Forced Migration in the OIC Member Countries:
Policy Framework Adopted by Host Countries
29
2.2.2. Protection frameworks in the Middle East
Middle Eastern countries have largely taken an ad hoc approach to offering protection for
refugees and asylum seekers. Most countries in the region have not ratified the 1951
Convention or created national asylum regimes, and regional cooperation is low. Instead,
countries have crafted responses to humanitarian crises as they arise. While the principle of
nonrefoulement has been respected for the most part, this lack of coordination represents
other challenges in practice.
Limited ratification of the 1951 Convention
National asylum frameworks and implementation of international norms on refugees remain
limited in the Middle East. Of 12 states in the region (excluding Palestine), only two have
ratified the 1951 Convention: Turkey and Yemen. Furthermore, while Turkey has officially
ratified the 1967 Protocol, it maintained the geographical limitation on the 1951 Convention,
and therefore is only officially obligated to provide asylum to refugees fleeing from Europe.
Other major refugee-hosting and destination countries for forced migration—such as
Lebanon, Jordan and the states of the Gulf Cooperation Council46—have not ratified the 1951
Convention.
Within the region, Oman, Syria, and Iraq have created national asylum regimes. But both Syria
and Iraq seem to lack the capacity to implement such legislation at the moment due to
instability and violence. There is some progress, however, as Turkey is in the process of
implementing its national asylum legislation (see Chapter 3). Other states in the region have
yet to create comprehensive national asylum regimes.
Even in the absence of directly applicable national or international legislation, most countries
have tended to respect certain principles of refugee protection. Eleven of 12 states in the
region have signed the UN Convention against Torture, which maintains the principle of
nonrefoulement in cases of possible torture.47 Lebanon and Jordan in particular have
historically worked with UNCHR to provide support to a large number of forced migrants from
Palestine, Iraq, and now Syria, despite not ratifying the 1951 Convention.
Other avenues to insure nonrefoulement
Without set national asylum systems, countries in the Middle East have taken varied
approaches to preventing refoulement and offering protection to refugees. The response to
the current Syrian refugee crisis has been defined by a number of ad hoc and bilateral
measures, often reflecting the host country's particular interests and history. For example,
Lebanon initially gave Syrians visa-free access to the country and free temporary residence
permits under a 1994 bilateral agreement.48 Similarly, Jordan allowed Syrians to enter
without a visa, although it never fully clarified its border policy.49 Both of these policies have,
however, eroded under the pressure of massive migration flows. Lebanon suspended its open
the ECRE-MPI roundtable, Brussels, September 2015); Jeremy Loveless, “Crisis in Lebanon: camps for Syrian refugees?,”
Forced Migration Review no. 43 (May 2013): 66-68
46 The GCC is composed of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
47 The one Middle Eastern country that has not ratified the Convention Against Torture is Oman. Palestine has also not
signed the Convention Against Torture.
48 Bidinger et al., Protecting Syrian Refugees: Laws, Policies, and Global Responsibility Sharing, (Boston: Boston University
School of law, 2015), 38
49 Nicholas Seeley, “Jordan’s ‘open door’ policy for Syrian refugees,” Foreign Policy, updated March 1, 2012,