Talk:Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees

Canada
What about Canada's reservation to the convention?


 * Maybe they like to keep a bit of sovereignty? The Convention places obligations but no rights, is therefore a one-sided contract, especially as no provision seems to be made to exit the Convention. That would not have to mean that countries no longer accept refugees, only that they can set their own conditions and abuse may be addressed. 144.136.192.45 (talk) 05:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I think what you are saying is reversed, it gives rights to refugees but spells out few obligations. However since the nation in question freely signed it and incorporated it into their law, they have zero place to complain about "sovereignty". Also, in general most treaties that do not specify exit rules can be withdrawn from freely. A treaty does not violate sovereignty, unless the nation was forced to sign it. That's like saying that a contract you voluntarily signed violates your rights, no it doesn't.2601:140:8980:106F:7D6D:8574:6EEA:C53B (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The recent comment above to a five year old question here caught my eye. I'm vaguely interested in this topic, but not very knowledgeable about the details. I couldn't find any information in the current afrticle about "Canada's reservation", so I did some googling. That turned up I don't know whether that is current, but it has the following to say about Canada: "CANADA “Subject to the following reservation with reference to Articles 23 and 24 of the Convention: "Canada interprets the phrase `lawfully staying' as referring only to refugees admitted for permanent residence: refugees admitted for temporary residence will be accorded the same treatment with respect to the matters dealt with in articles 23 and 24 as is accorded visitors generally.""

I'll just requote that here for the information of editors wanting to comment. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

What does not being a party to the convention do?
It is stated that three countries are party to the protocol, but not the convention. What is the practical result of that? This should be explained in the article. Zginder 2013-10-19T02:26:52Z
 * Is this insufficient? "It entered into force on 22 April 1954. It was initially limited to protecting European refugees after World War II, but a 1967 Protocol removed the geographical and time limits, expanding the Convention's scope." L.tak (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like that explanation isn't quite right. The text of the convention says:
 * "For the purposes of this Convention, the words "events occurring before 1 January 1951" in article i, section A, shall be understood to mean either:
 * (a) "events occurring in Europe before 1 January 1951"; or
 * (b) "events occurring in Europe or elsewhere before 1 January 1951"; and each Contracting State shall make a declaration at the time of signature, ratification or accession, specifying which of these meanings it applies for the purpose of its obligations under this Convention."
 * while the Protocol says:
 * "For the purpose of the present Protocol, the term "refugee" shall, except as regards the application of paragraph 3 of this article, mean any person within the definition of article 1 of the Convention as if the words "As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and ..." and the words "... as a result of such events ", in article 1 A (2) were omitted."
 * and
 * "The present Protocol shall be applied by the States Parties hereto without any geographic limitation, save that existing declarations made by States already Parties to the Convention in accordance with article 1 B (1) (a) of the Convention, shall, unless extended under article 1 B (2) thereof, apply also under the present Protocol."
 * So the Convention is only limited to European refugees if states declare that, and the Protocols grandfathers in these geographic limitation declarations. TDL (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Arabian Gulf
So why aren't the Arabian Gulf countries, like the UAE, Saudi Arabia, et al, not interested in signing the convention?? Shame on these countries, they don't give a damn about foreigners and temporary foreign workers! They generally treat them with disdain. Most locals in these countries have forgotten that their own parents/ grandparents lived harsh lives too, without running water and without air-conditioning! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.127.54.164 (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Some of them do take in refugees under their own internal laws, but I think it's probably restricted to Muslims. About half a million Syrians are refugees in Saudi Arabia, for instance.108.3.147.98 (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There are no Syrian refugees in Saudi Arabia. There are Syrian expatriates in Saudi, who have lived and worked there long before the civil war. After the civil war, Saudi relaxed the rules to permit most of these Syrian workers to bring their families to the country. Saudi's claim to have taken in refugees, would be equal to the US government claiming that H-1B holders in the country are refugees. 125.141.77.70 (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Their families are not refugees?

Does this page need to be protected from vandalism
Considering the current political climate in the US, UK, and elsewhere, would it be a good idea to lock down this article to dissuade vandalism? Darqcyde (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 29 May 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus, default to previous stable title, Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. Jenks24 (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees → Convention relating to the Status of Refugees – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC) – L.tak (talk) 06:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * sorry, the rationale seems not to pop up: Convention relating to the Status of Refugees|reverting a bold move of last night, which I contest. Mover (Miniapolis) suggests that the words UN need to be added as part of the official name, but the UNHCR version and the depositary seem not to agree. L.tak (talk) 06:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose A document authored by the UN should include that attribution in the title since, by definition, it is the common name. Philg88 ♦talk 07:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you are saying... Does the fact that the UN is the depositary, automatically render such a convention's name to include the word UN? There are many examples where it does (UNCLOS), but also many where it doesn't (CWC, arms trade treaty). I think we should evaluate what the common or the formal name is according to reliable sources. So lets revert so the BRD cycle can run its course... L.tak (talk) 08:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A revert in the middle of an RM is not a good idea. Let this run for the full seven days and a clear consensus should emerge as to the desired outcome. Philg88 ♦talk 09:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem to leave it here and see if there indeed was consensus for the move to United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees... Looking forward to your reaction on my question on your rationale! L.tak (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121114081432/http://treaties.un.org:80/Pages/ViewDetailsII.aspx?&src=UNTSONLINE&mtdsg_no=V~2&chapter=5&Temp=mtdsg2&lang=en to http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetailsII.aspx?&src=UNTSONLINE&mtdsg_no=V~2&chapter=5&Temp=mtdsg2&lang=en#Participants
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120401214403/http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=UNTSONLINE&tabid=2&mtdsg_no=V-5&chapter=5&lang=en to http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=UNTSONLINE&tabid=2&mtdsg_no=V-5&chapter=5&lang=en#Participants
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120607013438/http://www2.ohchr.org:80/english/law/refugees.htm to http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/refugees.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Wrong figure
It seems that the figure does not reflect the difference between Signature,Accession(a), Succession(d), Ratification. 2001:B011:BC03:1AA:84E0:595A:97:C068 (talk)


 * For practical purposes there is no difference. All mean a nation has signed the treaty and accepts it as legally binding (with possible reservations.) Mr Pete (talk)