Whose Security? Analyzing Thailand's National Screening Mechanism for Urban Refugees and Asylum Seekers

ABSTRACT This article examines Thailand's 2019 National Screening Mechanism (NSM) for urban refugees and asylum seekers, analyzing its legal principles, implementation challenges, and political implications. Despite not being a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention, Thailand has taken steps to formalize refugee protection through the NSM. However, the mechanism faces significant limitations in adopting a human rights‐based approach. This study employed a qualitative, two‐pronged approach that combined documentary analysis and expert interviews. The NSM's establishment reflects Thailand's attempt to manage “alien” populations while balancing international obligations. Yet, practical challenges persist, including insufficient rights and protections. The article argues that although the NSM represents a significant institutional change by creating an official process for identifying “Protected Persons,” it remains deeply rooted in a securitized and exclusionary framework that prioritizes national and regional political interests over comprehensive humanitarian protection. This study contributes to the ongoing discussion on securitization and refugee protection in non‐signatory contexts, highlighting the enduring impact of legal and bureaucratic tools in justifying exclusion, perpetuating vulnerability, and limiting the implementation of international protection standards. Related Articles Iwuoha, V. C. 2025. “European Biometric Borders and (Im)Mobilities in West Africa: Reflections on Migrant Strategies for Border Circumvention and Subversion.” Politics & Policy 53, no. 1: e12653. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12653 . Obinna, D. N. 2023. “Title 42 and the Power to Exclude: Asylum Seekers and the Denial of Entry into the United States.” Politics & Policy 51, no. 4: 508–523. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12542 . Chao, C. A., and Myers, N. 2018. “State Biotechnology and Genomic Development: Critical Resources and Barriers.” Politics & Policy 46, no. 6: 985–1016. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12279 .