Advancing refugee participation 75 years after the 1951 Refugee Convention

One of the most striking gaps when examining the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (Refugee Convention) 75 years after its adoption is the absence of any explicit commitment in its provisions requiring States to consult with refugees in decisions that affect them.1 The Convention continues to serve an important role in setting out an internationally agreed definition of a refugee and in outlining State obligations with respect to non-refoulement, non-discrimination, among other measures. But for all its detailed regulation of how refugees must be treated under international law, the Convention is entirely silent on whether, and how, refugees should participate in the design and implementation of those same responses. With the passage of time, the Refugee Convention now stands in contrast to more contemporary approaches in human rights instruments, which increasingly see participatory decision-making with rights holders as ‘a core human rights principle’2 and ‘a fundamental human right that should be realized for its own sake’.3 It also stands in contrast to other, more recent international law treaties directed towards rights holders whom, like refugees, face structural barriers to their participation on equal terms with others. For instance, article 4(3) of the 2006 Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities provides that states ‘shall closely consult with and actively involve persons with disabilities’ in any decision-making process that concerns them ‘through their representative organizations’.4 Likewise, article 12 of the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child requires States parties to provide children who are capable of forming their own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting them, taking into account their age and maturity.5 In contemporary policy discussions, the question of how to meaningfully include the participation of refugees in decisions that affect them is a high priority issue. For instance, in his first briefing to United Nations Member States in February 2026 as United Nations High Commissioner of Refugees, Barham Salih stressed the need for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to increasingly shift decision-making closer to affected communities and noted that ‘[m]eaningful refugee participation must be structural, not symbolic’.6 Likewise, Nour Jarrouj, when delivering the Global Refugee Statement at the United Nations Global Refugee Forum Progress Review in December 2025, emphasized that ‘[e]xcluding refugees from policy design undermines the effectiveness of the entire system’ and that ‘[i]f we want better and more effective outcomes, refugees must be partners, not afterthoughts’.7 Prior to these calls, 181 United Nations Member States took a promising step towards recognizing and addressing this democratic deficit in the Refugee Convention by affirming the Global Compact on Refugees in December 2018. Most notably, paragraph 34 states that ‘[r]esponses are most effective when they actively and meaningfully engage those they are intended to protect and assist’.8 It further indicates that ‘[r]elevant actors will, wherever possible, continue to develop and support consultative processes that enable refugees and host community members to assist in designing appropriate, accessible and inclusive responses’.9 However, beyond this, the Compact provides very little guidance as to how the meaningful participation of refugees should be pursued. This commentary argues that there is need to more thoroughly interrogate how international refugee and human rights law does and can further serve as the structural basis for advancing meaningful refugee participation in decision-making processes. This commentary begins by examining the gaps in the Refugee Convention from the perspective of refugees’ participatory rights. Drawing on insights from the drafting history of the Refugee Convention and materials held at the Archives of the UNHCR in Geneva, this section shows how the Refugee Convention failed to meet the expectations and wishes of many people with lived experience of displacement at that time. The commentary then proceeds to discuss subsequent developments in international human rights law, the gaps and inconsistencies that remain in the international legal framework and what further reform is needed to ensure that refugees have an explicit right to participate in all decisions that affect them. A contemporary reading of the 1951 Refugee Convention uncovers several shortcomings with respect to the participation of refugees in decisions that affect them. From the standpoint of 2026–where one has the benefit to observe the development of participatory rights under international human rights law–the Refugee Convention can be seen as falling short in at least three respects: it fails to establish procedures or requirements for States to consult with refugees; it does not sufficiently address the interconnected civil and political rights of refugees in countries of asylum; and it does not establish an effective accountability framework for affected communities. Within the Refugee Convention, there is no mention of refugees’ rights to freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, or freedom of political opinion. Moreover, aside from the provision that Contracting States ‘shall as far as possible facilitate the assimilation and naturalization of refugees’, there is also no mention in the Convention of the importance of refugees’ political membership and access to the electoral franchise in host communities.10 Oversight of the Convention is likewise left solely to UNHCR and States, rather than involving refugees themselves as those most directly impacted by the instrument.11 It is clear from the drafting history of the Refugee Convention that, while many participants in the drafting process had lived experience of displacement themselves,12 State delegates deliberately chose not to address the political rights and activities of refugees in the Convention other than recognizing that political opinion can be a ground for persecution under the definition of a refugee. The preamble of the Refugee Convention, for example, focuses on ‘the social and humanitarian nature of the problem of refugees’, rather than its political dimensions. Likewise, article 15 on the right to association only covers ‘non-political and non-profit-making associations and trade unions’ (own emphasis). The travaux préparatoires reveal that some State delegates were concerned about refugees being granted rights to engage in the politics of the host State, especially given the potential they would be serving ‘the interests of some other country’.13 This anxiety was particularly acute in the emerging Cold War context of the time. Some participants with lived experience of displacement also held the view that ‘refugee work more than anything else should be free from political considerations’.14 Behind the scenes, letters retained at the UNHCR archives in Geneva–uncovered here for the first time–reveal that other refugee-led networks and refugee representatives were both aware and actively critical of the Convention’s silence with respect to their political rights and the ways in which the Convention required them to categorize themselves as fearful objects of protection.15 For example, after the release of the second draft treaty, the Representatives of the National Committees of Displaced Persons and Refugees in Germany wrote to the Director General of the International Refugee Organisation (IRO) in May 1950 to emphasize the importance of ensuring ‘a full compensation for the lack of the civic protection [refugees] are entitled to…’. While noting that they appreciated ‘the difficulties of achieving a Draft Convention which should be acceptable for the greatest possible number of States’, they advocated that the United Nations ‘can not sacrify (sic) to the arbitrariness of a State the most important civic interests of an unfortunate group of people…’.16 As concrete suggestions for amendment, the Representatives suggested that refugees should be given the same treatment as ‘indigenous citizens’ with respect to access to rights.17 This was necessary in their view to ensure accordance with the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and to avoid discriminatory treatment in host States.18 More directly on the subject of representation, they argued that ‘the interests of the Refugees should not be represented only by an appropriate official institution of the UN’ and that it is: indispensable, as (well as) being in the interest of all international and national institutions, services and offices dealing with questions and problems of Refugees that Refugees also be enabled to represent their own interests through their own trusted representatives.19 In making this point, the Representatives highlighted that the 1933 Convention relating to the International Status of Refugees already included provisions for the creation of Committees for Refugees under its article 15 and that the absence of a similar article in the 1951 Refugee Convention would ‘neglect the democratic principle of a representation of the interested people’.20 Of a different tone, the Federation of Polish War Refugees and the World League Poles Abroad wrote to the IRO, in both June and October 1950, to highlight how the concept of ‘well-founded fear’ introduced in the Draft Convention definition of a refugee created a single affective lens through which refugee status would be viewed and would create problems in both understanding and implementation. They noted that: the exaggerated importance given to the motive of ‘fear’ as the almost exclusively valid reason for seeking refuge abroad not only misrepresents the attitude of the refugees, but may also prejudice their claim to protection and freedom from compulsion. There are people who cannot bear to live under a totalitarian regime, do not wish their children to be brought up and educated under such conditions and feel compelled to refuse to avail themselves of the protection of the authorities of an imposed totalitarian regime either at home or abroad.21 To address this issue, the Federation suggested that ‘the mere fact that a person residing abroad is unable or unwilling to avail himself of the protection of the country of his nationality as a result of political events should be considered sufficient to qualify him as a refugee’.22 This intervention is particularly salient with the passage of time given the ways individuals and communities with lived experience of displacement have often had to challenge systemic assumptions about their emotional state, including views that they are inherently vulnerable, passive and speechless, in order to advocate for their inclusion in decision-making processes.23 Although it was not possible to locate responses to these letters in the archival records, it is clear from the Convention text adopted on 28 July 1951 that these suggestions from refugee-led networks and representatives were never implemented. The definition of a refugee found in the final text retains its focus on a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’.24 Articles 35 and 38 collectively leave oversight of the Convention to UNHCR and States rather than to refugees. There is also no equivalent provision within the Convention to article 15 of the 1933 Refugee Convention, which outlined formal mechanisms for the creation of national committees for refugees. Beyond this, the individualized definition of a refugee adopted in article 1A(2) of the Refugee Convention, which had the positive effect of ensuring that access to international protection was no longer legally contingent on belonging to a particular group or nationality, likely contributed to the derecognition of refugee groups and communities as collective rights holders under international law.25 This is because the Refugee Convention affirmed both individual rights and the sovereignty of the host State, but it did not consider in detail the rich diversity of intermediate forms of associations among refugee communities or recognize any rights held by such groups beyond those reducible to individual liberties.26 Notwithstanding these limitations, the Refugee Convention is not simply a relic of the past nor is its application fixed in time. One of its most redeeming features is its adaptability, in the way that it evolves in accordance with the rules of treaty interpretation and through its interaction with other international human rights law developments. While the drafters of the Refugee Convention could have more effectively addressed the participatory rights of refugees at the time of its development, it was equally never intended that the Convention would address all aspects of the refugee issue.27 The drafters always envisaged that the Convention would likely be supplemented by other international human rights law agreements which could reinforce and enlarge the rights and protections of refugees over time. This approach is highlighted in the preamble to the Refugee Convention, which refers to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the endeavour ‘to assure refugees the widest possible exercise of these fundamental rights and freedoms’. It is also addressed explicitly in article 5 of the Convention, which advises that ‘[n]othing in this Convention shall be deemed to impair any rights and benefits granted by a Contracting State to refugees apart from this Convention’. As James Hathaway has observed, this article of interpretation ‘ensures that refugee rights are not seen as limited to those set by the refugee treaty itself, but rather makes clear that refugees are entitled to the benefit of more general human rights principles’.28 Further, where there is tension or conflict between these standards, the Convention requires that refugees should benefit from the higher standard of protection.29 Through subsequent developments in international human rights law, refugees’ rights to participate in decisions that affect them have been enlarged in three specific ways beyond the Refugee Convention. First, refugees can now assert a range of interconnected civil and political rights which apply to all persons regardless of their citizenship or migratory status.30 These rights, which were most clearly developed under the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, include the rights to privacy, freedom of opinion, expression, association, and peaceful assembly. While subject to some permissible limitations,31 these rights play critical roles in enabling refugees to meaningfully and safely participate in decision-making processes that affect them. Second, refugees can assert a right to participate in an increasing number of specific domestic decision-making areas. For instance, the United Nations Committee on Economic, Cultural and Social Rights has considered that core obligations arising out of the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights include participatory and transparent processes related to the design of national public health strategies,32 national employment strategies,33 the use of cultural resources relating to minority groups,34 and sexual and reproductive health strategies.35 These strategies are not limited to citizens and are often intended to target disadvantaged and marginalized individuals and groups.36 While refugees and others experiencing displacement or statelessness are not referred to explicitly in these General Comments, they should be interpreted as falling within the remit of these obligations. Third, certain groups of refugees can also assert rights to participate by virtue of their intersectional identities and integration in other rights regimes. These include the binding international law treaties addressing the rights of children and persons with disabilities. For instance, all refugee children who are capable of forming their own views have the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting them under the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child.37 Similarly, all refugees with disabilities have a right to be closely consulted in the development of legislation and policies related to the implementation of rights under the 2006 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.38 Participatory rights are also included in the legal frameworks covering the rights of human rights defenders,39 Indigenous Peoples,40 peasants and other people working in rural areas,41 and individuals exercising their right to development.42 Each of these regimes entrench participatory rights to varying degrees and highlight how participation is increasingly seen as a precondition for ensuring the and of rights holders under international human rights years on from the adoption of the Refugee Convention, international human rights law has the of refugees’ rights to participate in decisions that affect them. However, the international framework refugee participation and Further, while refugees now rights to participate in a number of decision-making under international human rights law, there are equally other decision-making that have to be These include the design and implementation of for refugees, or the of refugees to other countries for among other important areas. As a to address and these gaps and inconsistencies in the legal a working group of and in with and the Declaration on the of Persons with of or to in in December This Declaration the of over from the including many with lived experience of displacement and and to international human rights law and the international refugee regime by an express right to participate in decisions that affect them for persons with experience of displacement or The Declaration also covers interconnected rights which to ensure that participation is meaningful in the of this Declaration is article which explicitly that persons with experience of displacement or statelessness have the right to participate in all decisions that directly or affect their protection and human This article covers not only refugees and but also and other persons with experience of This is by article which a on States and other decision-making authorities to this right to participate and The interconnected in with human rights standards, such as access to and participation and and accountability mechanisms These are particularly important given how refugee participation can remain in not by in and While the Declaration is not a international law developed and by Member States, it is envisaged that it can serve as a that international and stands its own right as a of legal and policy over The aspects of the Declaration which already with human rights to and reinforce the application of these when refugee participation in decision-making processes. This for example, the right to and all which is considered a fundamental of the right to freedom of under article of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Further, the aspects of the Declaration which are to as a potential for the development of a international binding or legal The fact that and communities themselves the development of this Declaration to its and an approach to the Declaration is for by all decision-making authorities in responses to displacement and This States at of State as as international and civil refugee-led and institutions, and any other actors for decisions relating to persons with experience of displacement or The to in the indicates that it is not to be by any particular it is intended to be by all who in its development, as as those who over time is also to to its Beyond this, the development of other international could also the meaningful participation of refugees in decision-making processes. In the this for example, the of a United Nations Declaration on or a UNHCR Committee on International that focuses on Although for Member States, both of these approaches could detail and how States should include refugees in decision-making processes and to law developments over time. These could also binding on international such as There could also be further to the participatory rights of other rights holders and human rights which could the participation of refugees in decision-making processes. For instance, in 2026 the on and other or treatment or to the Human Rights a of Rights of and of and or or Within this article ‘a right to participate and to for and of and other or treatment or The of this right several with the approach outlined in the the the implementation of the Refugee Convention on a range of the Refugee Convention for at this time would be and would likely protections for refugees rather than them. In the such as the Declaration a for that can on advancing meaningful refugee participation and for States and other decision-making authorities that need to be considered in There have been in recent years towards meaningfully including refugees in decision-making processes that affect them, through and of refugee-led the creation of refugee at of or the of refugee-led representative However, these have in the absence of a clear and international legal framework outlining how refugees should participate in decisions that them. The Refugee Convention, with other international law relating to refugees and human rights, are not simply They are also that are lived by many people the of the of this article have had their by the of the Refugee Convention and the participatory As a seeking by in the of a and legal including being subject to and the of These failed to respect what was in interests as a and impacted to out on matters that affected at that time. in a different was into displacement in and has now been seeking in for over years any to his UNHCR has his claim for refugee but unable to his rights in a country that is not a State to the Refugee Convention, and has not had an to In order to respect the human and of all refugees, it is important that refugees have a right to participate in all decisions that affect their human rights and While responses to displacement always be in the between refugees and others that over them, international refugee and human rights law can play an important role in a approach to protection that the participation of rights It can also State ways of the and domestic These not all aspects of the refugee but they would the refugee regime for the The the support of the which enabled the archival in this