Connect with us

International Law

Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict In The Caucasus: What Documents Say?

Published

on

nagorno karabakh
source: rferl.org

The last decade of the USSR has been engraved in the memories by the freedom marches in the republics. At the end of the 1980s, when many countries began to leave the USSR and establish their independence, the Armenia SSR government raised the issue of the annexation of Nagorno-Karabakh from Azerbaijan SSR to Armenia SSR in 1988.

Background of the conflict

At the February 20, 1988 session of the NKAO (Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast) Soviet of People’s Deputies, members of the region’s Armenian community adopted a resolution to appeal to the Supreme Soviets of Azerbaijan SSR and Armenian SSR to annex NKAO to Armenian SSR. Followingly, on February 22, 1988, the Armenians opened fire on a peaceful demonstration staged by the Azerbaijanisnear the town of Asgaran,who protested against the decision of the Soviet of People’s Deputies of NKAO. This incident was the beginning of the conflict either in military level. On December 1, 1989, the Supreme Soviet of Armenian SSR adopted an unprecedented resolution “On the unification of Armenian SSR and Nagorno-Karabakh”.On January 10, 1990, the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet adopted a resolution “On the nonconformity with the USSR Constitution of the acts on Nagorno-Karabakh adopted by Armenian SSR Supreme Soviet on December 1, 1989, and January 9, 1990”. The resolution described as illegal Armenian SSR’s act on the unification of Armenian SSR and Nagorno-Karabakh without Azerbaijan SSR’s consent.

On August 30, 1991, the Supreme Soviet of Azerbaijan declared the restoration of state independence. After announcingthe Constitutional Act “On the State Independence of the Republic of Azerbaijan”, the Supreme Soviet of the Republic of Azerbaijan adopted the Law ‘On the abolition of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast of the Republic of Azerbaijan”. As a result, Armenians began massacres and terrorist activities against Azerbaijanis.In the late 1991-early 1992, the conflict entered its military stage. Having exploited the collapse of the Soviet Union and political instability in Azerbaijan caused by the internal standoff, Armenia began military operations in Nagorno-Karabakh with external military support.

On September 24, 1991, the Armenian military, with the support of the 366th Regiment, attacked the villages of Imarat and Garvand in the Aghdara region, killing Azerbaijanis with special cruelty and expelling the people from their homes. The most considerable armed violence and genocide by Armenians against Azerbaijanis took place with the Khojaly events. In late 1991, Khojaly was blocked by Armenians. Armenians closed all roads, destroyed communication lines and cut off the power supply—the people living here communicated with other cities by helicopter telephones. However, in the same year, after the shooting down of the Mi-8 helicopter, the number of helicopters arriving here also decreased. All weapons were confiscated from the people, and the gendarmerie forces operating in Khojaly were disbanded. A few people had only a total of 50-60 weapons left. On the night of February 25-26, 1992, Armenian forces attacked Khojaly and, with the support of the 366th Russian Regiment, destroyed the city of Khojaly.

After that, the Azerbaijani-Armenian Nagorno-Karabakh conflict escalated, and Armenian forces occupied Nagorno-Karabakh and seven surrounding regions until 1994, killing Azerbaijanis and expelling them from their homes. At that time, Iran, which was trying to meditate, did not react severely to the occupation of Azerbaijani lands by Armenia. As a result, a ceasefire was reached only after Armenia occupied 20% of Azerbaijani territories.

International response to the conflict

The UN has adopted four resolutions (822, 853, 874, 884) on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, and its terms have not yet been fulfilled. In the recent debates, Nicol Pashinyan stated that the conflict is happening between the so-called Nagorno Karabakh Republic and the Republic of Azerbaijan. However, these four resolutions explain the real situation and declare that the dispute is not happening in Nagorno Karabakh; this is the international conflict caused by Armenia. Firstly, in all resolutions, Nagorno Karabakh is considered the territory of the Azerbaijan Republic. Secondly, all four resolutions start with the deterioration of relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and then the escalation of armed conflict. The Security Council provides a good understanding of who is involved in the conflict by stressing the sovereignty, territorial integrity and inviolability of international borders of all states in the region. Such texts are not written in the context of internal conflicts. Moreover, the Security Council emphasized that there is a threat to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and international borders of Azerbaijan.

The UNSC adopted resolution 822 on April 30, 1993, after the occupation of Kelbadjar district of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Firstly, the document states the following phrase:

“Noting with alarm the escalation in armed hostilities and in particular, the latest invasion of the Kelbadjar district of the Republic of Azerbaijan by local Armenian forces”.

“Local Armenians” phrase is indicated only in the resolution 822, apart from it, neither resolution states the term as an involved party of the conflict. However, this term does not clearly state the parties of the conflict. It is unknown which local Armenians invaded Kelbadjar district due to uncertainty. In this resolution, the UN clearly says that battle is not happening only between local Armenians living in Nagorno Karabakh and the Republic of Azerbaijan. Secondly, the resolution emphasizes the term “in particular, the latest invasion of the Kelbadjar district”, which means that there are many other districts occupied by the invasion forces and UN is concerned about the conflict by seeing it as a severe threat to security in the region, which was going on for a long time. The second phrase ultimately shows that other forces joined to the conflict:

“Demands the immediate cessation of all hostilities and hostile acts with a view to establishing a durable ceasefire, as well as immediate withdrawal of all occupying forces from the Kelbadjar district and other recently occupied areas of Azerbaijan”.

The word “invasion” used in the first line is replaced by “occupation” and “occupying forces” in the second line. The meaning of the wording “occupation” in international law is obvious – occupation can only be the result of interstate conflict. With this phrase, the UN indirectly conveys the presence of Armenian forces in Kelbadjar and other occupied regions.

These phrases were reflected in subsequent resolutions as well. Thus, the Security Council has tried to show that the war in Nagorno-Karabakh is not a result of, in fact, an internal conflict. Indirectly, the Security Council attempted to deliver that the lands belonging to Azerbaijan are occupied by Armenia. These phrases can be clearly seen in the following resolutions:

Resolution 853,

“Noting with alarm the escalation in armed hostilities, in particular, the seizure or the district of Aghdam in the Azerbaijani Republic,

  1. Condemns the seizure of the district of Aghdam and of all other recently occupied areas of the Azerbaijani Republic;

Resolution 874,

“Calls for the immediate implementation of the reciprocal and urgent steps provided for in the CSCE Minsk Group’s “adjusted timetable”, including the withdrawal of forces from recently occupied territories and the removal of all obstacles to communications and transportation.”

Resolution 884,

“Noting with alarm the escalation in armed hostilities as a consequence of the violations of the ceasefire and excesses in the use of force in response to those violations, in particular, the occupation of the Zangelan district and thecity of Goradiz in the Azerbaijani Republic and the withdrawal of occupying forces from other recently occupied areas of the Azerbaijani Republic…”

It can be questioned that why the Security Council didn’t mention that the conflict happened between Armenia and Azerbaijan? What is the reason for not calling Armenia as an occupier? If the Security Council would recognize Armenia as an occupier, then new obligations would arise for the Security Council. In the meantime, Armenia had to be called as an aggressor and the resolutions adopted should have been demanded unconditionally. Due to several reasons, the Security Council did not do this but instead stressed who is responsible in this conflict.

For instance, in 1991, during the Yugoslavian War, the Security Council adopted a resolution by stating “Wars in Yugoslavia” and “parties in Yugoslavia” to deliver this matter to the community as an internal conflict. However, all four resolutions about Nagorno-Karabakh conflict don’t include any wording mentioned above. Besides, conflict was emphasized as a threat to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and international borders of Azerbaijan.

During the conflict, the OSCE Minsk Group was formed, and the parties were brought to the negotiating table to resolve the conflict. Russia, which has been involved in resolving the conflict, initially sought to bring Russian forces to the region as peacekeepers. However, in December 1994, at a summit of OSCE participating States in Budapest, Member States decided to bring OSCE peacekeeping forces to the Nagorno-Karabakh region. These forces could be composed of the military forces of neutral states.

In December 1996, at the summit of the OSCE Member States in Lisbon, all Member States, except Armenia, recognized the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan in connection with the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The signed documents concluded that Nagorno-Karabakh conflict had to be resolved within the framework of Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity. Also, all proposals by the OSCE Minsk Group to solve the conflict first referred to the UN Security Council’s resolutions, then put forward their proposals for resolving the conflict. On the other hand, the OSCE Minsk Group prepared three plans to solve the conflict. However, the parties did not agree with these proposals due to several reasons. In November 2007, OSCE Minsk Group adopted final Madrid Document concerning resolving the conflict.

Conclusion

When analyzing the diplomatic processes in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, it is evident that Armenia does not recognize Nagorno-Karabakh as a separate state or institution. According to several documents, the conflict has acquired an international character and must be resolved within the framework of international law, and the borders of Azerbaijan. Despite all the accepted and approved international documents, the Armenian leadership wants Nagorno-Karabakh to be recognized as an independent entity because, in this way, it will be easier to control the territory in favor of Armenia. Moreover, the issue that was often raised at the meetings of the OSCE Minsk Group was related to the referendum, especially about self-determination. The deportation of Azerbaijanis living in Nagorno-Karabakh during the Soviet era had a serious impact on the ethnic composition of the population. Today, the Armenian diplomatic corps demands the status quo, taking into account only the ratio of 1988.However, this contradicts both international law and the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan, and as a result, the right to self-determination cannot be extended to the Nagorno-Karabakh region. In addition, in 1996 Armenia did not recognize international borders of Azerbaijan. It creates a condition for Armenia to start any conflict in anywhere in the borders, as happened in 2020 July.

Today, not only the Nagorno-Karabakh region but surrounding territories also are extremely militarized. Clashes in the region are a serious threat to the security of the peoples who are living there closely. Armenians authorities’ non-compliance with international law also creates conditions for the proliferation of terrorist groups in the region. The settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict under international law will ensure the security of the region and the effectiveness of economic and humanitarian assistance.

Considering the slowdown in peace talks in Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, the failure of the OSCE Minsk Group, the unfair treatment of the Western media on Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, repeatedly nurturing Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity with an unreasonable attitude by Armenia, makes the region more unstable and increases border clashes and as in the past, the region will not lead to multi-directional change.

Mr. Aliyar Azimov is Senior Specialist in the Institute of Caucasus Studies at Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences. He is an honored graduate student of Pécs University. He got his Bachelor degree at Baku State University from International Relations and Economics programme. His main research fields concern on energy politics and security, international security and foreign policy issues, peace and conflictology, political economy, and internal/external affairs of South Caucasus. He is successful participator of Essay Contest, titled Russia’s actions against the Southern Gas Corridor and potential impacts in this direction, held by UNEC Research Foundation. He was honored as the best student of year in 2013 at Baku State University. Mr. Aliyar worked as a program manager at Hungarian NGO – Subjective Values Foundation. Currently, he is also External Relations Manager at Technote, which is the biggest tech media company in Azerbaijan.

Continue Reading
Comments

International Law

International Criminal Court and thousands of ignored complaints

Published

on

©ICC-CPI

The civil war in Donbass has been going on for more than seven years now. It broke out in 2014, following Kiev’s decision to launch a military operation against the local militia in Donbass, who did not accept the Maidan coup that had happened in February of that same year. More than 10,000 civilians were killed in the conflict.

Correspondents of the French newspaper L’Humanité Vadim Kamenka and Jean-Baptiste Malet, French historian Vincent Boulet, as well as a MEP and a member of the Spanish Communist Party Willie Meyer took part in the international conference “Topical Issues of Human Rights Violations in Donbass.”

Moderating the conference, organized by the Society of Friends of L’Humanité in Russia (the French leftist newspaper’s Russian office), was the head of the interregional public organization “For Democracy and Human Rights” Maxim Vilkov.

The conference was also attended by the deputy foreign minister of the Lugansk People’s Republic Anna Soroka, human rights activist Yelena Shishkina, director of the Society of Friends of L’Humanité Olesya Orlenko, and head of Donetsk National University’s department of political science Artyom Bobrovsky.

The participants discussed numerous cases of human rights violations by the Ukrainian security forces and paramilitary units in the course of the civil war in Donbass. The left-minded European participants paid special attention to the fact that none of the 6,000 complaints about the actions of Ukrainian security officials and nationalists had actually been taken up by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

Small wonder too, since the atrocities committed in Donbass immediately bring to mind the Spanish Civil War of the 1930s when leftwing antifascists from across the world fought supporters of fascists and Nazis. Let’s not forget that even DW (foreign agent) admits that the share of neo-fascists in Kiev’s Azov regiment is very significant.

The participants called upon the ECHR to pay attention to the non-investigation of crimes committed in Donbass.

Human rights activists and public figures from Russia, France and the unrecognized republics of Donbass called on European international human rights organizations to pay attention to the failure to investigate crimes committed during the armed conflict in Ukraine. This is stated in the statement, which was sent to European international organizations after the conference.

The statement also calls attention to obstacles created to prevent citizens from filing applications to investigate crimes, as well as to attempts to ignore pertinent complaints from international bodies.

The latter, according to the authors of the statement, is especially important since “10,650 applications have so far been submitted to the ECHR concerning violations of citizens’ rights during the civil armed conflict in Ukraine. Of these, 8,000 come from Crimea and Donbass, including 7,000 from Donbass alone. Moreover, 6,000 are complaints made against Ukraine proper. However, during the past seven years, not a single complaint pertaining to the conflict in Donbass has been considered.”

Human rights activists called on the ECHR and the International Criminal Court (ICC) “to ensure that the crimes committed in Donbass are investigated in full compliance with the ECHR and ICC charter, as well as to bring pressure to bear on the political leadership of Ukraine to fulfill its obligations to protect the rights of its citizens.”

Continue Reading

International Law

Crime of Ecocide: Greening the International Criminal Law

Published

on

In June 2021, an Independent Expert Panel under the aegis of Stop Ecocide Foundation presented a newly-drafted definition for the crime of ‘ecocide.’ The Panel consisting of 12 international lawyers proposed that the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) should be amended to include ecocide as the fifth international crime along with the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. The inclusion of the crime of ecocide in the Statute will entitle ICC to investigate, prosecute, and try individuals accused of causing grave harm to the environment.

The term ecocide comprises the Greek word ‘oikos,’ meaning house or environment, and ‘cide,’ meaning an act of killing. Premised upon the term ‘genocide,’ ecocide means the significant destruction of the natural environment by human actions. In 1970, it was first used by Arthur Galston, an American biologist, at the Conference on War and National Responsibility in Washington DC. The term was further quoted by the Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme in his opening speech at the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (UNCHE) in Stockholm. Since then, multiple efforts were made to include ecocide within international law. Interestingly, it was adopted as an additional crime in the early drafts of the Rome Statute; however, later, it was dropped due to the lack of an adequate definition. If succeeded this time, it will be a significant victory for the environment since none of the existing international criminal laws secures it as an end-in-itself.

Definition of the crime of ecocide

The Panel has defined the crime of ecocide as, “For the purpose of this Statute, “ecocide” means unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts.

The definition comprises two thresholds that should be fulfilled to constitute a crime of ecocide. Firstly, there should exist a substantial likelihood that the ‘acts’ (including omissions) will cause severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment. In other words, along with the damages causing severe harm to the elements of the environment, such damages must have an impact on a wider geographical location or for an unreasonably longer duration.

It is appreciable that the Panel has widened the scope of the definition by incorporating spatial and temporal dimensions to its meaning. However, they have changed their position adopted in the previous legal instruments to employ a mix of conjunctive and disjunctive formulations in the definition. In addition to its severe nature, such harm could be either widespread or long-term to constitute a crime of ecocide. Thus, any severe and widespread activity, such as chopping down huge rainforests, could be attributed to ecocide. Similarly, any severe activity whose consequences prevail for a longer duration, for example, causing the extinction of a plant or animal species, could also amount to the crime of ecocide.

Instant reading of the first threshold indicates that the ecocide definition might include day-to-day human activities that contribute to greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental damages. It raises a question – Whether humans are environmental criminals? Though, it might be true that most human actions, directly or indirectly, are continuously degrading the ecosystem around us. However, the definition of ecocide is primarily concerned with the large polluters whose irresponsible activities at a massive level are a threat to the environment. Thus, to narrow down the ambit of the definition and identify criminal activities precisely, the Panel added a second threshold, that is, the ‘acts’ causing damage to the environment must be unlawful or wanton.

It means, only when the actions are either prohibited under national or international laws or indicate a reckless disregard for excessive destruction of the environment in achieving social and economic benefits will they amount to the crime of ecocide. The second threshold hints towards an anthropocentric approach of the definition and protects a range of human activities deemed necessary, desirable, and legitimate for human welfare. To determine the lawfulness of the acts, the actions should be seen with their potential social and economic values. The ecocide definition relies upon the principle of sustainable development to balance environmental destruction with human development and prohibits all destructive activities that outweigh their social and economic benefits. It also means that the definition places a ‘limited’ environmental harm outside the scope of the definition, which cannot be avoided for achieving social welfare that includes housing developments or establishing transport links.

The proposed definition is more concerned with the massive instances of environmental damages. It does not consider small ‘necessary’ ecological harms caused by day-to-day human activities. However, it is equally essential these negligible-looking destructive contributions of humans, made in their individual capacity, should not go unnoticed. These small contributions combined with each other also significantly impact the environment in the form of climate change, biodiversity loss, and other hazards. Thus, the reckless human lifestyle is a significant issue and needs to be regulated through some international code of conduct, if not as ecocide.

Undoubtedly, the proposed ecocide definition is a remarkable effort that should be appreciated for multiple reasons. First of all, the release of this definition indicates that the time has come to start penalizing environmental offenders and create deterrence so that such destructive activities can be minimized. It establishes the responsibility and accountability of big corporate houses and political leaders whose regular investments are causing substantial harm to the environment. Moreover, this definition founds its bases upon many core principles and concepts of public international law, international environmental law, international humanitarian law, and international criminal law. For instance, the principle of no transboundary harm, sustainable development, proportionality, and necessity are aptly referred to in the ecocide definition. Moreover, it also provides a sufficiently broad definition of the term ‘environment’ to primarily include any damage committed towards the earth, its biosphere, cryosphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere, and outer space.

Way Forward

Though the ecocide definition is a significant development, it still has to go a long way to be included in the list of international crimes. For this purpose, any of the 123 member states to the Rome Statute can officially submit the definition to the UN Secretary-General. The proposal has to be accepted for further consideration by the majority of the members through voting. Further, the text will be subjected to debates and deliberations and must be passed by a two-thirds majority of the members. Moreover, the member states need to ratify or accept the proposed text. Only after one year of such ratification or acceptance ICC may exercise its jurisdiction over the crimes of ecocide committed afterward. This entire process can take many years or even decades to get completed. It is also possible that the structure of the current definition might change in due course of its acceptance.

Today, it is unclear that whether this definition will succeed in amending the Rome Statute or not, but what can be said with certainty is that this definition will play a crucial role in building awareness and discourse around ecocide among the governments, corporate houses, professionals, and masses across the globe. With the pressing needs of humans and prevailing threats to the environment, it is the right time that the actions of the offenders should be regulated through the prism of international criminal law.

Continue Reading

International Law

Syrian Refugee Crisis: A Critical Analysis Concerning International Law

Published

on

Women and children at the the Turkey-Greece border at Pazarkule. © IOM/Uygar Emrah Özesen

The contemporary refugee law is primarily a product of the 20th century following the Second World War and the subsequent post-war refugee crises. The 1951 Refugee Convention on the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Additional Protocol are the noteworthy legal regimes. Although the definition of Convention 1951 continues to be the dominant definition, the regional treaties on human rights have continuously amended the definition in retort to changing circumstances and crises. The gap in the convention of 1951 is that it does not extensively define how the state parties must decide if a person shall compile with the definition of the refugee. The main objective of the modern refugee regime is that; at national and regional level, the individuals that flee their country due to threat of persecution must be protected under all circumstances.

The Civil War in Syria has lead many Syrians flee their own homeland where millions have fled and many have been internally displaced. Many of these existing refugee groups, if not most, live in desperation implying that refugees’ assistance and protection needs be addressed in host countries. States bear moral and ethical obligation towards ensuring the safety and protection of the individuals fleeing Syria. Western countries have also undermined and jeopardized their international commitment of protecting refugees’ human rights. The Regional Response Plan 2014 of United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is a $4.2 billion aid program for Syria. The plan mainly focuses on the financial assistance of the countries hosting Syrian refugees; where this assistance is certainly important; it does not seem to be an approach more equitable to share responsibility for refugees. The refugee convention and legal framework under International Law may be helpful in dealing with swift management of ongoing Syrian crisis. The study recommends for a larger responsibility to preserve refugees’ human rights and provide long term solutions through international law regimes with proper implementation mechanism.

REFUGEES

Under the International refugee law, Article 1(A)(2) of the 1951 Convention states that

“The term ‘refugee’ applies to any person who is outside the country of his nationality, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, and is consequently unable or unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.”

As it was in the context of European Refugees escaping persecution prior to January 1, 1951, the concept had geographical and chronological constraints. Article (1)2 of the 1967 Protocol on Refugee Status abolished those temporal and geographical constraints.

PRINCIPLE OF NON-REFOULMENT AND FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT UNDER THE 1951 CONVENTION

Non-Refoulement on the whole mean non-return: it is not doable for individuals or foreign nationals to be returned by the host State to the country or place where they could be tormented, tortured or treated inhumanly and degradingly, in addition; where their life, liberty and freedom is threatened. The non-refoulement principle is the fundamental pillar of international law on refugees. It is an inherent component of 1951 Convention as regarded as a Customary International Law applied on every State irrespective of their ratification of the convention.

Article 26 of the Convention of 1951 states that the host States shall allow refugees to choose and move freely where they have taken refuge. Article 28 states that they must be provided with legal documents that would permit them to move freely anywhere wound their country of residence. The Freedom of movement is very important particularly in countries that host huge influx of refugees and have confined them in a particular area or refugee camps and have posed restrictions on their basic rights. The 1951 Convention also protects much other refugee rights for example educational rights, right of employment, justice and property rights.

The rights however are protected under the 1951 Convention and other International Treaties on the rights of refugees and more broadly the Human Rights but the refuges in their host countries are denied of their these basic rights and are often regarded as a national security risks to the state.

BACKGROUND OF THE SYRIAN REFUGEE CRISIS

Syria’s civil war has its origins in colonialism and the Iraqi War. The ethnic tensions and ongoing civil crisis date back to 2000 elections when Bashar Al Assad came in to power and the rising of Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Pro-democracy uprisings erupted in 2011 in response to persecution that were occurring in the Assad’s regime; the uprisings turned into a civil war. Syria by 2012 was entirely engulfed in that civil war and many had died by the end of 2015 by their own government. ISIS was part of the rebel forces, which created an atmosphere of terror. Civilians were subjected to transgressions; public executions and amputations became rampant. Religious minorities were also under great threat. In August 2013, a chemical warfare inflicted on its own people; as a result millions of Syrians were forced to flee their homeland and take hostage in the neighboring countries. Majority of them around 90% fled to Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon (neighboring countries) and around 10% made their way to Europe. While million fled the country, many thousands other are internally displaced and are still under great sufferings. According to a report of UN, approximately 70% of the Syrian population lacks basic necessities i.e., access to safe drinking water, extreme poverty and many children do not even go to school.

RECEIVING COUNTRIES AND THEIR COURSE OF ACTION

Despite their dire situation, Europe is hostile to Syrian refugees. They have put restrictions on their freedom of movement curtailing their rights granted by the international legal regimes and conventions. In Turkey, the refugees are often detained by the authorities and are forced to leave the country.  The Turkish authorities had flagrantly violated international laws; refugees are regarded as a security risk.  The ongoing conflict and instability in Syria have exacerbated the situation, forcing people to flee their homes and seek refuge in neighboring countries.

The existing literature includes number of records of International laws and the rights and obligations on refugees as well the host states but focus has been laid upon the crisis rather than the management of the crisis. In case of Syrian refugees, the existing literature highlights the historical context and ongoing situation of the crisis but has been unable to come to its solution with the help of International laws.

CONCLUSION

The 1951 Refugee Convention states that states should facilitate refugees’ naturalisation and assimilation to the greatest extent possible. States are obliged to provide legal documents to the refugees for the purpose of seeking asylum and obtaining the official status of refugees. The Refugee Convention seeks to require that the refugees must receive same public assistance as that of the nationals of the country and must be provided with financial assistance, property rights, and right of education and employment.  Both the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Additional Protocol are international treaties that mean they are binding on the signatories however the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers are considered to be a part of customary international law that is that the states that have not signed or ratified the conventions must also protect these rights of refugees. In the Syrian refugee crisis, many states have avoided their responsibilities and violated international laws relating to refugees by barring refugees from entering their respective territories and by claiming that the state has no jurisdiction over them by choosing the non-entrée approach keeping them apart of refugee law technically. However, in practice they do not meet the duties of the treaty.

To conclude, the essence of the research is that Burden Sharing is an as an intrinsic component of the refugee protection legal system framework and is critical and important in resolving the Syrian refugee crisis. Burden sharing is basically the distribution of responsibilities. In simple words it refers that specific arrangements must be made for the purpose of physical distribution of refugees. It is one of the main principles of International Refugee Regime. The documented origin of burden-sharing can be found in the preamble of the 1951 Convention. When addressing the Syrian refugee crisis in terms of international laws relating to refugees, it is pertinent to know that the existing legal frameworks in the countries hosting huge influx of the refugee crises do not incorporate many of the basic obligations of international law in relation to the rights and obligations of refugees, because none of these countries i.e., Turkey, Lebanon, or Jordan have ratified the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Additional Protocol. Syrian refugees have many rights that have been granted to them by the international conventions however, they are denied of their rights. This has made them vulnerable and entirely dependent on the financial aids and has increased illegal means of employment. The refugees are marginalized minorities who are facing troubles in integrating in the receiving countries.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending