How many refugees are of concern to the unhcr

Which countries bear the burden of hosting asylum seekers and refugees? The author is grateful to colleagues Elibritt Karlsen and Dr Luke Buckmaster for their valuable input into this paper. These countries universally struggle to maintain a balance between controlling national borders and offering protection to millions of displaced people. Australia has a long history of accepting refugees for resettlement and over , refugees and displaced persons, including thousands during and immediately after World War II, have settled in Australia since The purpose of this paper is to present information in a simplified format that may help address some of the popular misconceptions that surround asylum issues.

It includes information on asylum claims, unauthorised arrivals and irregular migration in Australia and Europe. There is a great deal of confusion about the difference between an asylum seeker and a refugee and often the terms are used interchangeably or incorrectly.

An asylum seeker is someone who is seeking international protection but whose claim for refugee status has not yet been determined. In contrast, a refugee is someone who has been recognised under the Convention relating to the status of refugees to be a refugee. Migrants, especially economic migrants, choose to move in order to improve the future prospects of themselves and their families.

Refugees have to move if they are to save their lives or preserve their freedom. They have no protection from their own state—indeed it is often their own government that is threatening to persecute them. If other countries do not let them in, and do not help them once they are in, then they may be condemning them to death—or to an intolerable life in the shadows, without sustenance and without rights. It is not a crime to enter Australia without authorisation for the purpose of seeking asylum.

Asylum seekers do not break any Australian laws simply by arriving on boats or without authorisation. Article 31 of the Refugee Convention clearly states that refugees should not be penalised for arriving without valid travel documents.

What may be considered an illegal action under normal circumstances e. Australian and international law make these allowances because it is not always safe or even possible for asylum seekers to obtain travel documents or travel through authorised channels. Refugees are, by definition, people fleeing persecution and in most cases are being persecuted by their own governments.

It is often too dangerous for refugees to apply for a passport or exit visa or approach an Australian Embassy for a visa, as this could put their lives, and the lives of their families, at risk. Refugees may also be forced to flee with little notice due to rapidly deteriorating situations and do not have time to apply for travel documents or arrange travel through authorised channels. In other cases, refugees may be unable to obtain travel documents because they do not have identity documentation or because they cannot meet the necessary visa requirements.

Australia has very restrictive policies which work to prevent citizens of countries where persecution is widespread from getting access to temporary visas of any kind. These policies leave many people seeking to flee to Australia with no way of entering in an authorised manner.

Permitting asylum seekers to enter a country without travel documents is similar to allowing ambulance drivers to exceed the speed limit in an emergency — the action may ordinarily be illegal but, in order to protect lives at risk, an exception is made. There is no offence under Australian law that criminalises the act of arriving in Australia or the seeking of asylum without a valid visa.

The confusion about legal status arises from those arriving by boat doing so without a valid visa or any other appropriate authorisation, compared to those who arrive by air with a valid visa and then go on to lodge asylum claims.

In the past, when unauthorised boat arrivals were intercepted in Australian waters, passengers were usually transferred to Christmas Island in order to establish their reasons for attempting to enter Australia without authority. Many were then transferred at a later date to immigration detention centres on the mainland or immigration detention alternatives such as community based detention. It is estimated that between and , , irregular migrants some of whom would have been asylum seekers reached European shores by boat.

The concept of an orderly queue does not accord with the reality of the asylum process. According to the Refugee Council of Australia:. In reality, the resettlement system works more like a lottery than a queue. Very few resettlement places are available globally and, while UNHCR aims to prioritise those in greatest need, most refugees—even people in very vulnerable situations—cannot realistically expect to be resettled in the near future, if ever.

Once registered with the UNHCR, the agency seeks durable solutions for those found to be refugees, primarily through facilitating voluntary repatriation, local integration in host countries, or resettlement to third countries.

Refugees do not have a right to be resettled, and states are not obliged under the Refugee Convention or any other instrument to accept refugees for resettlement. It is a voluntary scheme co-ordinated by the UNHCR which, amongst other things, facilitates burden-sharing amongst signatory states. Resettlement therefore complements and is not a substitute for the provision of protection to people who apply for asylum under the Convention. Global resettlement needs, assessed at some ,, thus exceeded the number of places available by a ratio of Resettlement options remain out of the reach of most refugees.

At the end of the agency had received offers to resettle only a fraction of these. For refugees in protracted situations in exile for five years or more the UNHCR points out that there are limited options:. The absence of a solution for millions of refugees in protracted situations continues to pose a major challenge to UNHCR and its partners, to host countries, the refugees themselves and the international community at large.

Due to an absence of resettlement solutions for refugees, the focus of the UNHCR in most refugee camps is on voluntary repatriation. Over recent years, the proportion of asylum seekers applying for onshore protection in Australia who arrived originally by boat has fluctuated significantly in response to shifts in asylum flows and changes in Government policy. Until , the majority of asylum seekers applying for protection in Australia arrived originally by air with a valid visa and then applied for asylum at a later date while living in the community.

Historically, boat arrivals only made up a small proportion of asylum applicants—estimates vary, but it is likely that between 96 and 99 per cent of asylum applicants arrived by air.

In the proportions of irregular maritime arrival IMA and non-IMA that is air arrival asylum seekers shifted due to a significant increase in boat arrivals. However, in —14 the proportions shifted back and the majority of applications Note: September and December quarter statistics not available.

Although the proportion of asylum seekers arriving by boat has increased significantly in the last few years, and boat arrivals continue to be the focus of much public and political attention, they are in fact more likely to be recognised as refugees than those who have arrived by air. For example, the final protection visa grant rate for asylum seekers from the top country of citizenship for boat arrivals Afghanistan has varied between about 96 and per cent since ; while the final protection visa grant rate for those applying for asylum from one of the top country of citizenship for air arrivals China is usually only around 20 to 30 per cent.

The reason this Whereas the majority of those arriving by boat are refugees, the majority of those arriving by air are not. However, it is interesting to note that in recent years there has been an increase in the number of protection visas granted to non-IMA asylum seekers arriving by air.

The fact that countries deal with asylum seekers as an issue of migration control, and of domestic politics, is anathema to many people who sympathise with their situations. That racism and xenophobia are now commonly described as 'rampant' in European countries supporters of asylum seekers attribute to unreasonably high rejection rates, and 'human deterrence' measures of detention, and reduced welfare and other measures of social exclusion.

Other commentators focus on the fact that public hostility to asylum driven migration has weakened the capacity of Western European governments to develop managed migration programs at a time when these are needed to fill skills shortages. This is particularly a problem in 'heroically overextended' Germany, which now needs to attract information technology workers from overseas. German Interior Minister Otto Schily has said recently that abuse of asylum rules is 'limiting the scope for an active immigration policy'.

The Convention-based asylum regime has fostered characterisations of asylum seekers as either political and thus 'genuine' and 'legitimate' and 'deserving', or economic and thus 'abusive' and 'illegitimate' and 'undeserving'. Public debates on asylum seekers are often based on the assumption that such clear-cut distinctions actually exist. Most asylum seekers however come from countries where economic failure and political instability and persecution and poverty are inextricably mixed.

There is rarely documentary evidence of persecution. It is well established in the literature that, with the advent of people smuggling, credible stories are purchased along with the journey. Public debates are also often based on the assumption that such distinctions are right and proper.

Commentators have however begun to question the morality of distinguishing between people impelled to flee from persecution, and people impelled to flee from poverty and lack of opportunity. In the words of Jeremy Harding 'the order of difficulty that prevails in some parts of the world is akin to persecution. It is the political predicament of those migrating away from misery and grinding attrition, not their opinions, that puts them in danger'.

The fact that asylum seekers are generally not the poorest but the younger and more enterprising from their home countries does not necessarily negate this perspective. In the International Monetary Fund estimated that USD65 billion was transferred out of host countries by migrants in remittances; this figure exceeded by about USD20 billion all official donor assistance.

Harding thus describes 'economic refugees' in Western countries as the 'ferrymen' of development for their countries, and their use of asylum systems to access much higher earnings as rational and intelligent as well as predictable. Defenders of the Convention are arguing that migration restrictions in Western countries must be lifted in order to ease the pressure on and thus maintain the 'integrity' of the asylum system.

The EU has concluded that asylum-driven migration can only be controlled through development, and through forging agreements with governments of sending countries on aid and trade and training and temporary and controlled migration opportunities.

While Australia is targeting some of its aid to preventing refugee movements, its immigration programs have been developed with domestic if arguably sometimes sectoral interests firmly in mind.

The notion of immigration as distinct from our humanitarian intake being linked with our regional aid and other objectives, or linked in with the relations we are building with refugee sending or transit countries, has not been considered in recent decades.

The problem with the 'Geneva' refugee Convention, the basic instrument of refugee protection, is that it offers neither a comprehensive nor a flexible response to the diversity and complexity of forced population movements that are occurring today. It is distorting the responses, and diverting the resources of Western countries from developing coherent and ethical responses to these movements.

The problem with the Convention can also be summarised in simpler terms, of what it doesn't include. It doesn't confer any right of assistance on refugees unless and until they reach a signatory country. It confers no right of assistance on the 'internally displaced' at all. It imposes no obligation on governments not to persecute their citizens, or to guarantee their safe return. It imposes no mechanism for preventing mass outflows, for burden sharing between states, for ensuring speedy assistance for those most in need, or for maximising the effectiveness of international resources.

And it takes no account of the capacity of receiving states. The problem with reforming the international refugee regime is in what the Convention does provide: a system for providing protection to people at risk of persecution in their own countries. No matter how lost they may become amongst mass claims and backlogs, there are few countries willing to risk turning such people away. The UK Commissioner for Racial Equality recently declared, perhaps somewhat surprisingly given acceptance rates and press reports to the contrary, that 'the vast majority' of asylum seekers in the UK are genuine.

The Convention and the asylum system are as relevant today as ever. The weaknesses and problems evident with the system are political, the fault of governments, not conceptual. Standards for determining refugee status should be set by international law, not by a reactive public or parliament. Courts need to be 'bold' in upholding human rights. Other NGOs and refugee advocates acknowledge that there are problems arising from the datedness of the Convention, notably its inadequacy from a protection perspective.

Most, however, are under no illusion that, in the current climate, governments would not seize the opportunity afforded by wholesale review to restrict rather than expand their obligations, or to exchange an obligatory for a discretionary regime. It codifies as a fundamental human right the right to seek asylum from persecution. Nothing, certainly not irregular migration, or processing or settlement costs, is more important that the lives of people fleeing persecution.

Reforms put forward by advocates are therefore based on preserving while broadening the Convention grounds and criteria, to include modern day types of persecution, and on insulating the Convention from migration pressures by requiring governments to provide opportunities for legal migration.

In the case of Australia, refugee determination should be removed from the Department of Immigration with its 'control mentality' to Foreign Affairs, or Attorney-General's. The fact that no cap or limit can be placed on Convention refugees is no excuse for capping humanitarian program entrants; the two streams operate under different systems and the integrity of each must be maintained. Illegal arrivals and people smuggling should be addressed by posting more migration officers to process more people overseas, including from refugee camps in the Middle East, so that refugees can enter legally under the presumably much expanded off-shore humanitarian program.

Other academics and commentators argue that proposing expanded obligations for governments on top of a Convention-based asylum system that is already creaking, is fruitless. Such proposals are unrealistic in the current climate because they are politically impossible. To refuse to balance the claims of refugees with those of receiving states is simply to invite continuation of an already degraded system, whereby access is blocked to an increasing number of people, and asylum seekers are treated with increasing harshness.

The UNHCR's position that the Refugee Convention remains as relevant as ever as the foundation and cornerstone of refugee protection has become increasingly strained as criticism of the asylum system and pressure for review have mounted.

At the European Commission 'Lisbon' conference June the UNHCR declared that the Convention provides 'a truly universal framework within which States can cooperate and share the burden resulting from forced displacement'. It is 'ethical' in that 'it is a unique declaration by the States Parties of their commitment to uphold and protect the rights of some of the world's most vulnerable and disadvantaged'. It is 'the one truly universal instrument setting out the baseline principles on which the international protection of refugees has to be built'.

The main international instrument of refugee law is a year-old treaty whose only protocol came into force nearly three decades ago.

During that time, the causes of many refugee movements have shifted; in recent years, the primary causes have been civil wars and ethnic, tribal and religious violence. The UNHCR acknowledges the pressure that Western governments are under through the use of the asylum channel for migration, while simultaneously berating them for blaming the Convention for their 'inability' to manage their migration inflows and for adopting restrictive measures such as safe third country provisions and carrier sanctions.

It exhorts governments to be generous and flexible in its interpretation of the Convention and in granting refugee status and family reunion rights, while the focus of its own activities in refugee camps is on repatriation.

It places responsibility for protecting refugees squarely on host states. However obvious their problems and however loudly creaking the asylum system, like other supporters the UNHCR sees challenging the Convention as a threat to the international protection framework that it has built up over the last 50 years.

Pressures on the UNHCR would however appear to be increasing, with governments openly critical of it for taking on an advocacy cum prosecuting judge role, rather than assisting states to cope with the changed refugee context.

Academics and commentators are arguing that it is time for a new international refugee organisation, or at least time for a new mandate for the UNHCR. It is unlikely that many governments would sign up to the Refugee Convention today. It is also fairly obvious what a refugee regime designed for the 21 st century would comprise. It would redefine the notion of refugee to encompass contemporary displacements.

It would formalise commitment to and strengthen the world response which has far exceeded the non-refoulement obligations of the Convention that has developed over the last 20 years to refugee situations, namely emergency assistance in safe havens, temporary protection, repatriation, local integration and resettlement.

It would focus on groups, not individuals, and on the provision of humanitarian assistance rather than on definition of the quality of persecution. It would hold countries responsible and accountable for displacements and impose sanctions as well as provide support for reconstruction and reintegration. It would guarantee rights for displaced persons and direct resources to where they are most needed. It would oblige states to contribute and particularly to assist countries of first asylum, while allowing for flexibility of approach to different situations and from different countries.

Canada and Australia might resettle refugees while Japan might contribute more in direct funds. A number of models listed at page 32 have been developed in recent years with a common set of objectives. Firstly, to exchange Convention obligations with a new set of obligations that populations will accept and governments will be able and willing to implement in a more principled manner, thereby freeing up resources.

Secondly, to direct resources to improve the quality of protection especially in countries and regions of first asylum. Thirdly, to untie the refugee regime from migration, thus allowing states to insulate their refugee protection policies from migration pressures, and to ease public concern over asylum-driven migration and people smuggling.

These models are based on notions of safe havens, temporary protection, international, regional and bilateral cooperation in accordance with established principles, and burden sharing. They are based also on the notion that the needs of people and the facts of their cases can best be determined close to where they live. The UNHCR and other supporters of the existing system claim that disengagement from the Convention would undermine the international framework for protecting and assisting refugees worldwide.

The producers of alternative models argue that disengagement from the Convention is a necessary part of developing a better international refugee framework. They see the issue as not whether asylum provides an adequate response to modern day refugee situations-it clearly does not-but whether the political will exists to move outside the scope of the Convention.

People smuggling represents a particularly challenging affront to notions of state sovereignty, and may be providing the extra pressure that pushes governments towards reform of the Convention-based system. UK Home Secretary Jack Straw has proposed strengthening protection in the refugee producing region and the lodging of asylum applications from abroad to stop asylum seekers from purchasing organised illegal entry into European countries. He has also proposed the notion of quotas of refugees from high-risk regions, in order to share the burden more equitably, and to enable planned intakes and settlement.

Conclusion: Implications for Australia. Australia's on-shore refugee determination system is operating within a totally different world from the one in which the UN Refugee Convention was designed in Those opposed to review leading to possible restriction of the Convention system have described Australia's asylum seeker problem as 'trivial' compared with numbers that have been received over a sustained period in countries like Germany.

However per capita comparisons suggest otherwise. In calendar year Australia received claims; on a per capita basis fewer than Germany or the UK or Canada, but roughly as many as France and Italy, and over three times as many as the USA.

In any event, as a Sydney Morning Herald editorial has argued, the fact that pressure may be less than on some destinations does not disentitle Australia from acting to maintain the 'integrity' of its migration programs.

No country has a visa entry and exit control and management system comparable to Australia's, and no country Canada perhaps excepted has invested as much in its managed migration and resettlement programs. The off-shore refugee humanitarian migration program has always received widespread public support.

On-shore asylum seekers have not. While opinion on the boat people is polarised, the weight of public opinion would appear to remain unconvinced that different laws and entitlements should apply for people who arrive illegally, and unconvinced that they should be given the benefit of the doubt.

There would also appear to be a high level of public expectation that the Government should and will control illegal entry. It is perhaps politically unrealistic to argue that refugee numbers should be increased simply because more people are able to reach Australia and make a claim for refugee status.

There is concern in both major political parties that asylum seekers could undermine support for migration programs. Australian political leadership has always been sensitive to the potential for anti-immigration and anti-immigrant movements. More than any country in the world Israel perhaps excluded Australia has been built on immigration. Twenty three per cent of the population were born overseas, and 42 per cent were either born overseas or have at least one parent born overseas.

It seems likely that Australian governments will take whatever measures are necessary to curtail illegal entry and rising numbers of asylum seekers, including challenging the UNHCR and rethinking our obligations under the Refugee Convention.

There are no practical obstacles to withdrawing from the Convention. Article 44 2 states that any contracting state can denounce or withdraw, with one year's notice. Such a move would be unprecedented-no state has ever withdrawn. The threat of instant international pariah status is however less compelling at a time when the asylum system is widely seen as 'broke'. Australia's credentials on refugees and managed migration are unsurpassed, and it has played above its demographic weight in international forums on migration and refugee issues.

In theory, withdrawal from the Convention would free up a considerable amount of money which could be redirected to countries of first asylum.

It would also enable Australia to recommit to a sizeable offshore refugee resettlement program. While Australia is obviously not a large enough player to lead the world, it could thus provide an impetus for reform. Withdrawal might not however provide an immediate practical solution.

Asylum from political persecution and the principle of non-refoulement have become part of international customary law; the government and the judiciary would still have to process and deal with claims. Withdrawal from the Refugee Convention would however enable Australia to develop and regularise, on its own terms, more transparent and understandable criteria and provisions for dealing with on-shore asylum seekers.

Withdrawal from the Convention could be portrayed as Australia rejecting international standards, and as inconsiderately directing the asylum seeker burden elsewhere. Staying in the system could arguably make it easier for Australia to retain its influence in international forums and to play a role in reshaping the international protection framework. A logical first step towards reform would be to interpret the Convention in legislation for Australia's purposes.

Importantly, permanent residence and subsequent family reunion are not required under the Convention: Article 1 c provides that refugee status can cease where circumstances in connection with refugee status have ceased to exist. At present, people seeking asylum under the terms of the Convention are treated as a different group legally and obligation wise from people provided protection in Australia under 'safe haven' legislation, and people granted temporary extensions of stay because it is dangerous to return home.

Political parties in France, Switzerland, Belgium and Austria in particular have mobilised the anti-immigration vote. Jeremy Harding, op. John Morrison, The trafficking and smuggling of refugees: the end game in European asylum policy? Article 33 states that 'No Contracting State shall expel or return a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where this life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group'.

Article 31 states that 'The Contracting State shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees The OAU defines as a refugee 'every person who, owing to external aggression, occupation, foreign domination or events seriously disturbing public order in either part or the whole of his country of origin or nationality, is compelled to leave his place of habitual residence in order to seek refuge in another place outside his country of origin or nationality'.

Statistics from USCR web-site. Australia's on-shore refugee determination processes are critically examined in the report of the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee, A Sanctuary under Review , June Marion Jimenez, National Post , 31 March Enactment of safe third country legislation has speeded up applications in and from some countries but has been criticised by the UNHCR.

EU Presidency, , op. See costings given by the Hon. Depending on whether drop-outs are counted. Jonas Widgren, 'International migration and regional stability, International Affairs , vol.

The External Reference Group set up in Australia last year to advise on boat people measures advised that asylum seekers with resources to pay smugglers do not elicit public sympathy in the way that refugees, for example the Kosovars who were accorded temporary protection, do.

In a Forsa poll published July the majority of Germans indicated that they wanted rights to asylum limited, and that they considered there were 'too many foreigners' in the country. In a Eurobarometer survey commissioned by the EU several years ago one third of respondents openly described themselves as 'racist', and only a minority considered immigration would bring their country any real benefits.

Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace, Hordes or human beings? Immigration Minister the Hon. Philip Ruddock, at Paris conference on people smuggling, July The Hon. Philip Ruddock, An international approach to combating people smuggling and the illegal movement of people , Speech delivered at Paris conference on people smuggling, 20 July USCR statistics. Notes: 1. Persons recognised as refugees under the Convention, the OAU Convention, in accordance with the UNHCR Statute, persons granted a humanitarian or comparable status and those granted temporary protection.

The public health consequences of armed conflict and population displacement have been well documented during the past 30 years. We see high death rates among groups of IDPs and refugees but clear priorities have been identified to curb the mortality.

The provision of adequate food, clean water, sanitation, and shelter have been demonstrated to be effective interventions. Our teams in the field conduct rapid needs assessments, establish public health programme priorities, work closely with affected communities, organise and manage health facilities and essential medical supplies, train local workers, coordinate with a complex array of relief organisations, monitor and evaluate the impact of their programmes, and efficiently manage scarce resources.

A history of violence and high levels of suffering are common among those we seek to help. They also face containment, detention and deportation, since population movements whatever drives them at times are seen as a threat, rather than inciting expressions of solidarity. Some governments fail to protect men, women and children already exposed to heightened vulnerability from further violence or deprivation.

Safety is denied to those in need of refuge, blind eyes are turned to the high risks of passage, and remaining dignity and rights are crushed. The mistreatment — and sometimes violence - inflicted by authorities can take many forms, leaving individuals stripped of their basic rights and affected in their health and well-being.

MSF has first-hand experience of the consequences of containment, deportation and deterrence as manifested through closed borders, detention, refoulement or forcing back , prolonged encampment, and denial of the right to seek and enjoy asylum or to earn a living.

Our teams witness important levels of violence and mistreatment. These people need escape, refuge, and protection as refugees. The acute persecution of migrants subjected to detention, slavery and violence in Libya, Syrians journeying to Europe, and victims of gang violence in the Northern Triangle of Central America who aim to reach the US via Mexico are all cases in point. We firmly place ourselves in solidarity with those on the move and with those who assist them.

MSF challenges the detrimental consequences of these policies and practices, fuelling the work of criminal networks, and calls for humanity to prevail in all instances, along with the provision of medico-humanitarian assistance and protection for those in need.

In our missions and projects, we pay special attention to the medical services to be provided to people on the move, whenever critical health needs are identified or when vital relief needs are denied by authorities. During and , MSF teams provided assistance at multiple points along the Balkans overland route , especially at the borders of Greece and Serbia, providing healthcare, psychological support, sanitation, food, shelter and transportation.

We are, or have been present in Italy, Sweden, Belgium, and Germany. We also provide shelter, water, sanitation and essential relief items at reception centres, informal settlements and transit camps. In one migrant camp in Italy, a quarter of respondents to a survey said there were poor hygiene conditions in the camp.

In a nearby settlement, more than one in ten said there was a lack of drinking water. Into , MSF teams worldwide continue to respond to the increasing needs.

In Syria , we provide displaced people fleeing war with relief items, such as tents, blankets, and hygiene kits which include soap. A surge of violence from armed groups in the Sahel — Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger — has forced thousands to leave their homes, where our teams provide them with medical care, including psychological counselling services.