Forced Migration in the OIC Member Countries:
Policy Framework Adopted by Host Countries
15
flight. The broad acceptance of nonrefoulement has been the most comprehensive assurance
of protection for those fleeing danger that does not fall under the 1951 Convention’s five
grounds. Some regional instruments have gone a step further and either expanded on the
definition of refugee protection or created new categories of protected status to cover
circumstances not foreseen by the Convention. The Organization of African Unity (OAU)
Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa stipulates that the
definition of refugee also applies to individuals fleeing external aggression or disturbances of
public order in their country of origin.22 Standards set out by the European Union (EU) for its
Member States, for example, require authorities to offer a form of subsidiary protection, equal
in many respects to refugee protection, for individuals fleeing generalized violence or
torture.23
At the national level, some countries have also expanded the definition of persecution. Uganda,
South Africa, Germany, and Sweden, for example, include protection from persecution on the
basis of gender, and Sweden further expands the definition to cover persecution on grounds of
sexual orientation. Under Swedish and Finnish asylum law, it is also possible (although hardly
ever granted in practice) to claim international protection, although not refugee status, due to
environmental circumstances in the country of origin. Moreover, even in countries that have
not adopted more expansive legal definitions of protection, the category of "particular social
group" within the Convention definition has been interpreted increasingly broadly to
encompass other drivers. In the United States, for example, a debate is ongoing on whether
gender can define a particular social group.24
The requirement for a refugee to be “outside the country of his nationality” means that
individuals displaced within their own countries (IDPs) are similarly not protected under the
1951 Convention. As they have remained within the country of their nationality, IDPs are
technically under the care and protection of their national government and thus not in need of
international protection.25 The obligations of the international community in situations where
governments fail to protect their populations or indeed persecute them have, however, been a
subject of debate.26 International law grants IDPs the basic human rights afforded to all
individuals, and UNHCR's Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement set out the relevant
22 UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), “OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in
Africa,” Assembly of Heads of State and Government at its Sixth Ordinary Session, September 10, 1969,
23 Council of the European Union, “Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the
qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need
international protection and the content of the protection granted.” September 30, 2004, EUR-Lex, L 304/12
24 United States Board of Immigration Appeals, Matter of Acosta In Deportation Proceedings A-24159781, Interim Decision
#2986, March 1, 1985
25 The UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement state that "National authorities have the primary duty and
responsibility to provide protection and humanitarian assistance to internally displaced persons within their jurisdiction"
and that "Internally displaced persons have the right to request and to receive protection and humanitarian assistance from
these authorities." Principle 3, United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), Guiding Principles
on Internal Displacement, 2nd Edition (New York: United Nations, 2004),
26 The UN General Assembly, for example, has debated the relevance of a principle known as Responsibility to Protect (R2P),
introduced at the 2005 World Summit. R2P affirms that every state “has the responsibility to protect its populations from
genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.” In situations where states fail to provide this
protection, R2P commits the international community to take action via the UN to intervene to provide this protection.
United Nations General Assembly, Implementing the responsibility to protect: Report of the Secretary-General (A/63/677,
January 12, 2009), States have, however, been
reluctant to adopt R2P, and the 2011 NATO intervention in Libya remains the only example of its use.