See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/359472429

Bojan Stojanović, Contemporary International Refugee Law and New

Development Tendencies, in Vesna Petrović (ed.), Seven Decades of Legal
Protection of Refugees - Collection of pape...

Chapter · March 2022

CITATIONS READS

0 46

1 author:

Bojan Stojanović
Centre for Research and Social Development IDEAS
13 PUBLICATIONS 12 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Support to Refugees and Asylum Seekers in the Republic of Serbia View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bojan Stojanović on 25 March 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Bojan Stojanović

CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE LAW

AND NEW DEVELOPMENT TENDENCIES

Abstract
The paper analyses contemporary positive refugee law, problems of today’s refugees and
the need to provide adequate international protection to new categories of forcibly dis-
placed persons. It discusses traditional and complementary forms of protection at the level
of universal and regional international organisations, new international legal documents
and their legal character (the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants, the Global
Compact on Refugees, the Global Compact for Safe, Ordered and Regular Migration), as
well as the impact of climate change on migration and the appearance of the so-called „en-
vironmental refugees“. The paper ends with an overview of positive international refugee
law and the problems the international community has been facing in its efforts to address
refugee and migrant crises It suggests how the international community can change inter-
national refugee law by expanding the scope of refugee protection of individuals and groups,
which would involve either the adoption of additional legal instruments to complement the
existing ones or the adoption of new international instruments.

1. INTRODUCTORY CONSIDERATION
In the year marking the seventieth anniversary of the adoption of the
Convention relating to the Status of Refugees1, the principles and spirit of the
Convention, as well as its application and scope, need to be reconsidered. It is
necessary to reconsider the scope of the Convention and the moment we are in,
taking into account the changes that have taken place in the decades behind us.
One should keep in mind the historical moment wherein the text of the Conven-
tion was prepared and when it was adopted. Namely, it was the post-war period,
the aftermath of World War II, when millions of people across Europe and the
world were in exile or internally displaced, and a not so low number of them
became/remained stateless. In other parts of the world, there were numerous

1 United Nations, Treaty Series, Vol. 189, p. 137. It entered into force on April 22, 1954. By Oc-
tober 10, 2021, 146 states were obliged by the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.

35
 Bojan Stojanović

problems dating back to the pre-war and war periods (e.g. issues caused by cen-
turies of colonization of Africa, Asia, Central America and South America, as
well as islands in Oceania), the consequences of which were felt decades later,
and reflecting on instability in those parts of the world resulting in the forced
migration of millions of people.
Bearing in mind seven decades have passed since the adoption of the
Convention, and that in the meantime much has changed in modern society due
to the development of science and technology (rapid post-war industrialization,
faster and easier movement of people and goods, modern means of communi-
cation, etc.), conditioning a number of changes further causing the need for mi-
gration of people. Thus, in recent times, due to climate change, a great number
of people have been forced to migrate, either within their own state (internally
displaced persons) or abroad (the so-called “ecological refugees”).
Furthermore, numerous international, internal and mixed armed conflicts
worldwide have caused mass forced migratory movements – a great number of
internally displaced persons within the territories of the warring states, and a
large number of refugees outside the territory of the country of origin. Thus,
in 2018, according to the report of the Geneva Academy for Humanitarian Law
and Human Rights, as many as 69 armed conflicts were recorded – 18 inter-
national and 51 non-international.2 Crisis hotspots and mass systemic human
rights violations in many countries of the world have resulted in an extremely
large number of forcibly displaced persons. Thus, in 2020, according to UNHCR
data, there were as many as 82.4 million forcibly displaced persons worldwide.
Out of that number, 26.4 million were refugees, 20.7 million refugees under UN-
HCR protection, 5.7 million Palestinian refugees under UNRWA protection, 48
million internally displaced persons, 4.1 million asylum seekers and 3.9 million
Venezuelans displaced outside the borders of their country.3 Compared to earlier
years, there has been an increase in forcibly displaced people worldwide, further
deepening the refugee and migrant crisis at the global level.
All this clearly indicates that nowadays there are more and more different
causes leading to forced migration of the population and that a clear and or-
ganized response of the international community is necessary in order to solve
the causes and consequences of this trend, which is certainly a complex task.
The necessity of solving these issues is reflected in the consequences of crisis
hotspots, especially in terms of the causes of forced migration, which in present
times are mixed, refugee and migrant crises. Moreover, in practice, there is an
2 See Annyssa Bellal (ed.), The War Report – Armed Conflicts in 2018 (Geneva Academy of
International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, Geneva, 2019), pp. 32–34.
3 UNHCR, Global Trends Forced Displacement in 2020, p. 2.

36
 Contemporary International Refugee Law and New Development Tendencies

uneven burden borne by individual states regarding the reception and care of
refugees.4 This makes it an aggravating circumstance for managing contempo-
rary migrations, posing numerous challenges to the competent state bodies and
international organizations in order to solve the causes of the crisis and manage
mixed migration.
Therefore, it is necessary to consider the current situation, to identify the
causes of forced migration, to look at their mixed, refugee and migrant charac-
ter, the risks faced by forcibly displaced persons, but also positive legal solutions
in international refugee law. Only thereafter, as the main issues and obstacles to
the international protection of refugees have been identified, certain solutions
may be offered in order to overcome the crises, but also enabling the enjoyment
of adequate protection and respect for the human rights of refugees.

2. ISSUES AND RISKS WHERETO REFUGEES

ARE EXPOSED IN PRESENT TIMES
In present times, especially in the last few decades, when the number
of people forcibly migrating from the country of origin has increased, it has
made this population particularly vulnerable for numerous reasons. Refugees
face risks while still in the territory of the country of origin, then in transit
(through one or several countries in route to the country of destination) and
finally, when they are in the territory of the receiving state and when they are
recognized as refugees.
In the past, refugees were vulnerable and faced various issues, so in some
circumstances they were attacked and lost their lives during armed conflicts or
were denied access to some of the safe countries and returned to countries where
their lives and safety were in grave danger.5 Even in present times, although the
international community and even international law are at a higher level of de-
velopment, despite the great humanization of international law, refugees face ex-
pulsion from the territory of many states and are at risk of violating the principle

4 In 2020, the greatest number of refugees, expressed in millions, were received by the fol-
lowing states: 3.7 Turkey, 1.7 Colombia, 1.4 Pakistan, 1.4 Uganda, 1.2 Germany. Addition-
ally, regarding the level of development, but also the size of the territory and population,
some states and territories, although having received fewer refugees, commensurate with
their size and economic power, have borne an extremely heavy burden, and among them
are: Aruba, Lebanon, Jordan etc. Ibid., p. 2.
5 The case of the ship St. Louis is widely known, which sailed for months with about 900
Jewish refugees from Europe, and whose admission was rejected by many countries, in-
cluding the United States of America and Cuba. Upon their return to Europe, many of
these refugees died. For more see Sarah A. Ogilvie and Scott Miller, Refuge Denied, The St.
Louis Passengers and the Holocaust (The University of Wisconsin Press, Wisconsin, 2006).

37
 Bojan Stojanović

of non-refoulement. We have witnessed for a decade the erection of walls and

fences along the borders of certain states (the USA, Hungary, Greece, Turkey,
Poland, etc.), all with the aim of preventing the entry of refugees and migrants,
potential asylum seekers.
During the exile, after leaving the country of origin, refugees are forced
to cross the borders of many states in different ways, sometimes by sea, where
they face refusal by the authorities of some states to provide them with nec-
essary assistance at sea contrary to the rules of international maritime law, as
well as to access the territory of a secure state and to enter the asylum proce-
dure, which is contrary to the norms of international refugee law and interna-
tional human rights law.
In recent times, refugees have been particularly at risk of becoming vic-
tims of smuggling and trafficking. Thus, in a desire to reach the states of desti-
nation, refugees are often victims of traffickers and smugglers who are very well
organized and connected and have a well-organized network and routes having
been traced years back.6
A grave risk for refugees is also exceeding of the use of force by the secu-
rity authorities of the states of transit or destination, then arbitrary deprivation
of liberty and stay in conditions wherein the prohibition of abuse and torture is
violated, which is further a violation of the cogent norm of international law.7
After arriving in the state of destination and accessing to the asylum pro-
cedure, refugees in many countries worldwide face a long asylum procedure and
the issues the length of the procedure entails (during that time, they enjoy a
much narrower range of rights than those having been granted refugee status).
Furthermore, even when their refugee status is recognized, the issues and risks
do not end, since the process of integration into the society of the receiving state
follows. Often, in addition to cultural differences – different languages, religions
6 In order to identify victims of trafficking in a timely manner and provide adequate as-
sistance to victims, UNHCR and IOM adopted a special document in this direction De-
veloping Standard Operating Procedures to Facilitate the Protection of Trafficked Persons,
Framework Document (2009). A decade later, in 2020, they published an updated edition:
IOM-UNHCR Framework document on developing standard operating procedures to facil-
itate the identification and protection of victims of trafficking, (UNHCR, June 2020). For
more see Bojan Stojanović, “IOM-UNHCR Okvirni dokument o razvoju standardnih op-
erativnih procedura za olakšavanje identifikacije i zaštite žrtava trgovine ljudima”, Zbornik
radova Pravnog fakulteta u Nišu, vol. 59, no. 89 (2020), pp. 391–395.
7 The prohibition of abuse is a peremptory legal norm (norm ius cogens). The UN Interna-
tional Law Commission offered a non-exhaustive list of norms representing cogent legal
norms, and among them is the prohibition of abuse as well. See Report of the Interna-
tional Law Commission Seventy-first session (29 April–7 June and 8 July–9 August 2019),
A/74/10, p. 147.

38
 Contemporary International Refugee Law and New Development Tendencies

and customs, other issues arise before refugees that they have to face if wanting
to integrate into the society of the receiving state. One of the obstacles in many
states worldwide is the issue of acquiring citizenship. Refugees, when they are
not de iure stateless, then they are certainly de facto stateless, since they cannot
count on the civil protection of the country of origin.8 As a result, refugees are
often at risk of becoming stateless. Moreover, in many states, the free movement
of refugees outside the territory of the receiving state is prevented, as they have
not been provided with obtaining a refugee travel document. Refugees also face
other problems, such as access to the labor market, higher education, and the
like, varying from state to state.
Taking into account the risks refugees face, contemporary international
refugee law and international human rights law, through the normative activity
and practice of states and international organizations, have evolved in terms of
protection standards. This is of great importance since the needs arising in prac-
tice should be accompanied by an adequate legal framework in order to solve the
problems of refugees properly and in a timely manner.

3. TRADITIONAL FORMS
OF INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION
The great changes following during and immediately after the end of
World War I, required the withdrawal of adequate moves in order to resolve the
issue of millions of refugees. Status resolution issues, but also the free movement
of refugees outside the receiving state, prompted Fridtjof Nansen to initiate the
adoption of a travel document for Russian refugees, better known as Nansen’s
passport, in 1922 within the League of Nations.9 However, this did not resolve
the refugee status issue on a universal level, so that a great number of refugees in
the interwar period worldwide encountered numerous obstacles when it comes
to freedom of movement.
The horrors of World War II and the catastrophic consequences it left
behind affected millions of refugees and internally displaced persons in many
countries, especially in Europe. The original initiative to resolve the issue of ref-
ugees and stateless persons led to the adoption of an international treaty that
would regulate this matter. However, this was soon abandoned, and two sepa-
rate international legal documents were adopted: The Convention relating to the
8 See Vojin Dimitrijević et al., Ljudska prava – udžbenik (Beogradski centar za ljudska prava,
Dosije, Beograd, 1997), p. 196, 197.
9 Arrangement with regard to the Issue of Certificates of Identity to Russian Refugees, 5 July
1922, League of Nations, Treaty Series, Vol. XIII, No. 355).

39
 Bojan Stojanović

Status of Refugees (1951) and the Convention relating to the Status of Stateless
Persons (1954).10
The significance of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees is
manifold. In addition to defining the concept of refugee11, the Convention pre-
scribed the rights and obligations of refugees, which member states were obliged
to provide to persons whereto granting refugee status. However, the Conven-
tion did not prescribe a procedure for granting refugee status, and an additional
issue was it had a limited time and territorial scope of application. Namely, the
Convention refers only to the events up to January 1, 1951, and geographically
to refugees coming from Europe. This left a great number of people without the
necessary international protection in the latter period. Therefore, in 1967, the
Protocol to the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (New York Proto-
col)12 was adopted in New York, removing the limitation ratione temporis and
ratione personae set out in the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, so
that the domain of application was extended to refugees being persecuted due
to the events occurring after January 1, 1951.13 On the other hand, in the ap-
plication of the Convention, the problem is that some states made a reservation
in the form of a geographical clause, limiting the geographical application of
the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (e.g. Turkey). Thus, the reach
of the Convention was limited, and a part of the refugees was left without the
necessary protection. Another problem remains the fact that a number of states
are still not obliged by the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees or the
New York Protocol.14
The refugee law development took place in parallel through legislative ac-
tivities, firstly through the League of Nations, then the UN15 and UNHCR, but
also other international bodies, as well as through the practice of states. In some
parts of the world, such as the countries of Central and South America, even in
the interwar period, there was a discussion about the legal character of diplo-
10 United Nations, Treaty Series, Vol. 360, p. 117. By October 10, 2021, 96 states were obliged
by the Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons. On the history of the relation-
ship between the international protection of refugees and stateless persons, see Michelle
Foster and Hélène Lambert, International Refugee Law and the Protection of Stateless Per-
sons (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2019), pp. 15–49.
11 Article 1 (A) (2) of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.
12 United Nations, Treaty Series, Vol. 606, p. 267. By October 10, 2021, 147 states were obliged
by the Protocol.
13 See Article 1, para. 2 of the New York Protocol.
14 See more in Forced Migration Review, Issue 67, July/August 2021, pp. 39 et seq.
15 For instance, Declaration on Territorial Asylum (1967). For more see “Teritorijalni azil” in
Dimitrijević Vojin, Utočište na teritoriji strane države – teritorijalni azil (Beogradski centar
za ljudska prava, Beograd, 2015).

40
 Contemporary International Refugee Law and New Development Tendencies

matic asylum.16 In the case of diplomatic asylum, a state grants protection out-
side its territory to a person persecuted for political reasons, and in the building
of its diplomatic mission in the state wherein the person concerned is subjected
to persecution and danger.17 Diplomatic asylum represents earlier tendencies in
regional international law, when an attempt was made to develop the concept
of diplomatic asylum in one part of the world (on the American continent) and
to take on the legal force of international customary law of regional character,
which was opposed by the judgment of the International Court of Justice in the
case of Colombia v. Peru.18 However, regardless of the lack of legal force that
would have the character of customary international law, it has for decades been
the practice of many states worldwide to grant asylum in their diplomatic and
consular missions.19
A recent trend worldwide is the externalization of asylum, i.e. the practice
of some states to introduce the procedure of asylum “remotely”, which means
the asylum seekers apply for asylum in the territory of the third country where
they are located, and only then, possibly, be allowed to enter the territory of
the desired state (the case of Papua New Guinea and Nauru, early XXI century,
where asylum seekers spent time in these countries detained in refugee reception
centers, while awaiting a decision from the Australian immigration authorities).
This raises a number of unresolved issues, including that the jurisdiction over
such asylum seekers, while residing outside the territory of the state wherefrom
they are seeking asylum, is actually in the state in whose territory they are lo-
cated. Furthermore, staying in a third country, in addition to the country’s legal
responsibility to ensure respect for the human rights and freedoms of asylum
seekers, also includes the costs of the stay of such persons while located in their
territory, notwithstanding the assistance provided by the state for the protection
whereof asylum seekers temporarily placed in a third country apply.
Some states introduce asylum procedures in their diplomatic and consu-
lar missions in third countries (e.g. Hungary introduced the “remote” procedure
in 2020, and potential asylum seekers may apply for asylum at the Hungarian

16 For more see Svjetlan Berković, “Extra-territorial Asylum”, 3 Jugoslovenska revija za

međunarodno pravo (1991), pp. 197–228.
17 Vladimir Ibler, Rječnik međunarodog javnog prava (Informator, Zagreb, drugo izmijenjeno
i dopunjeno izdanje, 1987), odrednica „Azil“, p. 23.
18 Colombian-Peruvian asylum case, Judgment of November 20th 1950: I.C.J. Reports 1950,
fi. 266.
19 In the post-war period, mostly Western states to dissidents from Eastern European states.
Recently, the most famous affair was related to the granting of asylum to Julian Assange
at the Ecuadorian embassy in the United Kingdom. On diplomatic asylum and collective
reception, see Eileen Denza, Diplomatic Law – Commentary on the Vienna Convention on
Diplomatic Relations (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 4th edition, 2016), pp. 114–117.

41
 Bojan Stojanović

diplomatic and consular mission in Belgrade, Serbia). These forms of externali-

zation of international protection are therefore extremely problematic and repre-
sent examples of poor practice related to the care of refugees and the provision
of adequate international protection. This is also the position of UNHCR, calling
on states to avoid the practice of shifting the burden of responsibility or denying
access to international protection, since it is not in line with global solidarity and
division of responsibilities.20 These phenomena represent new challenges for the
international community since they are contrary to the traditional concept of
providing international protection and undermining the global protection sys-
tem prescribed by positive international law.

4. THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ROLE OF THE UNITED

NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES
IN PROVIDING INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION
The role of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)
is of paramount importance in the process of providing international protection.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was established in 195021,
when the UNHCR Statute was adopted.22 Taking into account the issue of the
states that are not obliged by the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and
the New York Protocol is still relevant, the need for UNHCR assistance remains
relevant.23 Namely, UNHCR with its mandate provided by the Statute, and taking
into consideration the difficulties encountered by the states in accepting refugees
and providing international protection (accommodation of refugees, issues related
to asylum, refugee integration, etc.) may carry out the procedure for determining
refugee status, applying primarily to the states that are not parties to the Conven-
tion relating to the Status of Refugees. In this way, it is ensured the refugees enjoy
at least a minimum of rights and are thus protected from expulsion.
UNHCR’s mandate is also significant in the states obliged by the Conven-
tion relating to the Status of Refugees and/or the New York Protocol. These are

20 See UNHCR Note on the “Externalization” of International Protection, 28 May 2021, para.
9 (e). Available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/60b115604.html.
21 The decision to establish UNHCR was adopted in 1949. Resolution 319 (IV), of 3 De-
cember 1949, the United Nations General Assembly decided to establish a High Commis-
sioner’s Office for Refugees as of 1 January 1951. For more on the history of UNHCR, its
role, see Rosalyn Higgins et al., Oppenheim’s International Law: United Nations (Oxford
University Press, Vol. 2, Oxford, 2017), pp. 2, Oxford, 2017), pp. 879–906.
22 Statute of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (General As-
sembly Resolution 428 (V) of 14 December 1950).
23 Maja Janmyr, “Non-signatory States and the international refugee regime”, Forced Migra-
tion Review, Issue 67, July/August 2021, pp. 39–42.

42
 Contemporary International Refugee Law and New Development Tendencies

the states failing to regulate the process of obtaining refugee status, and even in
such states there is a need for UNHCR assistance. Even in those states that have
prescribed a procedure for obtaining refugee status, there is often, in practice, a
need for UNHCR assistance. The needs vary, from humanitarian aid, to inter-
vening in the asylum procedure itself in specific cases, then providing informa-
tion on countries of origin or transit, etc. The actions of the UNHCR Executive
Committee are also very important, since it also adopts conclusions significant
for directing the treatment of refugees.24
Therefore, the conclusion might be that the role of UNHCR is of great im-
portance in the care of refugees and assistance to the states in regulating refugee
status, whether these are the states obliged or unobliged by the Convention relating
to the Status of Refugees and the New York Protocol. Moreover, the importance of
UNHCR is reflected in the fact it monitors the implementation of the Convention
relating to the Status of Refugees and seeks to expand the circle of states that would
commit to acceding to the Convention and the New York Protocol.

5. COMPLEMENTARY FORMS OF PROTECTION

Due to the lack of legal mechanisms for the protection of refugees25 and
other categories of persons in need of international protection, over time, mecha-
nisms emerged in some parts of the world to prevent people from returning to the
states where their lives and security were at risk. Thus, in Europe, under the aus-
pices of the Council of Europe, i.e. in the European Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and accompanying proto-
cols, and along with the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, subsidi-
ary forms of protection were created. This was performed in a way prohibiting the
respective states from expelling individuals and groups in danger of being exposed
to acts contrary to the provisions of the ECHR and the accompanying protocols.
Forms of such protection are called complementary forms of protection.26
24 See UNHCR, Conclusions on International Protection Adopted by the Executive Commit-
tee of the UNHCR Programme 1975–2017 (Conclusion No. 1–114), October 2017, HCR/
IP/3/Eng/REV. 2017.
25 Restrictions in the definition of a refugee – Art. 1 A 2, but also the basis for exclusion from
the definition of certain categories, Art. 1 C-F of the Convention relating to the Status of
Refugees.
26 “The term complementary is not invoked in this context to describe the legal relation-
ship, but simply to denote protection that is outside the dominant international instrument
for refugees.” “As a technical term, however, complementary protection means protection
granted to individuals on the basis of a legal obligation that does not derive from the main
treaty governing refugee law.” Jane McAdam, Complementary Protection in International
Refugee Law (Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, 2007), p. 2.

43
 Bojan Stojanović

In addition to the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the

New York Protocol, to forcibly displaced persons, as addressees of rights, human
rights standards provided by universal international treaties also apply, the In-
ternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICPM),27 the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,28 Convention on the Rights
of the Child29 etc.30 In addition to the above-mentioned international treaties,
refugees are also subject to the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Hu-
man Rights,31 which has become part of customary international law through
widespread application. When it comes to the application of the said interna-
tional treaties, it should be taken into account that those provisions of the treaty
that have not become part of customary international law or are not part of the
norms of ius cogens32 (absolutely valid norms of international law having erga
omnes effect), do not oblige the states to apply that have not committed them-
selves to their application.33
This creates problems in practice, since in this way the refugee popula-
tion is deprived of international protection, or the level of protection is lower
than the level existing in the states obliged by the Convention relating to the
Status of Refugees, the New York Protocol and fundamental legal instruments
protecting human rights. The rules of customary international law are also im-
portant, whose importance is reflected especially in terms of the states that are
not obliged by the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the New
York Protocol, and represents the last barrier in preventing violations of certain
refugee rights.

27 United Nations, Treaty Series, Vol. 999, p. 171 and Vol. 1057, p. 407. The Pact entered into
force on March 23, 1976. By October 10, 2021, 173 states were obliged by the Pact.
28 United Nations, Treaty Series, Vol. 993, p. 3. The Pact entered into force on January 3,
1976. By October 10, 2021, 171 states were obliged by the Pact.
29 United Nations, Treaty Series, Vol. 1577, p. 3. The Convention on the Rights of the Child
entered into force on September 2, 1990, and by October 10, 2021, 196 states were obliged
thereby.
30 These treaties generally contain a provision on territorial validity and apply to all persons
under the jurisdiction of the respective state.
31 General Assembly Resolution 217 A.
32 See Art. 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and Mark E. Villiger, Com-
mentary on the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Martinus Nijhoff Publish-
ers, Leiden, Boston, 2009), pp. 661–678; Oliver Dörr and Kirsten Schmalenbach (eds.),
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties – A Commentary (Springer Berlin Heidelberg,
Berlin, Heidelberg, 2nd edition, 2018), pp. 965–1012.
33 If they have committed themselves to an international treaty, but have made a reservation
(in the case of permissible reservations and accepted reservations, of course), the stated
provisions of the international treaty do not apply to them, and if it is about inadmissible
reservations, those reservations do not have legal effect.

44
 Contemporary International Refugee Law and New Development Tendencies

The impact of international human rights law on international and na-

tional refugee law may be seen in the best way in the activities of regional organ-
izations and the practice of oversight bodies (judicial and non-judicial) which,
by virtue of protecting individuals and groups from persecution, actually, ex-
pand the scope of application of the non-refoulement principle, thus enriching
the corpus of protective measures made available to asylum seekers and refugees.

6. UNIFICATION OF REFUGEE LAW

AND/OR CREATION OF PARALLEL PROTECTION SYSTEMS
Decentralization of legislation related to international protection takes
place on two levels – 1) at the international level – in addition to the UN, special
international legal instruments were adopted by regional international organi-
zations (African Union, Inter-American Union, EU and others) or was devel-
oped the practice of individual judicial and non-judicial bodies operating within
them; 2) at the national law level and practice of individual states.
Although there is a trend of unification of certain fields of law, in some
fields it has progressed further, and in some not. Thus, at the level of individual
regions, the development of various protection mechanisms led to the formation
of, one might say, three regional systems of international protection: European,
American and African.34
It seems that the trend of unification of the system of providing interna-
tional protection, parallel to the one envisaged by the Convention relating to
the Status of Refugees, prevails on the European continent. Thus, assisted by di-
rectives and regulations, the EU regulated the asylum and migration system.35
The circle is also expanding to states in the process of European integration and
amending their legislation relating to asylum and migration by adapting it to the
EU acquis communautaire.36
It could be said that in the immediate aftermath of World War II, there was
more willingness to solve a number of issues globally and find compromise solu-
tions, and in 1951 the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees was adopted,
than it was later during the Cold War when ideological differences conditioned
the division into two blocs. The adoption of the Convention relating to the Sta-
tus of Refugees was also contributed to by the fact that at the time of drafting the

34 See Ivana Krstić, Marko Davinić, Pravo na azil – Međunarodni i domaći standardi (Pravni
fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu, Beograd, 2013), pp. 105–118.
35 Ibid., pp. 237–294.
36 For instance, the Republic of Serbia, which passed these laws on two occasions – in 2007
and 2018, further implementing numerous EU standards.

45
 Bojan Stojanović

Convention and its adoption, the international community consisted of only 60

states (decolonization process, i.e. its greatest wave was yet to follow), so it was
easier to reconcile the positions of the then UN member states.
Nowadays, when the international community is comprised of about 200
countries, and there are significantly more international organisations and stake-
holders in international relations, the issue of legal regulation of certain fields
seems considerably more difficult than before. Tectonic changes in international
relations marked by the fall of the Berlin Wall (1989), changes from a bipolar
world to a monopolar world with a tendency to create a multipolar world, have
left consequences on finding consensus on many issues. In terms of refugee and
migrant law, this might best be seen if analyzing the process of adopting the
Global Compact for Migration.37
Differences also exist in regulating international protection in certain
parts of the world. It is worth noting that regardless of the legal framework, we
have witnessed decades of gross violations of refugee law and human rights when
it comes to treating refugees and asylum seekers worldwide (Australia, placing
potential asylum seekers in the centers in Papua New Guinea; the USA and the
problems on the border with Mexico, Turkey, Myanmar, as well as some EU
member states – Hungary, Greece, Italy, Belgium and others). Due to these dif-
ferences in the process of adoption of global compacts, there was a heated debate
between supporters and opponents of the adoption of compacts (views of the
representatives of Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, the USA). Of course, it
is necessary to point out the affirmative tones, considerably higher and resulting
in its adoption, noting that their predecessor, the New York Declaration, was
adopted by acclamation. However, it should be taken into account that these are
legally non-binding sources of law.
The influence of international human rights law in providing protection
for asylum seekers not covered under the refugee protection stipulated in the
Convention relating to the Status of Refugees is visible. It is precisely the “alter-
native” measures provided by international human rights law, mainly through
regional protection mechanisms, i.e. regional international legal instruments,
but also some universal international instruments, providing support for inter-
national protection, ensuring protection to the individual and groups in need of
protection.
This has its advantages and disadvantages. As an advantage, the legal pro-
tection of a wider circle of persons in need of international protection can be
mentioned, who, from the point of view of the Convention relating to the Status
37 For more see Bogdan Krasić, Bojan Stojanović, “Globalni kompakt o migracijama: pravna
priroda i potencijalni uticaj na razvoj međunarodnog migracionog prava”, 2 Pravni zapisi
(2020), pp. 645–659.

46
 Contemporary International Refugee Law and New Development Tendencies

of Refugees, would be left without protection. By virtue of developing the practice

of states and international organisations, a practice is also being created that can
positively influence the development of international refugee law. Disadvantag-
es include the dispersion of sources of law, i.e. the proliferation of norms, often
leading to dilemmas about the choice of international instruments that would be
applied to a particular case, i.e. posing a dilemma to the individual as to which
international body to turn to in the event of a human rights violation. The aggra-
vating circumstance is that different regional legal instruments and mechanisms
for the protection of individual human rights and freedoms are in force in differ-
ent parts of the world. Of course, there is always an age-old dilemma related to
the relationship between international and national law in some states worldwide
– some give precedence to international law, some to national one.38 The problem
here is the inadequate legal framework in national law, which in some states takes
precedence over the norms of international law, resulting in a lower degree of
protection than that granted by the norms of international law.
Although the decision to grant international protection to refugees, i.e.asy-
lum proceedings, is covered under the sovereign and exclusive authority of the
state (domaine réservé),it issomewhat limited by the norms of international law.39
When a refugee is located outside the borders of the country of origin, i.e. in the
case of stateless persons, outside the state of the last place of habitual residence,
it becomes a refugee, so that the procedure for granting refugee status should in
fact be an act of confirming that a person is a refugee, without the need to leave
room for arbitrary action. Therefore, this is a procedure of a declarative, not a
constitutive character. Even in cases where the Convention leaves room not to
grant someone refugee status, in many countries worldwide there is a possibil-
ity of granting complementary forms of protection, in order to avoid returning
people to a country where they are at risk of torture and othercruel, inhuman or
degrading punishments or actions.

38 On the relationship between international and national law, see Sanja Đajić, Međunarodni
i nacionalni sudovi: od sukoba do saradnje – Prilog raspravi o odnosu međunarodnog i unu-
trašnjeg prava (Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Novom Sadu, Novi Sad, 2003), pp. 5–38.
39 States are left to regulate the procedure for granting refugee status, but it is necessary to
respect the substantive provisions of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and
the New York Protocol when determining refugee status (if they are also obliged thereby).
States, in fact, need to “recognize” refugees and grant refugee status, since one becomes
refugee, after a refugee leaves the territory of the country of origin for a justified fear of
persecution, and becomes a refugee already in the first foreign state wherein one is located.
Consequently, it is necessary to recognize the refugee status as soon as possible. A docu-
ment adopted by UNHCR serves as an aid in this process – Handbook on Procedures and
Criteria for Determining Refguee Status adn Guidelines on International Protection under
the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, published in
1972, having two more editions – in 1992 and 2019 and translated into several languages.

47
 Bojan Stojanović

7. MIXED REFUGEE AND MIGRANT

CRISES AND RESPONSES THERETO
Amid a wave of mixed, refugee and migrant crises worldwide, caused by
various factors (armed conflicts, mass human rights violations, difficult eco-
nomic situation, etc.), the UN decided to take the initiative in order to find a
sustainable solution for those affected and in need of international protection.
The UN opted for multilateral action, i.e. to discuss the topics of refugees and
migration within the framework of the powers of the UN General Assembly. At
the 71st session of the UN General Assembly, on September 19, 2016, the New
York Declaration on Refugees and Migration was adopted.40
Although the New York Declaration jointly considered refugees and mi-
grants in one document, the creators of the Declaration, however, incorporated
into the text of the Declaration the need to adopt two separate legal documents
– one dedicated to refugees and the other to migrants. By concretizing the provi-
sions of the New York Declaration on Refugees and Migration, in the years after
its adoption, drafting of the text of two global compacts and confronting the
conflicting positions of individual states or groups of states begun, resulting in
compromise and adoption of two global compacts in December 2018 at the 73rd
session of the UN General Assembly – Global Compact on Refugees and Global
Compact for Migration.
The Global Compact on Refugees, adopted by acclamation, specifically for
the adoption of the Global Compact on Refugees, was voted on by all 193 UN
member states whose representatives attended the session. Unlike another global
compact, it was easier to reach a compromise. This is not surprising, since com-
promise solutions regarding refugee protection have been reached before, which,
after all, was the case when the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees was
adopted. The circumstances are different when it comes to migrants. Namely,
there is no “rooftop” legal instrument that would deal exclusively with migrants.
The exception is the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of
All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families,41 but the provisions of this
convention apply only to migrant workers and members of their families, leaving
aside other categories of migrants.
The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration42, in addi-
tion to the Global Compact on Refugees, is yet another legally non-binding doc-
40 UN General Assembly Resolution, No. 71/1.
41 UN General Assembly Resolution, No. 45/158 of 18 December 1990, (United Nations,
Treaty Series, Vol. 2220), p. 3, entered into force on 1 July 2003.
42 For the translation of this document see Bogdan Krasić (ur.), Globalni kompakt o sigurnim,
uređenim i regularnim migracijama (Beogradski centar za ljudska prava, Beograd, 2019).

48
 Contemporary International Refugee Law and New Development Tendencies

ument. The drafting of the text took almost two years, and the adoption process
was burdened by great differences in the attitudes of the states. The text encoun-
tered several challenges and criticisms both during preparations for its adoption
and later, after its adoption. This can be explained as resistance to the progres-
sive development of international law in this field, but also a dispute whereover
would constitute already established rules of international law, so that codifica-
tion in the field of migration has been seriously called into question.
The significance of the New York Declaration and both global compacts
is reflected in the fact that modern migrations of a mixed type are considered
together, i.e. in the form wherein they actually appear. This is also important
because it is almost impossible to manage migration if this feature is neglected.
Millions of non-refugees, applying for asylum, are burdening asylum systems of
states worldwide while failing to find an adequate solution for their status and
exercise of rights. On the other hand, burdening national asylum systems and
thus making them inefficient, endangers the right of refugees to obtain inter-
national protection. The creators of the New York Declaration and both global
compacts recognized the importance of including as many stakeholders as pos-
sible in solving mixed crises – from states and international organisations, which
have traditionally been involved in crisis resolution, through companies, the
academic community, individuals, but also refugees and migrants themselves.43
This, furthermore, means that the focus has been “shifted” from one level, until
then, aimed only at states and international organisations, to a horizontal lev-
el with a greater number of factors that can contribute to the management of
mixed migrations, of course, each in their own domain and in accordance with
their powers.
Activities aimed at finding long-term solutions to refugee and migrant
crises have brought UNHCR and IOM closer together,44 which may result in
positive results in the near future, and certainly contributes to synchronous ac-
tions taken to overcome mixed refugee and migrant crises.
The said international documents, although they are the norms of the so-
called “soft law” are essential for managing migration and finding a sustainable
solution to the crises. Common to these soft law international documents is that
43 In order to take concrete steps in the implementation of the Global Compact on Refugees,
the First Global Refugee Forum was held in December 2019. For more see Bojan Stojano-
vić, “Prvi skup Globalnog foruma za izbeglice, Ženeva, 16–18. decembar 2019”, 2 Zbornik
radova Pravnog fakulteta u Nišu (2020), pp. 195–198.
44 In 2016, IOM thus became a specialized/affiliated UN agency. UN GA Agreement con-
cerning the Relationship between the United Nations and the International Organization
for Migration: Annex I: Draft Agreement concerning the Relationship between the United
Nations and the International Organization for Migration; Note by the Secretary-General,
A/70/976, 8 July 2016.

49
 Bojan Stojanović

they are the result of efforts to regulate this legal matter and solve current prob-
lems related to refugees and migrants, and represent a novum in international
refugee law. The legal form wherein they have been adopted is the result of a
compromise in the current constellation of unstable relations in the internation-
al community, since it has almost been impossible to persuade a great number
of states to commit to a stronger form of legal obligation. These legal instru-
ments, in addition to criticism from individual states (the USA, Hungary, etc.),
have also been subjected to criticism of doctrine on a variety of issues – to what
extent, for instance, the Global Compact on Refugees is part of the existing in-
ternational refugee law, and to what extent it represents a new legal instrument,
then its more political than legal character, non-binding legal force, etc.45 How-
ever, this was done on other motives and different grounds, but the doctrinal
criticism was made as an expression of discontent over missed chances to resolve
burning issues related to mixed mass migration by virtue of adopting stronger
sources of law.46
Choosing this form of political and legal regulation of the matter of ref-
ugee and migrant law is an expression of the circumstances in the internation-
al community and international relations. The actual ranges and possibilities of
implementing these international documents shall take a longer period of time.
Therefore, the passage of time and consideration of the implementation of their
provisions is necessary in order to properly assess their contribution to the de-
velopment of international refugee law.47

8. CLIMATE CHANGE AND MIGRATION

In the last few decades, due to the impacts of climate change, there has
also been a new risk – forced migration as a result of climate change due to the
deteriorating environmental conditions in many parts of the world, making hu-
man life and survival almost impossible in many areas. Given that it is a relatively
new phenomenon, in terms of its massiveness and the catastrophic consequenc-
es of climate change, it has caused a number of new risks. These include, inter

45 See Thomas Gammeltoft-Nansen, “The Normative Impact of the Global Compact on Ref-
ugees”, International Journal of Refugee Law, Vol. 30, No. 4 (2018), pp. 605–610; T. Alexan-
der Aleinikoff, “The Unfinished Work of the Global Compact on Refugees”, International
Journal of Refugee Law, Vol. 30, No. 4 (2018), pp. 311–317.
46 For critiques of global compacts, see the thematic issue International Journal of Refugee
Law, Vol. 30, No. 4 (2018).
47 In this sense, the efforts undertaken during the implementation of the Global Compact
on Refugees, which were systematized at the First Global Refugee Forum, are indicative.
For more see Bojan Stojanović, “Prvi skup Globalnog foruma za izbeglice, Ženeva, 16–18.
decembar 2019. godine”, 86 Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Nišu (2020), pp. 195–198.

50
 Contemporary International Refugee Law and New Development Tendencies

alia, drought and drinking water shortages, the expansion of desert surfaces at
the expense of fertile soil, catastrophic natural disasters (storm winds, tsunamis,
earthquakes, etc.), but also the consequences of sea-level rise threatening to sink
parts of individual states and even leading to the disappearance of some states.
According to some estimates, in the middle of the last decade of the past
century, there were about 25 million people forced to migrate due to climate
change. It is estimated this trend is to continue and in 2050 there will be as many
as 200 million climate migrants.48 We are witnessing more and more frequent
and devastating catastrophes in the first two decades of the new millennium,
whether caused by human activities, whether it be natural disasters.
Rapid climate change requires a swift reaction in response to the migrant
challenges resulting from them, while slow climate change, which in the long run
causes irreparable damage, needs to be well designed and prepared in response
to the problems it lead to. Slow climate change leaves far-reaching consequences
for the future. So, for instance, sea-level rise leads to a reduction in the territories
of certain coastal states. Small islands developing states at serious risk of poten-
tially total extinction are particularly exposed thereto, raising serious legal issues
in the field of international law (disappearance of states, occurrence of stateless-
ness, refugees caused by disappearance of the country of origin, etc.)49 Sea-level
rise would thus, in addition to complete unsustainability, force the population of
certain island states to permanently leave their country of origin. Disappearance
of the territory, as an element of the state, would lead to disappearance of the
state itself, which may even result in the citizens of such states, in addition to be-
ing forced to migrate, becoming stateless. This would mean they remain without
the protection of the country of origin, in which case they should be provided
with international protection in order to avoid occurrence of statelessness and
other risks associated with statelessness.
Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development50
states: “[ ]Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time and its ad-
verse impacts undermine the ability of all countries to achieve sustainable devel-
opment. Increases in global temperature, sea level rise, ocean acidification and
other climate change impacts are seriously affecting coastal areas and low-lying
coastal countries, including many least developed countries and small island de-
veloping States. The survival of many societies, and of the biological support sys-
48 See IOM, Migration and Climate Changes, IOM Migration Research Series, No. 31, p. 11.
49 On disappearance of states due to climate change and sea-level rise see Jane McAdam,
“‘Disappearing States’, Statelessness and the Boundaries of International Law”, in Jane
McAdam (ed.), Climate Change and Displacement – Multidisciplinary Perspectives, (Hart
Publishing Oxford, Portland, Oregon, 2010), pp. 105–129.
50 U.N. Doc. A/RES/70/1, 25 September 2015.

51
 Bojan Stojanović

tems of the planet, is at risk.”51 The adverse impacts of climate change determine
survival of people in some parts of the world, and in some states make it almost
impossible (such as Kiribati, Tuvalu, etc.)
Numerous international governmental52 and non-governmental53 organi-
zations have activated themselves and are engaged in research on how to protect
the so-called “climate refugees”. As well at the interstate level, there are initiatives
which, while following climate change, also come into contact with the issue of
forced migration caused by climate change.54
However, from the aspect of resolving the status of people who are in
forced migration or who will be forced to leave their country of origin in the
future due to climate change, there is no solution for now. When it comes to
providing international protection to ecological refugees, it is not recognized in
the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, i.e. the definition of a refugee
under Article 1A (2) of the Convention does not recognize ecological refugees
as refugees. Therefore, resolving the status of ecological refugees is transferred to
the field of other legal mechanisms for the protection of human rights, as a sub-
sidiary (complementary) form of protection. With the development of the prac-
tice of certain international bodies protecting human rights, such as the practice
of the Human Rights Committee, there is a tendency towards changes that could
be an alternative in order to provide the necessary protection to this category of
people. Thus, in the case of Ioane Teitiota v. New Zealand,55 the Human Rights
Committee noted that while it did not determine the violation of the right to
life stipulated in Article 6 of the ICCPR, the impact of climate change negatively
affects the enjoyment of human rights.56
The position of a part of the doctrine on climate change and the impact
on migration and the sustainability of life in some areas goes towards affirma-
tion of the thesis that a solution would not found in a universal international
51 Ibid., para. 14.
52 The UN is definitely at the forefront of this, with the activities of its specialized agen-
cies. In terms of thehumanitarian – development – peace nexus (HDPN) between climate
change and migration, the greatest contribution is made by UNHCR and IOM.
53 One of the best known and influential organizations is the Nansen Initiative.
54 COP (Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change).
A total of 25 conference sessions have been held so far, attended by representatives of the
governments of the parties to the Framework Convention.
55 Ioane Teitiota v. New Zealand, CCPR/C/127/D/2728/2016, UN Human Rights Committee
(HRC), 7 January 2020.
56 On the decision in the case of Ioane Teitiota v. New Zealand, for more see Bojan Stojanović,
“Konstatacija Komiteta za ljudska prava u slučaju Joane Tejtiota protiv Novog Zelanda i
njen značaj za međunarodno pravo”, 87 Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Nišu (2020),
pp. 73–89.

52
 Contemporary International Refugee Law and New Development Tendencies

legal instrument. Such an attitude finds arguments in approaching the topic in a

particular way through reaching bilateral agreements or finding solutions at the
regional level, bearing in mind there are different issues and needs in different
parts of the world.57

9. CONCLUDING CONSIDERATION
It is impossible to perceive the needs for changes and development of in-
ternational law if the circumstances in the specific time period wherein such de-
velopment should take place are not considered, i.e. the mood in the internation-
al community and the attitude of states and international organizations towards
an issue. This also applies to issues in the field of refugee law.
Historically speaking, when it comes to international refugee law, thus, in
the period from the end of World War I to the present day, several phases may
be observed. The first phase, the interwar period (between the two world wars),
the war and the period immediately after World War II until the adoption of the
Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. The second phase is characteristic
of the period after the adoption of the Convention relating to the Status of Ref-
ugees (1951). As well the third phase, from the second decade of XXI century,
when the New York Declaration and global compacts were adopted due to refu-
gee and migrant crises.
By analyzing these phases, one can clearly see the curve in the develop-
ment of modern international refugee law – from the slow initial steps of unifi-
cation of international refugee law in the aftermath of World War I, through the
solid foundations laid down in the Convention relating to the Status of Refu-
gees, as norms of the so-called “hard law”, to the crisis of multilateralism and the
adoption of norms of the so-called soft law. Truthfully speaking, even before,
while recognizing the weaknesses and limitations of the Convention relating to
the Status of Refugees, as a form of protection of asylum seekers who were not
recognized by the Convention as refugees, complementary forms of protection
have emerged. Moreover, the transition from the second to the third phase is
not radical, since the norms of the so-called “soft law” have not replaced the
norms of the so-called “hard law”. The norms of the so-called “soft law” may
serve to further improve the norms of international refugee law and interna-
tional protection and to serve as a supplement to the current norms represent-
ing the so-called “hard law”, but also to fill the legal gaps. They could serve as a
57 See in greater detail Jane McAdam, “Swimming against the Tide: Why a Climate Change
Displacement Treaty is Not the Answer”, International Journal of Refugee Law, Vol. 23, No.
1 (2011), pp. 2–27.

53
 Bojan Stojanović

form of transitional solution until the international community becomes able to

accept the endeavor to protect, by virtue of a binding international treaty, per-
sons who, due to various circumstances, are in a situation to leave the domicile
state and to apply for refugee status in another state and thus improve the field
of refugee law. As a corrective to the measures being taken, they must certainly
serve the norms of positive international law, i.e. current legal norms at a uni-
versal, global level.
When it comes to managing migration in the broadest sense in the sec-
ond decade of XXI century, there is a noticeable tendency for the refugee and
migrant law regimes to converge. This is supported by the initiatives resulting
in adoption of the New York Declaration and two global compacts, in 2016, i.e.
2018, which to some extent find answers to open, burning legal issues. This has
also led to the rapprochement between UNHCR and IOM, given the complexity
and intertwining of contemporary migrations.
New trends in refugee law should continue to monitor the exact situa-
tion in the field, which, unfortunately, abounds in numerous challenges – from
a great number of international and non-international armed conflicts, natural
disasters, infectious diseases and the like. If only the provisions of the Conven-
tion relating to the Status of Refugees were applied, without considering present
challenges, it would leave millions of people worldwide without adequate pro-
tection, which would further deepen the crisis that is, as practice shows, turning
into a global refugee and migrant crisis.
Taught by the past events and expanding the reach of the Convention re-
lating to the Status of Refugees and adopting the New York Protocol, it would
be necessary in the near future to consider revising the Convention so as to
extend refugee protection even to other categories of people or to launch an
initiative to adopt a new, additional, international instrument that would en-
able the protection of new categories of forcibly displaced persons (e.g. “envi-
ronmental refugees”).
At the present moment in international relations there is a crisis of mul-
tilateralism, i.e. very rare convening of large global conferences of the codifying
type, whether it is codification or the progressive development of international
law, which have been immanent in past epochs,58 so as to discuss such a topic

58 For instance, the great codification conferences in XX century: the Hague conferences
of 1899 and 1907, or conferences convened under the auspices of the League of Nations
(1930), to those convened by the United Nations: 1958 (on the law of the sea); 1959–1961
(on the elimination or reduction of future cases of statelessness); 1960 (second conference
on the law of the sea); 1960 (on diplomatic relations and immunity); 1963 (on consular re-
lations); 1968–69 (international treaties); 1973–82 (third conference on the law of the sea);
1975 (on the representation of states in their relations with international organizations);

54
 Contemporary International Refugee Law and New Development Tendencies

and make concrete steps related to the development of international refugee law.
As a result, certain new categories of forcibly displaced persons are left to the
will of the states, i.e. to casuistic solving of the current issue. This may result in
both negative and positive outcomes. The negative outcome would be reflected
in the fact that, in the absence of a universal legal instrument that would provide
international protection to new categories of refugees, a great number of people
would be left without protection and live at risk. On the other hand, the fact
that states are left to find a way to provide the necessary protection to these in-
dividuals may lead to positive trends since states can then come up with original
solutions that would serve as a model for regulating future forms of international
protection. Bodies monitoring the progressive development and codification of
positive international law – the International Law Commission, the Internation-
al Law Association and the Institut de Droit International can certainly make a
great contribution to the efforts to improve the field of refugee law in order to
ensure timely and adequate protection.59
Decisions of international bodies, i.e. opinions on these decisions (e.g. the
Human Rights Committee’s findings in the case of Ioane Teitiota v. New Zealand)
may serve as positive developments in this direction. Finally, one must not lose
sight of the fact that when considering such a serious topic, actually discusses
the fates of millions of people who are in need of international protection and
the international community is tested for humanity, but also tested for maturi-
ty to accept the endeavors of resolving contemporary issues of refugee law and
mass mixed migration.

1977–78 (on succession of states in respect of treaties); 1983 (on succession of states in
respect of state property, archives and debts); 1986 (on the law of treaties between states
and international organizations or between international organizations). The last one was
held in Rome in 1998, when the Statute of the International Criminal Court was adopted.
Available at: https://legal.un.org/diplomaticconferences/.
59 The above-mentioned bodies have already dealt with issues related to refugees and refugee
law on several occasions.

55

View publication stats