Humanitarian Protection at a Crossroads: What Future for the Strained Refugee System?

This transcript was generated using AI and may contain inaccuracies. If you notice an error, feel free to email [email protected].

CHAPTERS 

[00:03:12]: UNHCR's Role and How It Has Evolved 

[00:06:47]: Mixed Migration and the Challenge of Classification 

[00:07:51]: Crisis of Public Trust and the Broken Social Contract 

[00:09:08]: Rethinking Protection: Terminology, Obligations, and Returns 

[00:12:46]: Reform Options: Regional Agreements vs. Convention Revision 

[00:17:27]: Responsibility Sharing and Investment in Peacemaking 

TRANSCRIPT

[00:00:03.12] 

Welcome back to World of Migration, a podcast from the Migration Policy Institute that delves into interesting and important developments globally on immigration, immigrant integration and humanitarian protection. My name is Megan Benton. I'm director of Global Programs at MPI. I'll be your host. Today we're at a critical inflection point in the global humanitarian protection system. Around the world, the number of resettlement places has declined sharply as the U.S. And other governments have scaled back their commitments. Many countries have suspended asylum at their borders or returning asylum seekers back for security issues. Others are attempting to offshore responsibility to other countries, as in the case of the failed UK Rwanda model or Australia's offshore processing model. And even though the majority of refugees are housed in lower and and middle income countries, the politics of asylum and refugee protection has become incredibly fraught and is a major factor behind the recent success of far right parties. But there's a broader debate here about whether the system of humanitarian protection is fit for purpose. Global displacement is at a record high. More people than ever are on the move, not just because of persecution, but also due to conflict, climate change, gang violence, economic collapse.

[00:01:20.17] 

That makes it harder to draw a sharp line between, in quotes, real refugees and others who are also moving out of desperation or just in search of opportunity. And so you have this, this mismatch between the growing reality of large scale mixed migration movements and then the fact that asylum systems in high income countries are spending sometimes years debating the, the legal minutiae of individual danger which makes them both slow and vulnerable to abuse. So it used to be somewhat taboo to question international law commitments, but we're increasingly hearing governments in Europe and North America questioning their obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention or the European Convention on Human Rights, or suggesting that we need reforms. And of course, all that is happening against a backdrop of large foreign aid cuts that are hitting the United Nations agencies very hard, those that support refugees, but also resettlement numbers worldwide. So today I'm going to take a step back from all of these developments and ask whether we should see the refugee system as hanging in the balance or on the cusp of more transformative reform. And to do that, I'm delighted to be joined by Vincent Cochetel.

[00:02:37.06] 

Truly one of the world's top experts on protection issues. Vincent had a long tenure at UNHCR, the UN refugee agency. He was Special Envoy for the Central Mediterranean Situation, Director of the Europe Bureau, among other things. Vincent, it's such a pleasure to welcome you to the podcast today.

[00:02:54.12] 

Thank you. And thank you for having me on this program today. Thank you.

[00:02:58.04] 

Thanks. So I want to start, I mean, the work of the UN refugee agency, UNHCR. It doesn't often find its way into the headlines on an everyday basis. No one really in the public understands exactly what UNHCR does. Could you explain to the audience what the role of UNHCR is and how's that changed over time during your tenure?

[00:03:20.03] 

Yeah, no. UNHCR was created by the General assembly of the United Nations in December 1950. So it's quite a long time ago. It was defined as a humanitarian, social and entirely non political organization whose job was to encourage states to ratify the Refugee Convention, monitor and supervise its implementation. But also the job of the UN refugee agency was to enter into special agreements to improve the situation of refugee and to reduce the number requiring protection. Something that had been a bit lost in the time. The focus was not so much on assistance. Initially, UNHCR was supposed to coordinate the assistance of all actors, governmental, non governmental, but it was not supposed to implement assistance programs initially in 1950. What has changed a lot is the internally UNHCR got involved in the mid-70s in assistance to internally displaced persons. So people fleeing war or other phenomenon were not crossed on international boundaries. So UNHCR was called upon to assist in those situations. And actually there is a larger number of people who are internally displaced than than refugee around the world. It's one to four in terms of proportion. So that's a considerable change. I think we've seen more asylum seekers now caught in what we call mixed movement.

[00:04:57.10] 

So people who are fleeing persecution on war moving along with people moving for other purposes in search of a better future. And with the added phenomenon of more smuggling and organized trafficking around those movements that include crossing several borders and not just a movement from the country of origin to the neighboring country. In the past, UNHCR was very much involved in looking for solutions for refugees, being closely associated to political processes, trying to negotiate amnesties, trying to negotiate property laws that would enable for instance, the return of seized property, enabling refugees to return home in safety on indignity. That political space is gone. In many, many situations where the UN refugee agency is more dealing with protracted refugee situation that last over two decades and that are more difficult to solve. And as you mentioned it, I mean, we have also a very politicized debate today, which is mainly due to that perception by the public in many countries, not just in an industrialized country, but that government have lost control in terms of management of their border, but who is on their territory there's lack of trust, lack of responsibility, lack of solidarity among states.

[00:06:24.02] 

Some are more affected by refugee movement than others. This broken social contract between U.S. communities and those arriving between some cities that are more exposed to the challenge of mixed migration than others who do not receive many asylum seekers. So all that creates a perfect storm that puts in question the refugee regime at his use to exist.

[00:06:52.12] 

Thank you. That's such a helpful explanation of how the UN refugee agency's role has changed. You talked about the growing scope, the challenge of mixed movements, the way that smugglers and organized crime have co opted asylum. But I want to dive into this public trust piece that you ended on a little bit more. It strikes me that UNHCR are, and UN agencies more broadly are grappling with a dilemma about how to respond to the political realities of this moment. So is it their role to signal the alarm on crossing red lines? Are they the guardians of norms or should they be pragmatists? So I wanted to ask you to talk a bit more about how we got here in terms of the crisis of public trust in refugee protection. What do you think the drivers are? Is it perception of lack of control? Is it that the system is being misused? I liked that you referred to this sense of a broken social contract. So could you say a bit more about that, please?

[00:07:51.02] 

Yeah, no, it's a big. It's a bit of a mix of everything. I think one is the use of terminology. There is total confusion today about who is a refugee, who is an asylum seeker, who is a rejected asylum seeker, who is a migrant. And that language that entertains confusion is not very helpful. Some people flee their country and have a right to be protected. Others don't have that right. Now it's up to states to decide whether that second category of people should be able to stay under certain conditions on their territory. But for the first category, those who flee violence and persecution, they should be admitted with certain rights, but also obligations. And they should be admitted for as long as that protection is needed. So one of the challenges here, well, should they stay forever? The 1951 convention talked about assimilation, naturalization. I think the mood today in many societies, you know, it's more on temporary protection. People should be protected as long as it is necessary with rights. Rights to work, rights to stay, right to contribute to the development of the society where they are. But should they stay forever? Well, I'm not so sure.

[00:09:08.24] 

I think there is a problem of absorption capacity in some countries and we need to appreciate that because that feeling of loss of identity in some communities is real. Whether we want to see it or whether we want to address it is another matter altogether. But I think it needs to be addressed. Otherwise there'll be no trust or no support from the majority of people for costly asylum system the way they were designed decades ago. So I think that's one area to work on, clarification on terminology, a more dynamic use of protection. Who needs, for how long? I think rebalancing the rights and the obligation of those who are refugee and those who are seeking asylum is also important. In 1951, the convention put lot of emphasis on rights, very little on obligations. And I think it's important to say to newcomers that they have certain obligation towards the country where they are. And that seems to be a bit lost in the debate today. Then of course there is that gap between large host country that don't feel much solidarity from neighboring countries or from donors today on others that are relatively untouched because of their geographical location by those mixed movements.

[00:10:33.12] 

I think it's important that to organize that solidarity, people are better protected closer to their home. So we need to invest in the response around the country of origin with the hope that people will be able to go back to their country with the hope also that those internally displaced will not need to seek protection across border, but can be protected in some parts of their country. And I think when it's time to return, people should be encouraged to return. If states want to allow those people to remain on their territory for certain reasons, including their economic contribution to their society, then they should define those criteria. But otherwise, when the time has come, people should return. I mean, we have this debate today with Syrian refugee, those not belonging to minorities, in my view, should be, should be no longer called refugees. Whether they should return, that's for states to decide. You could also ask today, you know, what have we done in Afghanistan between 2002-2021? Weren't there opportunities for some of the people to return? And have we used those opportunities at that time? If we had used those opportunities, maybe we would not be in the situation where we are today, where we have a situation that is a bit of control in both Pakistan and the Islamic Republic of Iran, where we see mass expulsion, including of people that may need protection.

[00:12:04.15] 

So we could have managed those situation a bit better by signaling when protection is no longer needed for either all refugees or some specific refugees.

[00:12:16.15] 

That's really interesting. I mean, some of those things building up regional asylum capacity, greater use of temporary protection returns, maybe thinking about absorption capacity and whether there should be limits on responsibilities, how do we get there? What happens next on some of those things? Do you see the sort of a slow evolution of the architecture? Is UNHCR stepping up to clarify some of these things or do we need more radical reform? Like to look at the Refugee Convention.

[00:12:46.16] 

When the UN refugee agency has put out some papers that define under which condition refugee could be lawfully transferred from one place to another, that could be a solution in some contexts. But as stated in the statute of the UN Refugee Agency, nothing prevent the organization to embark into those special agreements to improve the situation of refugee, but also to reduce the number of those requiring protection. And I think we need to look back a bit more at this aspect of prevention on solution. And renegotiating the '51 Convention could lead to a Pandora box where all basic protection standards would be questioned. There is a lot of risk associated with that. The other option would be yes, to get into those special regional agreement that contextualize the implementation of the Convention. When you see for instance the mixed movement affecting a country like South Africa. Well, South Africa is surrounded by countries that have strong reservation on key socio-economic rights for refugee. So no wonder why asylum seekers on refugee in the country's neighboring South Africa go to South Africa. So we need to address that from a regional perspective. And everybody has to assume the share of its responsibility, which is the same under the 1951 Convention.

[00:14:20.03] 

You can't maintain reservation on key social economic rights for decades. That creates situation of frustration, tension in refugee camps, unsettlement, and that's recipe for disaster. At the same time, as I say, we have to be more dynamic on returns on prevent abuse of the system because we have that phenomenon also globally.

[00:14:42.19] 

So more regional perspectives on responsibility sharing, more focus on returns, thinking about lawful transfer. What do you think about what the prospects are for some of these things? I mean, right now the Trump administration has said that it's undertaking a review of all international treaties. There's a possible scenario where you have several governments starting to talk about pulling out of the Refugee Convention rather than making those more constructive changes. I'm just curious how you see the next few years going given the sort of difficult politics of the situation right now. Is it going to be more of a slow slide away from global norms and countries ignoring their responsibilities, or do you think that there's a moment for more constructive discussions?

[00:15:28.04] 

Well, the slow side away from responsibility has already started on its a couple of years ago by some states not implementing their obligation under the 1951 Convention. I sincerely hope that the U.S. Will not withdraw from the 1951 Convention. This is a country that has been providing protection to millions of refugees since its creation as a state. So I hope that will not happen because this would have a bad precedent setting effect potentially on some other countries. I think there are other solutions that need to look at the depths of those movements on how they can be addressed and restore that sense of confidence in the public opinion that those movements can be managed. Again, the vast majority of the under 20 million forcibly disturbed place people are in their country. They have not moved, they are too poor to move. They move within their country, but they have not crossed an international border. And for those who have crossed an international border, the number is manageable. I mean, we're talking about less than 40 million refugees. This is manageable by the international community. I think that's what we need to get back to, that sense of the size of those movements.

[00:16:52.24] 

The number of refugees has not increased in 2025 compared to 2024. The number of IDP internally displaced person has also decreased. So let's build on those global trends and let's press for solutions, real solutions in country of origin. And when we cannot find that sort of solution, let's look at regional agreement, which is not about transferring the burden, but which is about sharing the responsibility differently and in my view, closer to the country of origin with appropriate supports to those countries hosting the largest refugee population.

[00:17:31.20] 

I mean, you talked a lot about responsibility sharing and I'm curious what the priority should be of the international community right now on responsibility sharing. I mean, what does that, what does that look like? Is it primarily financial? How do you do that in the context of diminishing international aid? In this current moment of retrenchment that we're in, what's your ideal and what's your kind of real take on what we can expect?

[00:17:57.04] 

One of them is on investment in peace. I mean, it must be about negotiating or forcing peace agreement between warring factions. I mean, how long that war, for instance in Sudan is going to last. Why this war is lasting so long is because you have a number of countries that are, that have been providing weaponry and support to one or the other side of that conflict. Is there a way to find some compromise here? Is there a way to stop this endless war that has displaced now almost 5 million people? I think that investment in peacemaking, peace building and on the return is important. What I don't like sometimes is discussion about sustainable return. You know, the conditions have to be perfect for the people to return. Well, that does not exist. It has never existed. I mean, the conditions need to be good enough, need to be safe for the people to return. But not everybody is going to be fixed when you have such conflict, it takes decades, but it doesn't mean that it should take decades for people to return. So I think we need to be a bit more pragmatic there.

[00:19:05.24] 

And if we show large host countries that there is this sustained effort to find political solution in countries of origin, I think that's the best way to maintain refugee support in those countries. Then of course we need to support the functioning of the asylum system. And that requires some resources. If those resources are not there, well, some people will move, not everybody will move because people are too poor to move. But this will create tension in some countries, not just in industrialized countries.

[00:19:40.13] 

And we've talked a little bit about the potential reform to the Refugee Convention, the risk that that's opening up a Pandora's box that could leave us with something worse than what we currently have. But do you think there's a potential scenario in which a group of like minded countries come together and try to think about a protocol to the Refugee Convention? For instance, do you have a sense of what could be in it that would be constructive and what the process would be like? Or do you think we shouldn't go in that direction and that there's enough to be done outside of Convention reform?

[00:20:16.12] 

In my view, there is enough to do with regional arrangement to contextualize the implementation of the 1951 Convention and to have a more dynamic implementation of its provision, in particular on cessation and on admission. Now, if states want to go the other way and decide that we need an additional protocol to the 1951 convention, that protocol would need to be not just an update of the 1951 convention. Many things missing in the 1951 convention, for instance, on secondary movement on who is the state responsible to determine asylum, whether the people, what sort of residence permit people should have when they get refugee protection. There are things also, I don't want to sound too technical, but many things to change in relation to expulsion, to exclusion clauses that were not foreseen in 1951 convention. I think there's work to be done there. But again, it has to be a balance reform that would also recognize the need for serious capacity building effort for countries that are less equipped to host refugee population. And there should be something also probably about legal pathways and resettlement of some refugees when a critical threshold has been reached in some countries and where we need to see the evacuation of refugees from certain areas, maybe for a temporary period of time, but again, to ease the tension for some states.

[00:21:51.04] 

Thank you. That's really constructive. I mean, from my perspective as well, I think a big question mark is whether any process of talking about convention reform would actually serve the goal of rebuilding public trust in this system as well. And I think that's, that's an open question and it's a difficult process to manage how you bring the public on board at this moment. I have many more questions I want to ask you, but I have to unfortunately wrap up in the interest of time. But thank you so much for this really interesting and important conversation. Really appreciate it.

[00:22:21.01] 

You're welcome. Thank you.

[00:22:22.12] 

It was such a pleasure to have Vincent Cochetel on the show today. He paints a picture of a protection system in flux. He talked about how the scope of UNHCR has grown over the past several decades and shared some of the lesser known roles that the agency plays, from safeguarding property rights to dealing with internally displaced populations. And he talked about how mixed movements have posed a fundamental challenge and how deeply politicized the whole space has become. Vincent's framing of a broken social contract where burdens and benefits aren't fairly shared, really stood out. But he also offered a path forward, more regional responsibility sharing, smarter approaches to returns, investing earlier to prevent conflicts, and more flexible protection options. The way that we've been thinking about this at MPI is that the protection system has to adapt if it's going to survive today's pressures. The challenge, of course, is where the political will comes from, especially when so many governments are in crisis mode or turning inward. And then how can we make sure that what we end up with is better than the status quo, begins to restore frayed public trust, and grows the protection space overall.

[00:23:31.18] 

So thank you so much everyone for tuning in to another episode of MPI's World of Migration. If you enjoyed this conversation, you can check out other episodes. You can find World of Migration wherever you get your podcasts. And while you're there, do please leave us a review. All the episodes for this and other MPI podcasts are also at MPI's website, migrationpolicy.org/podcasts and this episode was produced by Elizabeth Navarro with editorial input from Michelle Mittelstadt. Our theme music is called Bright Idea Biogeographer. I'm Megan Benton. Thank you again for listening and see you next time.