Defining the Modern “Refugee”

Laura Hinkle ('22)

Political corruption, economic collapse, and the growing influence of drug cartels have caused many refugee crises within the Latin American region in the past few decades. While these crises are oft overshadowed by media coverage of Middle Eastern countries such as Iraq, Iran, and Syria, the struggles refugees and migrants face in other parts of the world should not be overlooked. In the face of the most recent political turmoil in Venezuela, the Washington Post and Reuters report that socialist President Nicolas Maduro’s poor leadership is causing waves of high crime, extreme inflation, and societal repression. Millions of Venezuelans are now fleeing into neighboring countries, even causing a stream of migrants pouring up into Central America. It is important to reflect on existing international and regional treaties/laws to see who legally qualifies as a migrant or refugee. The ramifications of these definitions are critical, as they affect the lives of millions of people fleeing unstable countries in Latin America such as Venezuela, Colombia, and Guatemala.

Latin America has a notably more protective refugee framework than the international one established by the 1951 United Nations Convention and its 1967 Protocol. The UN Convention’s definition features vague wording, defining a refugee as a person with “well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, [or] membership of a particular social group or political opinion.” The Cartagena Declaration on Refugees, agreed upon at the Colloquium on the International Protection of Refugees in 1984, alternatively defines refugees as “persons who have fled their country because their lives, safety or freedom have been threatened by generalized violence, foreign aggression, internal conflicts, massive violation of human rights or other circumstances which have seriously disturbed public order.” In total, 28 Latin American states agreed upon the more inclusive Cartagena framework. It’s groundbreaking for a couple of reasons. According to the Migration Policy Institute, the Declaration purposefully excludes “mention of traditionally defined forms of ‘persecution’ that could result in objection by the country of origin.” In addition, it promotes increased regional solidarity in sharing the burden of refugees, creating a model that the European Union now follows.

Although the Declaration is non-binding, it would be in the best interest of states to support the influx of citizens fleeing from neighboring lands. Not only would it verify that these nations stand behind regional treatises, but establishing a framework for dealing with refugee dispersion would provide a more efficient means of dealing with future and potentially larger crises. There is already a precedent set among some countries for how they have implemented the Cartagena, but the results are varied and often flawed. Colombia, notable for their own internal unrest, tore the “refugee” definition from its Constitution in 2002, effectively making the case that there are no people qualifying for refuge in the Americas and each country must fend for its own people. As home to one of the largest displaced people populations in the world, this isolationist trend has improved since, with a slightly more inclusive refugee definition being added to their Constitution through new legislation in 2009. On the other hand, countries such as Ecuador have completely adopted the Cartagena, even going so far as to create their own humanitarian policy approach to it.

            One notable organization that could spearhead the effort to implement the Cartagena definition is the Organization of American States (OAS), which is inclusive of all 35 states within the Americas. Because the OAS is a regional organization dedicated to reducing statelessness in the Western Hemisphere, it could more aptly apply regional definitions while also providing a more culturally-informed assistance in refugee dispersion. Applying comprehensive refugee definitions would give economic, social, and political opportunity to those seeking asylum who might never have the chance to build a life exclusive of an oppressive regime otherwise. The OAS’s role could include persuading stable host countries to increase refugee quotas and strengthen their own economic system enough to bear the weight of thousands to millions of newcomers. More recently, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) was formed within OAS to oversee operations such as migration coordination, and could thus be assigned the task of overseeing these decade-long dispersion projects.

            All in all, it is imperative that more comprehensive definitions of refugees and migrants be agreed upon by the 35 states within The Americas in order to adequately support the millions of people suffering every day from unjust regimes like Maduro’s. Regional definitions such as those outlined under the revolutionary Cartagena Declaration would allow a greater number of people to escape persecution and seemingly hopeless situations. In addition, applying these definitions is feasible, with the OAS and its sub-body of the IACHR capable of providing specific policy recommendations and working with host countries individually. Although much of the legality behind migration is pure policy, it’s crucial to approach the topic from a global, humanist perspective. As Pope Francis so eloquently put it, “Migrants and refugees are not pawns on the chessboard of humanity. They are children, women and men who leave or are forced to leave their homes for various reasons, who share a legitimate desire for knowing and having, but above all for being more.”

Laura Hinkle, of Elizabethtown, Ky., is a first-year McConnell Scholar at the University of Louisville where she plans to study political science, social change and communication.