International courts occasionally resort to the preparatory works, but within fairly well defined limits. The refugee in international law occupies a legal space characterized, on the one hand, by the principle of State sovereignty and the related principles of territorial supremacy and self-preservation; and, on the other hand, by competing humanitarian principles deriving from general international law (including the purposes and principles of the United Nations) and from treaty. In The International Court of Justice has adopted the same reasoning: It goes some way to alleviate the plight of those affected by breaches of human rights standards or by the collapse of an existing social order in the wake of revolution, civil strife, or aggression; but it is incomplete so far as refugees and asylum seekers may still be denied even temporary protection, safe return to their homes, or compensation.The international legal status of the refugee necessarily imports certain legal consequences, the most important of which is the obligation of States to respect the principle of The existence of the class of refugees in international law not only entails legal consequences for States, but also the entitlement and the responsibility to exercise protection on behalf of refugees. Legal theory nevertheless remains imperfect, given the absence of clearly correlative rights in favour of a subject of international law competent to exercise protection, and the uncertain legal consequences which follow where breach of obligations leads to a refugee exodus.The practice of States certainly appears to permit the conclusion that States are bound by a general principle not to create refugee outflows and to cooperate with other States in the resolution of such problems as emerge. Ancient Greece The roots of international refugee law can be traced back to ancient Greece and the possibility to seek protection in certain temples belonging to communities…
Equally clearly, however, the responses of the more developed world seem frequently limited to measures at their own front or back door; hence, the concentration on adding locks and bolts, on building higher walls and stronger fences, on palliatives and not remedies.This all adds up to a less than healthy background against which to portray the panorama of rules and principles that do comprise the international legal regime of refugee protection. In our view, the Convention’s first point of reference is the individual, particularly as a rights-holder, rather than the system of government and its efficacy or intent in relation to protection, relevant as these elements are to the well-founded dimension. The rules of treaty interpretation permit recourse to ‘supplementary means of interpretation’ (including the preparatory work, or preparation work was almost invariably confusing, unequal and partial: confusing because it commonly consisted of the summary records of statements made during the process of negotiations, and early statements on the positions of delegations might express the intention of the delegation at that stage, but bear no relation to the ultimate text of the treaty; unequal, because not all delegations spoke on any particular issue; and partial because it excluded the informal meetings between heads of delegations at which final compromises were reached and which were often the most significant feature of any negotiation.Or as the French put it, ‘It was much less hazardous and much more equitable when ascertaining the intention of the parties to rely on what they had agreed in Since the Court is of opinion that Article 3 is in itself sufficiently clear to enable the nature of the decision to be reached by the Council under the terms of that article to be determined, the question does not arise whether consideration of the work done in the preparation of the Treaty of Lausanne (When the Court can give effect to a provision of a treaty by giving to the words used in it their natural and ordinary meaning, it may not interpret the words by seeking to give them some other meaning.For better or worse, refugee status decision-makers (and commentators … ) make frequent use of the The jurisprudence which has developed around the 1951 Convention in many national jurisdictions, while it has often taken the drafting history into account, has also contributed to a theoretical appreciation of the rationale for refugee law; whether the influence is always actually or potentially positive (for refugees), certainly deserves further inquiry, as the example of ‘surrogacy’ or ‘surrogate protection’ may show.Except in situations of complete breakdown of the state apparatus, it should be assumed that the state is capable of protecting a claimant. A/36/10, 334ff (1981)Hathaway, J., ‘A Reconsideration of the Underlying Premise of Refugee Law’, 31 Goodwin-Gill, G. S. ‘Protection and Assistance for Refugees and the Displaced: Institutional Dimensions, Institutional Challenges’, Paper presented at a Workshop on ‘Refugee Protection in International Law: Contemporary Challenges’, Refugee Studies Centre, University of Oxford, 24 Apr. Anything missing? Refugee law is the branch of international law which deals with the rights and duties States have vis-a-vis refugees.There are differences of opinion among international law scholars as to the relationship between refugee law and international human rights law or humanitarian law.The discussion forms part of a larger debate on the fragmentation of international law.