Firstly, respect towards current international refugee law is a very important factor when looking to attain a sustainable regime of refugee protection, especially when we look towards the 95 Convention and the increased scrutiny regarding it over the past few decades, leading some to argue for its removal. A prominent issue with the 95 Convention is that its definition of what a refugee is does not go far enough, according to the convention, a refugee is outside the country of nationality and unable to return due to a well-founded fear of being persecuted because due to their religion, nationality, race, political views or social group (Goodwin-Gill, 204), but this definition has been insufficient in some cases, for example the Organization of African Unity had to extend this definition so that it would cover those who flee due to aggression from foreign occupation, this extension made the definition more reflective of the reality of the nations climate (Goodwin-Gill, 204). As well, the definition does not cover those who are forced to flee due to extreme weather conditions despite this being an increasing area of concern in particular, as a result of the climate crisis (Quinn, 20). Other issues concerning the 95 Convention include issues about its reliability due to the unanticipated institutional assessment of the refugee status process (Goodwin-Gill, 204); and mass migration with the burden that individual assessment of refugees puts on states, especially when many of the states receiving these mass influxes are poor and have unsteady political climates and are thus, overburdened, while the application of prima facie can be applied, issues remain about the determination of who is to be excluded and furthering this uneven share of burdening in nations bordering countries with large amounts of people fleeing (Quinn, 20). While these issues are not to be ignored, they can be addressed and resolved while keeping the 95 Convention in place. We must respect this convention as it provides us with a framework through which there is a congruent acknowledgment of the international responsibility we have in offering protection to refugees who are unprotected by their state. It sets out principles of non-discrimination, non-refoulment and others which are fundamental to refugee protection. As well the Convention is important by virtue that it provides standards for the treatment of refugees and uses a human rights-based approach, the 95 Convention and other international refugee laws need to be respected as they provide a framework that sets the foundation for the protection of refugees and not just on a nationwide level.
Secondly, Gammeltoft-Hansen a
nd Tan (207), propose meaningful responsibility and burden-sharing as one of the tenets of a sustainable regime of international refugee policy. The current distribution of refugees across countries is entirely uneven, Turkey hosts the most refugees in the world, with a figure of 3.7 million according to the UNHCR (202). The maldistribution of responsibility sharing is unjust, countries are left with very little support and the majority of the responsibility, as well the countries that receive the most refugees are often in the developing world, meaning they lack the financial and political stability required for effective refugee protection (UNHCR, 202). One possible solution to this problem is a distribution model within the EU in which there is a framework by which there is a fair and thus, more manageable distribution of responsibility for and protection of refugees throughout our international community. A distribution model would be more cost-efficient as it will result in decreased costs of humanitarian aid, it would also counter the current problem of increasingly stricter asylum policy in some states, forcing others to follow such policy patterns in an attempt to prevent an overburdening of responsibilities as a result of the stricter policies from neighboring states, a successful distribution model would increase coordination and would be beneficial to the labor market (Altemeyer-Bartscher et al., 206). The key for this model needs to take into account each countrys GDP, and macroeconomic health taking into consideration factors such as the unemployment rates, but for a general model such as this to be attainable and successful, we need to take into account the preferences of refugees, as without such considerations, it is likely that we will see a secondary migration of people (Gammeltoft-Hansen and Tan, 207). As well we must provide financial compensation and investment in countries that have been overburdened, hosting huge amounts of refugees and to states for the initial added costs of accepting refugees, compensations should be calculated based on a countrys economic position and capacity, such as funding for compensation should be conducted via a reallocation of within the budget of the EU (Altemeyer-Bartscher et al., 206). While this is an ambitious solution and will be faced with many challenges along the way, if the appropriate measures are put in place to combat and overcome these financial, and thus political issues, it is a solution that would be an overall improvement for both refugees and their hosting countries, and would be beneficial in terms of cost efficiency, sustainability and coordination throughout the EU.