Forced Migration in the OIC Member Countries:
Policy Framework Adopted by Host Countries
17
Implementation of the 1951 Convention relies inherently, however, on the actions of states
and the commitment of governments to uphold its principles and to implement them in
practice. Although the Convention has been widely adopted, and numerous states have
enshrined some right to claim asylum in their legal codes, fewer countries have actually
developed robust asylum systems at the national level that are able to perform complex
individual adjudications of refugee status. Doing so requires the development of a detailed
legal and regulatory framework to recognize the grounds for protection and to provide for the
manner in which adjudications will be conducted (e.g. who will be responsible for taking
asylum claims, who will adjudicate them), the supports afforded to applicants (e.g. access to
interpretation and legal counsel), and the legal status and residency rights that successful
claimants will be granted (e.g. what type of residency permit will be granted). For many
countries, including Convention signatories such as Morocco and Turkey, UNHCR maintains an
integral role in assessing claims and granting refugee status and documentation.31
Just as important, legal frameworks to govern the access of refugees to basic services and
rights are often lacking, or countries have undertaken explicit limits on the ability of refugees
to work, own property, or move freely within the country of asylum—although these
commitments are also enshrined in the 1951 Convention. Refugees are thus often dependent
on parallel systems run by the UN and international non-governmental organizations (see the
situation of Somali refugees in Kenya, for example), which are subject to the generosity of
international donors. This leaves refugees in a situation where they are safe from harm at a
very basic level, but without the means to resume their lives—and puts them at increased risk
of poverty and marginalization, which may be transmitted over generations as refugees
remain displaced.
Perhaps even more problematic is the situation of non-Convention forced migrants, for whom
international law does not afford any special guarantees of rights beyond those that apply to
all persons under international human rights law. For those who are beneficiaries of a non-
refugee form of protection, the rights and benefits afforded may not extend beyond minimal
nonrefoulement.
1.3.2. Practical capacity to provide protection
The challenge for many states is not necessarily a lack of will to provide protection to those in
need, although this can be an issue particularly in situations colored by complex domestic or
international politics. The widespread acceptance of nonrefoulement as an element of
international customary law, and the general respect accorded to the principle even by states
who have not signed the Convention, signals a broad openness, at least in principle, among
most countries to assisting at least some categories of displaced people. Thailand, for example,
has been a generous host to refugees from Myanmar for decades, and both Jordan and
Lebanon have taken in hundreds of thousands of refugees from Syria and Iraq even though
they are not Convention signatories. For many states, the real challenge to implementing a
robust protection regime is capacity.
Establishing a system to process and adjudicate refugee claims requires a functioning
governance structure with recognized authority, a standard few countries are able to meet.
Many countries of asylum are facing their own governance challenges and lack the
administrative capacity to keep up with their own citizens' documentation needs. Moreover,
31 Efforts are, however, ongoing in Turkey to move the RSD function from UNHCR to the Directorate General for Migration
Management in the Ministry of the Interior (see chapter 3), and in Morocco, the new migration and asylum strategy foresees
the Office for Refugees and Stateless Persons (BRA) conducting all RSDs.