UN Refugee Convention Turns 75 Amid Rising Political Pressures

(MENAFN- Swissinfo) The UN Convention on Refugees is marking its 75^th anniversary this week, at a time when migration and asylum are increasingly divisive issues. Select your language

Generated with artificial intelligence. Listening: UN Refugee Convention turns 75 amid rising political pressures This content was published on July 28, 2026 - 15:01 11 minutes

Imogen Foulkes reports from Geneva for SWI swissinfo as well as the BBC.

More from this aut

The UN refugee agency (UNHCR), insists the convention remains relevant.“Refugee protection remains just as important today as it was 75 years ago,” Elisabeth Tan, the agency's director of international protection told Swissinfo.

The UN Convention on Refugees was drafted in 1951 in response to the horrors of the Second World War. It defined a refugee as a person who needed international protection because of feared persecution, or because“of serious threats to their life, physical integrity, or freedom resulting from persecution, armed conflict, violence, or serious public disorder”.

Millions of Europeans had been forcibly displaced, millions had been persecuted and then killed in Nazi concentration camps, many of those fighting had been taken prisoner. Those who survived often returned to find their homes destroyed.

With that suffering firmly in mind, the original convention was designed specifically to help people who had become refugees due to events that had happened before 1951, and more specifically still, to help Europeans. The convention did not initially apply to everyone.

“It was actually a treaty that was meant to disappear,” says Vincent Chetail, who is director of the Global Migration Centre at the Geneva Graduate Institute.“It was a convention applied to the past.”

In fact, like much of the international law introduced after the war, it was a collective effort to ensure that the brutality of that conflict never happened again.

Never again was short lived

However, events over the past 75 years have shown the world failing over and over again to live up to that“never again” promise.

In 1956, within five years of the convention coming into force, the Soviet Union invaded Hungary. Fleeing Hungarians were not covered under the strict terms of the fledgling convention, forcing Hungary's neighbours in western Europe to swiftly adapt. The events of 1956, they reasoned, were directly linked to the Soviet occupation and takeover of Hungary in 1944 and 1945 – therefore the thousands of fleeing Hungarians could be eligible for protection under the convention.

The 1950's and 1960's also saw multiple conflicts outside of Europe, as former colonies gained their independence. This raised the question of why people fleeing war in Africa were not worthy of protection too? In 1967 the restrictions on time (pre-1951) and place (Europe) were finally lifted, making the protection offered by the convention universal.

Fast forward to the 21^st century, and millions of people have found safety thanks to the convention; from conflicts in Afghanistan, former Yugoslavia, Syria, Ukraine, and many more.

By the end of 2025, the UNHCR had recorded 41.6 million refugees – recognised under the convention – worldwide.“It has saved millions of lives,” says Tan.

New migration patterns

But the 21^st century also presents us with very different migration patterns overall. Huge income gaps remain between the global north and the global south. It is much easier to move across the world, and millions of people are doing so, legally and illegally, in the hope of a better standard of living.

These people, however skilled and willing to work they may be, are not refugees, though some may claim to be. At the same time, the terms illegal immigrants and asylum seekers are regularly used interchangeably, by the media, by governments, and by right-wing populist parties seeking to dominate the debate over immigration.

At the same time, both legal migration, and applying for asylum have become more difficult in recent years, with some countries automatically rejecting asylum claims from those who have crossed their borders illegally. The UNHCR continues to urge governments to allow safe and legal pathways for asylum seekers, and for migrants seeking work.

Illegal immigrant: a foreign-born person who enters or resides in a country without official government authorisation or in violation of its immigration laws, such as by crossing a border without inspection or overstaying a valid visa

Asylum seeker: an individual who has fled their home country, crossed an international border, and formally applied for sanctuary and protection in another country, but is still waiting for a legal decision on their status. All refugees start as asylum seekers, but not all asylum seekers become recognised refugees.

Legal immigrant: a person who has been granted official, authorised permission by a sovereign state to enter, reside, and-in many cases-work or study within its borders

At the Swiss Refugee Council, Lionel Walter fears the basic principles of the convention are getting lost in what he describes as a“political attack,” Walter argues that the convention's commitment to protect those fleeing persecution remains entirely relevant.“Its significance is greater than ever at a time when the number of people fleeing war and persecution worldwide is at an all-time high.”

The International Committee of the Red Cross currently counts 130 conflicts worldwide, the UNHCR estimates that more than 117 million people remain forcibly displaced, most within their own countries.

Third country outsourcing

Despite its increasingly heated debate over migration and asylum, Europe's refugee numbers are comparatively low and dropped in 2025 due to a sharp fall in applications from Syrian nationals.

Switzerland currently hosts around 200,000 refugees and asylum seekers, but like several of its European neighbours, is now looking at outsourcing asylum seekers to third countries.

The idea of“return hubs” is to send asylum seekers whose initial claims have been rejected to a third country, pending return to their home countries. Rumoured venues for the hubs are Ethiopia, Tunisia, Rwanda, Uganda and Uzbekistan.

Walter of the Swiss Refugee Council warns these“carry an enormous risk of fundamental rights violations,” and adds that they would be very likely to“generate high costs and inefficiencies.”

Chetail from the Geneva Graduate Institute, also queries Europe's current strategy, pointing out that“push backs {at borders} and forced returns” show that“states are developing ways to undermine refugee protection.”

Tan is more cautious, suggesting the UNHCR is not against return hubs, as long as claims for asylum are“heard properly”, and that the hubs“respect people's human rights.”

The UNHCR does share the concerns about forced returns, warning in a statement that it is witnessing“practices that restrict access to asylum, including pushbacks, denial of access to territory, and forced returns.”

More More Human rights Report finds no link between Swiss funds and EU border pushbacks

This content was published on Jul 23, 2026 After parliamentary pressure, independent experts took a close look at what happens to the Swiss contribution to protecting the EU's external borders.

Read more: Report finds no link between Swiss funds and EU border push

MENAFN28072026000210011054ID1111456941