What is the purpose of the convention relating to the status of refugees?

What did the Cartagena Declaration do?

According to a leading U.

S. Government policy document, "the new U. Strategy in the Americas (as with most things the Obama administration has done) is simple, elegant and effectiveand it will do its job." In fact, the declaration's language is even clearer. First, the U. Government describes what was clearly a unilateral decision by the U. As a joint declaration of policy: "We intend to pursue these aims in collaboration with regional governments and organizations."

The "jointness" of the policy is not entirely clear, however. For instance, it would not seem likely that the Obama administration plans to collaborate "with regional governments and organizations" in the very same way and with the very same ends that the United States does currently. This, though, is what the declaration actually suggests. The declaration claims that the jointness of the U. Policy means, among other things, that it will "support and strengthen the capacities of regional and subregional organizations," and that "We are committed to working together to develop and implement concrete solutions that have a positive impact on people's lives."

One can take this as meaning that the United States seeks to work with regional governments to build capacity, or one can read it as referring to the very same activity that the U. Does itself, with the implicit goal of using that capacity for further goals at the expense of regional governments. In other words, could the United States really work with regional governments in the way that the U. Says it intends to? After all, the U. Has already built many such capacities itself in the past. As for building capacity for the sake of others, there can be little doubt about U. Policy goals. The declaration says that "we intend to do so with the full support of regional governments." But the Obama administration now faces no obstacles to continuing to use those same regional organizations in pursuit of its own ends, even if it had initially been seeking to advance the interests of others within the region.

In other words, the declaration gives a kind of carte blanche to U.

What is the purpose of the convention relating to the status of refugees?

Background.

The Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, which was adopted in 1951, was negotiated by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). It established the principles governing the admission of refugees to a third state party and their access to many benefits, including resettlement in other countries. The original Convention provided for the admission of refugees whose countries of origin are "persecuted or still suffering from the effects of war."

On 13 June 1951, UNGA adopted Resolution 104 (V), which provided that States Parties may "receive as refugees persons who have been forced to leave their country because of persecutions or natural calamities, such as earthquakes, epidemics, or unforeseen events causing widespread famine." The Convention provides for the admission of refugees to a third state party, where it has been determined that the refugee is in need of international protection. Such determinations are made by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) based on the UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status (UN Handbook) and UNHCR Standards and Operational Criteria for the Reception and Processing of Asylum-Seekers.

The Convention provides for the admission of refugees to a third state party where the refugee is deemed to be "in particular need of international protection." Such determinations are made by the UNHCR based on the UNHCR Handbook and the UNHCR Standards and Operational Criteria.

As the United States has acceded to the Convention and the related Protocol, the United States must implement its responsibilities under the Convention and Protocol in accordance with the principles of humanitarian law. For this reason, the United States has consistently interpreted the term "refugee" in the Convention as referring only to persons who are "persecuted or still suffering from the effects of war" and thus excluding persons who have not suffered from persecution. This interpretation has become an important element of U. Policy.

At the time of the Convention's adoption, the term "persecution" included the killing or threat of serious harm to members of the applicant's family. However, at the time of U. Accession, the United States did not agree to the definition of the term "refugee" set out in the Convention, and therefore was not bound to accept the inclusion of the terms "family" or "persecution" in the definition.