USD $178.00
Search Results
Page:12
International Refugee Law in Southeast Asia
Author:
The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees are the two primary international legal instruments that states use to process asylum seekers' claim to refugee status. However, in Southeast Asia only two states have acceded to these instruments. This is seemingly paradoxical for a region that has been host to a large number of asylum seekers who, as a result, are forced to live as ‘illegal migrants’. This book examines the region's continued rejection of international refugee law through extensive archival analysis and argues that this rejection was shaped by the region’s response to its largest refugee crisis in the post-1945 era: the Indochinese refugee crisis from 1975 to 1996. The result is a seminal study into Southeast Asian's relationship with international refugee law and the impact that this has had on states surrounding the region, the UNHCR and the asylum seekers themselves.
International Refugee Law in Southeast Asia
Author:
The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees are the two primary international legal instruments that states use to process asylum seekers' claim to refugee status. However, in Southeast Asia only two states have acceded to these instruments. This is seemingly paradoxical for a region that has been host to a large number of asylum seekers who, as a result, are forced to live as ‘illegal migrants’. This book examines the region's continued rejection of international refugee law through extensive archival analysis and argues that this rejection was shaped by the region’s response to its largest refugee crisis in the post-1945 era: the Indochinese refugee crisis from 1975 to 1996. The result is a seminal study into Southeast Asian's relationship with international refugee law and the impact that this has had on states surrounding the region, the UNHCR and the asylum seekers themselves.
In 2015, the Myanmar Government, the Myanmar Tatmadaw (military) and eight ethnic armed organisations (eaos) signed the 2015 National Ceasefire Agreement (nca). In 2019, this agreement was signed by three more eaos, and there have been four annual conferences (Union Peace Panglong Conference 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019). The ceasefire arrangements, which are present primarily in Southeast Myanmar, have failed to make significant progress in key areas such as the provision of access to civil documents and land to returning refugees, displaced persons and conflict-affected communities. Violence has escalated in the last two years. It is not an exaggeration to say that Myanmar is at a critical juncture of transition. This article examines how the peace process is being communicated amongst different civil society organisations, international organisations, donor organisations, and government representatives in an area directly affected by the peace process. The article details the experiences of these participants exchanged in workshop in Mon State in July 2018. The exchanges during the workshop reveal a practical obstacles faced by civil society organisations, especially, in their attempt to support returnees. Many reported frustration with the implementation gap between promoting a peace process and providing for local enabling conditions that support peace. Specific barriers faced by civil society organisations, and in turn the communities they are seeking to help were threefold: information and communication barriers concerning the peace process; women’s fear and reluctance to seek services due to personal safety concerns, and the persistence of traditional gender norms which affects access to information.
This article explores the relationship between the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and the pursuit of the so-called ‘Women, Peace and Security’ (WPS) agenda at the UN. We ask whether the two agendas should continue to be pursued separately or whether each can make a useful contribution to the other. We argue that while the history of R2P has not included language that deliberately evokes the protection of women and the promotion of gender in preventing genocide and mass atrocities, this does not preclude the R2P and WPS agendas becoming mutually reinforcing. The article identifies cross-cutting areas where the two agendas may be leveraged for the UN and member states to address the concerns of women as both actors in need of protection and active agents in preventing and responding to genocide and mass atrocities, namely in the areas of early warning.
In this article we explore the relationship between pre-existing patterns of gender inequality and the occurrence of widespread and systematic sexual and gender based violence (sgbv). We ask three questions: What do we know about the status of gender inequality in high-risk situations prior to the outbreak of atrocities (which include sgbv)? What can be done to understand the relationship between systemic gender inequality and the use of sexual violence in the particular high-risk situations? And what long-term approaches are necessary to prevent sgbv?
Page:12