Skip to main content

Colonial roots of the 1951 Refugee Convention and its effects on the global refugee regime

Journal of International Relations and Development volume 24, pages 599–626 (2021)Cite this article

A Correction to this article was published on 16 March 2021

This article has been updated

Abstract

The founding of the 1951 Refugee Convention and today’s global refugee regime have mainly been linked to the Second World War and to the early phase of the Cold War in research. But what role does colonialism play here? This article complements Postcolonial and Ignorance Studies and uses online archival research to explore debates among state delegations about the Convention’s refugee definition and ‘colonial clause’ at the founding conference (2–25 July 1951). It illuminates delegations’ strategic production of knowledge and especially ignorance—meaning the construction of issues as irrelevant—leading to the prioritisation of ‘the West’ over ‘the Rest’. Colonial and imperial states generally dominated debates while colonised ones were excluded, and thus silenced. Despite broad support for the universal refugee definition, several powerful delegations demanded its limitation to Europe and therewith strategically subordinated and ignored the ‘Other’ refugees and regions in pursuit of geopolitical interests. They thus made the colonial ‘Others’ irrelevant in the creation of ‘international’ refugee law. I argue that these debates rendered the Convention’s founding ‘colonial-ignorant’, with lasting effects for the regime’s functioning.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Change history

Notes

  1. In this article, the global refugee regime is understood following Betts (2011: 56‒57).

  2. Understandings of the ‘international community’ vary (e.g. Ellis 2009). In this article, I approach the term as an ‘inter-national’ network of sovereign states. This is naturally critical from a postcolonial perspective as only those states recognised as sovereign are assumed part of this network (see Cassese 2012). However, exactly this is key when exploring the colonial roots of the 1951 Convention and global refugee regime; while all colonisers were acknowledged sovereign, colonised states were not and hence would be excluded from the network due to control and representation by colonisers. I consider this tension a mirror of the critical imbalance in power relations along colonial lines, and highlight it by placing the term in quotation marks.

  3. Although these identify distinct forms of colonial rule, I summarise them as colonised territories.

  4. There is insufficient space in this article to list pertinent publications on ‘international’ refugee law that include no or only minimal references to colonialism.

  5. This multidisciplinary field has since broadened to Forced Migration and Refugee Studies (crit. Chimni 2009).

  6. Only four out of 146 states have signed the Convention with a focus on Europe until today (UN 2020) and the 1967 Protocol is thought to tackle the issue (Davies 2007)—but problems remain (see below).

  7. UN Doc. A/RES/8(I), 29 January, 1946.

  8. UN Doc. A/PV.29, 12 February, 1946; UN Doc. A/PV.30, 12 February, 1946.

  9. UN Doc. A/RES/8(I).

  10. UN Doc. E/RES/3(I), 16 February, 1946.

  11. See UN Doc. E/RES/248(IX)A and B, 6 and 8 August, 1949.

  12. UN Doc. E/RES/116(VI), 1 March, 1948; UN Doc. E/1112; E/1112/Add.1, 1 August, 1949.

  13. Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, France, Israel, Turkey, UK, US, Venezuela, Poland and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics but the latter two decided not to attend (UN Doc. E/1618; E/AC.35/5, 17 February, 1950, para. 4, 10).

  14. UN Doc. E/RES/248(IX)B.

  15. UN Doc. E/AC.32/2, 3 January, 1950.

  16. UN Doc. E/1618, E/AC.35/5, 12.

  17. UN Doc. E/SR.399, 2 August, 1950, para 29.

  18. UN Doc. E/AC.7/SR.157, 31 July, 1950, 15.

  19. UN Doc. E/AC.7/SR.158, 1 August, 1950, 12.

  20. Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, France, India, Iran, Mexico, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, the UK, the USSR and the US were ECOSOC members; Egypt, Ethiopia, Israel, the Netherlands, Sweden, Venezuela and Yugoslavia had observer status (UN Doc. E/INF/40, 2 January, 1951).

  21. UN Doc. E/SR.399, para. 53‒54; UN Doc. E/RES/319(XI)A and B, 16 August, 1950.

  22. UN Doc. E/SR.406, 11 August, 1950.

  23. UN Doc. E/1850; E/AC.32/8, 25 August, 1950.

  24. It is noteworthy that debates addressed the refugee definition in the draft convention as well as UNHCR’s statute. It naturally prompts questions of why different definitions are eventually adopted, but this goes beyond the scope of this particular article.

  25. UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.330, 30 November, 1950, para. 61

  26. UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.325, 24 November, 1950, para. 21‒24.

  27. UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.332, 1 December, 1950, para. 26‒29.

  28. See UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.332, para. 75-80; UN Doc. A/PV.325, 14 December, 1950, para. 95‒97.

  29. UN Doc. A/RES/429(V), 14 December, 1950.

  30. UN Doc. A/CONF.2/108/Rev.1, 25 July, 1951, 3.

  31. UN Doc. A/CONF.2/108/Rev.1: 3.

  32. UN members: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Iraq, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Turkey, the UK, the US, Venezuela and Yugoslavia; observers: Cuba and Iran; non-members: Austria, Federal Republic of Germany, the Holy See, Italy, Monaco and Switzerland.

  33. The report of the Credential Committee lacks such information (UN Doc. A/CONF.2/87, 17 July, 1951).

  34. UN Doc. A/CONF.2/6/Add.1, 12 March, 1951.

  35. By that I do not intend to indicate that all (de)colonised states are assumed to have similar, overlapping or mutual understandings.

  36. Colonial powers: Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway and the UK; former colonial powers: Austria (ended in the 1780s), Federal Republic of Germany (ended 1920), Sweden (ended 1878), Turkey (administered territories as a part of the Ottoman Empire, ended 1922) and Yugoslavia (ended 1941).

  37. Brazil (1822), Colombia (1819), Egypt (1922), Iraq (1932), Israel (1948), Monaco (1861), Venezuela (1821); high political influence: the US (1776), Canada (1931), Australia (1901); Cuba was also a former colony (1898, observer).

  38. Greece (earlier administered by the Ottoman Empire but not as a colony in a narrower sense), the Holy See, Luxembourg, Switzerland (also represented Liechtenstein at the conference); neither Iran (observer).

  39. According to official records, among the invited non-UN member states (UN Doc. A/CONF.2/SR.27, 27 November, 1951), Cambodia and Laos initiated independence in the late 1940s and achieved it in 1953 and 1954 respectively. Sri Lanka (then Ceylon) became independent in 1948, Nepal in 1923, Korea in 1948 and Vietnam in 1945.

  40. UN Doc. A/CONF.2/21, 3 July, 1951.

  41. Conference discussions were based on the draft by the Ad Hoc Committee (E/1850 Annex I), the preamble in ECOSOC’s Resolution 319(XI) and article 1 in UNGA Resolution 429(V) (UN Doc. A/CONF.2/1, 12 March, 1951).

  42. UN Doc. A/CONF.2/82/Rev.1, 17 July, 1951.

  43. UN Doc. A/CONF.2/13, 3 July, 1951.

  44. UN Doc. A/CONF.2/76, 13 July, 1951.

  45. UN Doc. A/PV.325: para. 97.

  46. UN Doc. E/1618, E/AC.35/5; E/AC.32/8, UN Doc. E/1850; E/RES/319(XI)B.

  47. Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, Greece, the Holy See, Iraq, Israel, the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, the UK and Yugoslavia.

  48. Australia, Colombia, France, Italy, the US and Venezuela as well as (with a certain willingness to compromise) Austria, Germany, Sweden and Turkey.

  49. Brazil, Luxembourg and Monaco.

  50. UN Doc. A/CONF.2/SR.19, 26 November, 1951.

  51. UN Doc. A/CONF.2/SR.20, 26 November, 1951.

  52. UN Doc. A/CONF.2/SR.20.

  53. UN Doc. A/CONF.2/SR.19.

  54. UN Doc. A/CONF.2/75, 13 July, 1951.

  55. UN Doc. A/CONF.2/SR.19.

  56. UN Doc. A/CONF.2/SR.19.

  57. UN Doc. A/CONF.2/SR.21, 26 November, 1951.

  58. UN Doc. A/CONF.2/SR.19.

  59. UN Doc. A/CONF.2/SR.21.

  60. In the article about liberal professions, the original phrase that contracting states were ‘to secure the settlement of such refugees in their colonies, protectorates or in Trust Territories under their administration’ was changed to ‘[t]erritories for the international relations of which it is responsible’, as suggested by France (UN Doc. A/CONF.2/SR.25, 27 November, 1951).

  61. UN Doc. A/CONF.2/SR.19.

  62. UN Doc. A/CONF.2/SR.19.

  63. UN Doc. A/CONF.2/SR.20.

  64. UN Doc. A/CONF.2/SR.19.

  65. UN Doc. A/CONF.2/SR.19.

  66. UN Doc. A/CONF.2/SR.19.

  67. UN Doc. E/AC.32/SR.3, 26 January, 1950.

  68. UN Doc. A/CONF.2/105, 24 July, 1951.

  69. UN Doc. A/CONF.2/108/Rev.1, Art. 1B.

  70. UN Doc. E/AC.32/8, E/1850.

  71. UN Doc. E/AC.32/SR.14, 2 February, 1950.

  72. UN Doc. E/AC.32/SR.25, 17 February, 1950.

  73. UN Doc. A/CONF.2/21.

  74. UN Doc. A/CONF.2/31, 4 July, 1951.

  75. UN Doc. A/CONF.2/SR.27.

  76. UN Doc. A/CONF.2/SR.27.

  77. UN Doc. A/CONF.2/SR.27.

  78. UN Doc. A/CONF.2/6/Add.1.

  79. UN Doc. A/CONF.2/SR.27.

  80. UN Doc. A/CONF.2/SR.27.

  81. UN Doc. A/CONF.2/108/Rev.1: Art. 40, sentence 1

  82. UN Doc. A/CONF.2/21.

  83. Conference records do not reveal how participants voted.

  84. Austria, Belgium, Colombia, Denmark, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK (UN 2020).

  85. Brazil, France, Germany, Greece, the Holy See, Israel, Italy, Turkey, the US (UN 2020).

References

  • Achiume, E Tendayi (2019) ‘Migration as Decolonization’, Standford Law Review 71(6): 1509–74.

  • Anghie, Antony (2006) ‘The Evolution of International Law: Colonial and Postcolonial Realities’, Third World Quarterly 27(5): 739‒53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anghie, Antony (2005) Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ballinger, Pamela (2016) ‘Colonial Twilight: Italian Settlers and the Long Decolonization of Libya’, Journal of Contemporary History 51(4): 813‒38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ballinger, Pamela (2012) ‘Entangled or “Extruded” Histories? Displacement, National Refugees, and Repatriation after the Second World War’, Journal of Refugee Studies 25(3): 366‒86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bem, Kazimierz (2004) ‘The Coming of a “Blank Cheque” — Europe, the 1951 Convention, and the 1967 Protocol’, International Journal of Refugee Law 16(4): 609‒27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Betts, Alexander (2011) ‘International Cooperation in the Refugee Regime’, in Alexander Betts and Gil Loescher, eds, Refugees in International Relations, 53‒84, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhabha, Homi (1994) The Location of Culture, London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassese, Antonio (2012) ‘States: Rise and Decline of the Primary Subjects of the International Community’, in Bardo Fassbender and Anne Peters, eds, The Oxford Handbook of the History of International Law, 49‒70, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chimni, Bhupinder S. (2017) International Law and World Order: A Critique of Contemporary Approaches, second edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chimni, Bhupinder S. (2009) ‘The Birth of a “Discipline”: From Refugee to Forced Migration Studies’, Journal of Refugee Studies 22(1): 11‒29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chimni, Bhupinder S. (1998) ‘The Geopolitics of Refugee Studies: A View from the South’, Journal of Refugee Studies 11(4): 350‒74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chowdhry, Geeta and Sheila Nair, eds (2002) Power, Postcolonialism and International Relations: Reading Race, Gender and Class, London, New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, Stanley (2001) States of Denial: Knowing about Atrocities and Suffering, Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, Sara E. (2007) ‘Redundant or Essential? How Politics Shaped the Outcome of the 1967 Protocol’, International Journal of Refugee Law 19(4): 703‒28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demant, Eva (2013) ‘30 años de la Declaración de Cartagena sobre Refugiados. Avances y desafíos de la protección de refugiados en Latinoamérica’ [30 years of the Cartagena Declaration on Refugees. Progress and challenges in refugee protection in Latin America], Agenda Internacional 20(31): 132‒40.

  • Elie, Jérôme and Jussi Hanhimäki (2008) ‘UNHCR and Decolonization in Africa: Expansion and Emancipation, 1950s to 1970s’, Archiv für Sozialgeschichte, ‘Dekolonisation: Prozesse und Verflechtungen, 1945‒1990’ 48: 53‒72.

  • Ellis, David C. (2009) ‘On the Possibility of “International Community”’, International Studies Review 11(1): 1‒26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fassbender, Bardo et al., eds (2012) The Oxford Handbook of the History of International Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster, Michelle and Hélène Lambert (2019) International Refugee Law and the Protection of Stateless Persons, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fröhlich, Christiane (2018) ‘Flucht als Herausforderung neokolonialer Herrschaftsstrategien’ [Forced migration as a challenge of neo-colonial power strategies], Zeitschrift für Friedens- und Konfliktforschung, Special Issue ed. by Cordual Dittmer on ‘Dekoloniale und Postkoloniale Perspektiven in der Friedens- und Konfliktforschung’: 99‒124.

  • Gathii, James Thuo (2006) ‘Imperialism, Colonialism, and International Law’, Buffalo Law Review 54(4): 1013‒66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gatrell, Peter (2013) The Making of the Modern Refugee, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Glanville, Luke (2020) ‘Hypocritical Inhospitality: The Global Refugee Crisis in the Light of History’, Ethics & International Affairs 34(1): 3‒12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glynn, Irial (2012) ‘The Genesis and Development of Article 1 of the 1951 Refugee Convention’, Journal of Refugee Studies 25(1): 134‒48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin-Gill, Guy S. (1996) The Refugee in International Law, second edition, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin-Gill, Guy S. and Jane McAdam (2007) The Refugee in International Law, third edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross, Matthias and Linsey McGoey, eds (2015) Routledge International Handbook of Ignorance Studies, London, New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haddad, Emma (2008) The Refugee in International Society. Between Sovereigns, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hathaway, James C. (2005) The Rights of Refugees under international Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hathaway, James C. (1990) ‘A Reconsideration of the Underlying Premise of Refugee Law’, Harvard International Law Journal 31(1): 129‒84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobson, John M. (2012) The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics. Western International Theory, 1760–2010, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Hyndman, Jennifer (1996) Geographies of Displacement: Gender, Culture and Power in UNHCR Refugee Camps, Kenya, PhD Thesis, University of British Columbia.

  • Judt, Tony (2005) Postwar: A History of Europe since 1945, New York: Penguin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kneebone, Susan (2014) ‘ASEAN and the Conceptualization of Refugee Protection in Southeastern Asian States’, in Ademola Abass and Francesca Ippolito, eds, Regional Approaches to the Protection of Asylum Seekers. An International Legal Perspective, 295‒324, Farnham: Ashgate.

  • Koskenniemi, Martti (2001) Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law 1870–1960, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lingelbach, Jochen (2020) On the Edges of Whiteness: Polish Refugees in British Colonial Africa during and after the Second World War, New York, Oxford: Berghahn.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Loescher, Gil (1996) Beyond Charity: International Cooperation and the Global Refugee Crisis, New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayblin, Lucy (2017) Asylum after Empire: Colonial Legacies in the Politics of Asylum Seeking, London; New York: Roman & Littlefield International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayblin, Lucy (2014) ‘Colonialism, Decolonisation, and the Right to be Human: Britain and the 1951 Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees’, Journal of Historical Sociology 27(3): 423‒41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGoey, Linsey (2012) ‘The Logic of Strategic Ignorance’, British Journal of Sociology 63(3): 533‒76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, Charles W. (1997) The Racial Contract, Ithaca; London: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nyanduga, Bahame Tom Mukirya (2004) ‘Refugee Protection under the 1969 OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa’, German Yearbook of International Law 47: 85‒104.

    Google Scholar 

  • NYT (1951) ‘U.N. Refugee Code Near Completion’, New York Times, 21 July, 1951.

  • Oberoi, Pia (2001) ‘South Asia and the Creation of the International Refugee Regime’, Refuge: Canada’s Journal on Refugees 19(5): 36‒45.

  • Odhiambo-Abuya, Edwin (2005) ‘A Critical Analysis of Liberalism and Postcolonial theory in the Context of Refugee Protection’, King’s Law Journal 16(2): 263‒91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orchard, Philip (2014) A Right to Flee: Refugees, States, and the Construction of International Cooperation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Otto, Dianne (1998) ‘Rethinking Universals: Opening Transformative Possibilities in International Human Rights Law’, Australian Year Book of International Law Online 18(1): 1‒36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Otto, Dianne (1996) ‘Subalternity and International Law: the Problems of Global Community and the Incommensurability of Difference’, Social & Legal Studies 5(3): 337‒64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pahuja, Sundhya (2011) Decolonising International Law: Development, Economic Growth and the Politics of Universality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, Jessica Lynne (2017) ‘Defending Empire at the United Nations: The Politics of International Colonial Oversight in the Era of Decolonisation’, Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 45(3): 525‒49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, Glen (2015) ‘Sovereignty, International Law, and the Uneven Development of the International Refugee Regime’, Modern Asian Studies 49(2): 439‒68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, Glen (2012) ‘The Uneven Development of the International Refugee Regime in Postwar Asia: Evidence from China, Hong Kong and Indonesia’, Journal of Refugee Studies 25(3): 326‒43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, Glen (2008) ‘To Be or Not to Be a Refugee: The International Politics of the Hong Kong Refugee Crisis, 1949–55’, Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 36(2): 171‒95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pitts, Jennifer (2018) Boundaries of the International: Law and Empire, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Proctor, Robert and Londa L. Schiebinger (2008) Agnotology: The Making and Unmaking of Ignorance, Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Randeria, Shalini (2015) ‘Colonial Complicities and Imperial Entanglements. An Afterword’, in Patricia Purtschert and Harald Fischer-Tiné, eds, Colonial Switzerland: Rethinking Colonialism from the Margins, 296‒306, London: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Robinson, Cabeiri Debergh (2012) ‘Too Much Nationality: Kashmiri Refugees, the South Asian Refugee Regime, and a Refugee State, 1947–1974’, Journal of Refugee Studies 25(3): 344‒65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruskola, Teemu (2013) Legal Orientalism: China, the United States, and Modern Law, Cambridge, London: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rutazibwa, Olivia and Robbie Shilliam, eds (2018) Routledge Handbook of Postcolonial Politics, London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Said, Edward W. (1979) Orientalism, New York: Vintage Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheel, Stephan and Funda Ustek-Spilda (2019) ‘The Politics of Expertise and Ignorance in the Field of Migration Management’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 37(4): 663‒81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuster, Liza (2003) The Use and Abuse of Political Asylum in Britain and Germany, London: Frank Cass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shilliam, Robbie, ed. (2010) International Relations and Non-Western Thought: Imperialism, Colonialism and Investigations of Global Modernity, Abingdon, New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty (1999) A Critique of Postcolonial Reason: Toward a History of the Vanishing Present, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty (1988) ‘Can the subaltern speak?’, in Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg, eds, Marxism and the interpretation of culture, 271‒313, Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Stefanelli, Justine N. (2011) ‘Whose rule of law? An analysis of the UK’s decision not to opt-in to the EU asylum procedures and reception conditions directives’, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 60(4): 1055‒64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UN (2020) Treaty Collection, Chapter V Refugees and Stateless Persons, Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, available at https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=V-2&chapter=5&clang=_en (last accessed on 2 February, 2020).

  • Weis, Paul (1990) The Refugee Convention, 1951: The Travaux préparatoires Commentary by Dr. Paul Weis, available at https://www.refworld.org/docid/53e1dd114 (last accessed on 18 November, 2018).

  • Wood, Tamara (2014) ‘Expanding Protection in Africa? Case Studies of the Implementation of the 1969 African Refugee Convention’s Expanded Refugee Definition’, International Journal of Refugee Law 26(4): 555‒80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

In the early stages of this research, I was able to discuss ideas about effects of colonialism on refugee protection with Gil Loescher for which I am exceptionally grateful. Gil’s recent passing still saddens me greatly; I recall his inspiring and encouraging comments with great fondness. I am also thankful to Frank Wolff, Timothy Williams and Mariam Salehi for invaluable comments as well as the anonymous reviewers and editors of the JIRD for insightful feedback. I especially thank Reviewer One who dived into my research and provided very helpful and thought-provoking comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Migration Research and Intercultural Studies (IMIS) and the Institute for Social Science, Osnabrück University, Osnabrück, Germany

    Ulrike Krause

Authors
  1. Ulrike Krause
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ulrike Krause.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Krause, U. Colonial roots of the 1951 Refugee Convention and its effects on the global refugee regime. J Int Relat Dev 24, 599–626 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41268-020-00205-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41268-020-00205-9

Keywords

  • 1951 Refugee Convention
  • Global refugee regime
  • Ignorance studies
  • Postcolonial studies