Module C deals with the International regime of protection, sovereignty and the principle of responsibility, and political issues relating to regional trends in migration in South Asia.

Refugee Law is a relatively new branch of International Law. First major step towards developing an international regime of protection was 1951 convention in a Post World War Two situation, later modified in 1967. From then on 1951 convention has formed the core of all Human Rights Law and Humanitarian Law for the protection of refugees. However since its inception there have been objections to the provisions of the 1951 convention on the grounds of Euro centrism, and insensitivity towards the internecine racial, ethnic and religious conflicts in third world which has resulted in the creation of refugees in large numbers. The provisions of the convention have served well to the protection of refugees during the Cold War times but has failed to do so after that, when there has been an attempt at dealing with the refugee problems ‘at source’. This has led to the international interference in the internal matters of a sovereign nation creating further problems for states and for the displaced. This has been witnessed very recently in the Darfur region of Sudan and in past in former Yugoslavia, Somalia, and other African countries.

Another failure has been the inability of the convention to recognise the special needs of women, children, and aged people within the sections of refugees, though this has been addressed to some extent in the provisions of CEDAW convention but need to be reflected in 1951 convention as well. The provisions of 1951 convention further need revision due to increased complexities in the process of refugee generation, protection and also due to advances in the field of refugee studies. The increased focus on refugee studies has led to broadening of definitions of ‘refugee’, ‘protection’, ‘rights’, ‘justice’ etc.

A casualty of above mentioned problems has been that 1951 convention has not been ratified by all the nations of the world. India is one such nation which has stayed away, citing certain biases in the provisions of the convention. However, it has developed its own provisions to deal with the problems of refugees on a case-by-case basis in absence of a consistent national policy. This has its own problems, for example India has provided all possible help to Tibetan refugee due to its own political necessities but has not done so with the Bangladeshi and Bhutanese refugees. The provisions of Indian state has also not progressed with the evolution of feminist critic of the protection regimes which needs attention and creation of a consistent policy accommodating the faults in current practices.

In this module we have focussed on the various aspects of refugee protection at an international level in general and on South Asian level in particular. To mention a few of them :

1. What do we mean by Refugees, Asylum, Protection etc in socio-politico and legal terms ?
2. What are the special provisions required for protection of women, children and other marginalised communities in the overall context of refugee protection and law ?
3. What’s the distinction between the Human Rights Law and Humanitarian Law with respect to refugee protection ?
4. What are the safeguards available for the protection of refugees in International Law ?
5. What is the responsibility of the state and society towards the refugees ? Can they simply be seen as problems and responsibility of the host country alone ?
6. Is there a link between the refugee protection regime, international law and globalisation ?
7. What has been the record of Indian state vis-à-vis refugee protection since partition ?
8. And other related issues.

Just to give an idea of the literature in the module, some excerpts from the previous year’s participants literature review is enclosed :

1. “The study pack, on which the following literature review is based, is a compilation of articles that focus on various aspects of the refugee problems in the international system. They incorporate commentary on the way experiences of and discourses on refugees have changed since World War I. The analyses focus on political practices that create refugees, the evolution of international protection as well as the European bias and other shortcomings of this system.
2. The writings of B S Chimni are an excellent exposition of the international response, primarily legal in nature that has developed in relation to the needs of refugees. His edited book International Refugee Law: A Reader is a comprehensive collection that brings together comments and analyses on various aspects of international refugee law and policies. It is also useful in understanding the evolution of definitions of refugee and related terms as well as the contesting viewpoints on issues of international protection, responsibilities of host countries, role of UNHCR as well as the rights of refugees.
3. … in an examination of the global space, Chimni in Globalization, Humanitarianism and the Erosion of Refugee Protection exposes the current discourse on humanitarianism as an ideology that hegemonic states use to dominate international politics. Unlike terms such as human rights and refugees, humanitarianism does not have a legal definition and this allows proponents of globalisation to hijack the term in order to expand neo-liberal regimes. These proponents, mostly belonging to northern countries, are increasingly trying to dispose off their share in international protection through transfer of material resources. While this is compatible to the globalisation agenda, it also helps them close their borders against people seeking refuge within their national territories. In response to this worrying trend, the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan had pleaded with international institutions that execute such decisions to develop “a ‘peace-friendly’ structural adjustment programme” (Annan, 1998; cited in Chimni, 2000).
4. Tapan K Bose brings forth how the compulsions of state formation itself created a large number of refugees by trying to impose a “homogenous ‘national identity’”, closely identified with the language, religion and culture of the dominant groups, on all people. (Bose: p.41). In the South Asian context, he contends that post-colonial attempts to build “majoritarian nation-states of the European kind” led to forceful imposition of dominant identities on people, which created tensions between the communities. Competition for scarce resources and the need for political freedom also caused population flows…” [Soumita Basu]
5. Some chapters from Ranabir Samaddar, ed, Refugees & the State : Practices of Asylum & Care in India, 1947-2000 and Sanjay Kr. Roy, ed, Refugees and Human Rights provide an excellent window to the situation of refugees in India be they the Tibetan refugees, Bangladeshi Refugees, Afghanistan refuges and others. It also discusses and analyses the position of Indian government vis-à-vis various international laws and conventions. The articles also look at various socio-politico and economic dimensions involved in the refugee problem.