The Law Protects States, Not Refugees

By Ayesha Malik

When families are forced to abandon the only homes they have ever known, they carry little more than what they can hold in their arms and hope in their hearts. They flee the roar of bombs overhead, the relentless encroachment of rising seas, or the quiet, suffocating threat of persecution. Each border is a step into further uncertainty, a fragile promise of safety that is often betrayed. They arrive expecting protection and sanctuary, yet instead encounter endless queues, impenetrable bureaucracy, and legal barriers. Their desperation is measured not by the violence they have fled, but by the inadequacy of a system meant to protect them. International law, especially the 1951 Refugee Convention, promises sanctuary for the displaced; in practice, however, these protections seem to exist purely on paper. The law is meant to shield the vulnerable, but increasingly serves states, leaving refugees exposed to harm and neglect.

The 1951 Refugee Convention was created after World War II to ensure those fleeing persecution could find asylum. It established the principle of non-refoulement, prohibiting states from repatriating individuals to countries where their life or freedom are at risk. At the time, the Convention marked a major step in international solidarity. More than seventy years later, its scope feels painfully limited. Climate refugees remain unrecognized, leaving families displaced by floods, droughts, and rising oceans with no legal recourse. People fleeing statelessness or conflict zones outside the convention’s original geographic boundaries are forced to navigate a system that fails to reflect their realities.

Even for those who technically qualify as refugees, the law offers little practical protection. Governments frequently exploit legal loopholes to restrict access to asylum. Border controls, visa restrictions, and arbitrary detention are regularly justified as measures of national security or immigration control. Countries that have signed the Refugee Convention routinely delay or deny applications, creating months or years of uncertainty. Refugees face deportation, imprisonment, or forced return despite protections enshrined in international law. Mechanisms for holding violators accountable are weak, leaving violations largely unchallenged. In this way, the law shields the powerful, whilst exposing the vulnerable.

The gap between legal promises and real lived experience is especially glaring in politically sensitive situations. For example, during Myanmar’s crisis, Rohingya refugees escaped systematic violence, including targeted killings and the destruction of entire villages, only to encounter closed borders and restrictive asylum policies in neighboring countries across Southeast Asia. Even when they were admitted, the reception systems were often bureaucratic, underfunded, and hostile, leaving families in overcrowded camps with limited access to food, healthcare, or education. In many cases, refugees faced ongoing discrimination, harassment, or even the threat of forced return. The international community’s reliance on state cooperation means that these legal protections exist largely at the discretion of individual governments, and enforcement is inconsistent. Refugees’ rights, in practice, are subordinate to political considerations, exposing the stark difference between the law on paper and the realities of survival.

This imbalance is not accidental. International law exists in a realist world dominated by sovereign states that prioritize power, control, and political interest over human rights. Borders are treated as instruments of security, not gateways to safety, and immigration controls are often framed as protecting national identity or economic stability rather than human dignity. The law, intended to provide a shield for the vulnerable, is instead wielded as a tool to manage and limit movement. International agreements are frequently interpreted to favour state discretion, and enforcement mechanisms are either weak or entirely absent. When legal systems claim to uphold refugee rights but allow suffering, they expose a stark and troubling contradiction: the law protects states first and foremost, leaving the very people it promises to safeguard behind.

Despite these challenges, hope remains. Recognizing the law’s flaws is the first step toward reform. Broadening the definition of who qualifies for protection, strengthening enforcement, and holding states accountable for violations could likely restore promise of international refugee law. Refugees should be seen not as burdens or statistics but as individuals deserving safety and dignity. The law should reflect this reality, not hide it.

When the next family crosses a border seeking safety, their survival should not hinge on political convenience or bureaucratic loopholes. International law holds the promise of protection, yet too often it is wielded to safeguard the interests of states rather than the rights of the displaced. Until legal frameworks are enforced and reformed to prioritize human dignity over sovereignty, refugees remain trapped in a system that professes care but delivers indifference, highlighting the profound gap between the law on paper and the substantial protection it is meant to provide.

Edited by Artyom Timofeev

Image sources: https://adventure.com/borders-walls-bridges-world/