based on fixed quotas of refugees in low numbers. Rather, it may take inspirations from the ad hoc instrumental-communitarian model followed by the European states to protect the victims of war after World War II. 

In this model, the participating states shared a common sense of values and obligation towards the refugees in solidarity. This may turn into an institutionalised practice in the upcoming days, as it happened in the context of the European Union. Initially, they adopted a resolution on 'Burden sharing with regard to the admission and residence of displaced persons on a temporary basis' in 1995. Later, the resolution was adopted as 'Temporary Protection Directive 2001.' This directive promotes a balance of efforts among member states through solidarity, equity of distribution, and harmonisation of responses during mass influxes of refugees. The member states, international agencies, partners, civil society, and the Global Refugee Forum formed under the Global Compact on Refugees need to come up with such iconic and dynamic solutions to handle current and forthcoming refugee crises. Only, this whole of society approach can potentially ensure a better future for refugees and their protection.

The author is Lecturer, Department of Law, Feni University.