Forced Migration in the OIC Member Countries:
Policy Framework Adopted by Host Countries
11
food or medical care. In addition, the expense of such journeys may leave many migrants
trapped for indefinite periods in transit countries without sufficient money to continue their
journey or return home. Migrants may also feel compelled to continue their journeys to avoid
losing the high investments of personal and financial capital they have made--or to pay off
debt to smugglers--even after they desire to return home.9 Finally, as of 2015, over half of
refugees globally were children for whom the dangers of such journeys are magnified.
Children in displacement often lack the opportunity to attend school or receive needed
pediatric medical care, disadvantages that compound the longer they are in situations of
displacement. Many forced migrant children also travel alone and are at extremely high risk of
exploitation and abuse. Whether for children or adults, the protection needs motivating forced
migrants are thus highly complex and do not necessarily stem from the original circumstances
of their displacement alone.
1.2. The Basics of International Protection: The Refugee Convention and
Nonrefoulement
While forced migration is not a modern phenomenon, the concept of forced migration as
something to be managed and addressed according to international standards and basic rights
is a relatively recent development. The international frameworks that currently govern
responses to forced migration emerged in the aftermath of the Second World War to resolve
the situation of the more than 65 million people it left displaced in Europe alone. In 1951, an
international conference adopted the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees with
the intention to provide a legal framework to address the situation of people who remained
displaced after World War II.10 The 1951 Convention for the first time set out an individual
definition of refugee status, rather than a collective definition based on nationality, and
stipulated the rights attached to this status. Later, the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of
Refugees expanded the scope of the Convention to include events after 1951 and outside of
Europe.11
Together, the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol have become the centerpiece of
international refugee law and have informed the development of most national asylum
legislation. The Convention and Protocol are among the most widely adopted instruments of
international law: 148 states are parties to one or both instruments.12 Countries on every
continent and in every region of the world are parties to the Convention, although relatively
fewer states in Southeast Asia and the Middle East are signatories.
9 For example, see Michael Collyer, “Stranded Migrants and the Fragmented Journey,” Journal of Refugee Studies 23, no. 3
(2010): 273-291.
10 The 1951 Convention applied only to individuals who had been displaced “as a result of events occurring before January
1951” (Article 1). Moreover, signatories were allowed to limit the Convention’s scope to only those displaced due to events
in Europe.
11 However, not every signatory to the Convention adopted the Protocol without reservation. Turkey, for example, has
maintained a reservation that limits its application of the Convention to refugees displaced from Europe. And Sweden has
maintained reservations on its commitments to provide certain socioeconomic rights and benefits to refugees.
12 UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), States Parties to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and
the 1967 Protocol (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees),