2025 marks the 74th anniversary of the 1951 Refugee Convention, yet the gap between its bold promises and the harsh realities facing refugees worldwide is becoming increasingly stark. What was once a landmark commitment to protect those fleeing war and persecution is now routinely undermined by the rise of anti-immigrant sentiment and the securitization of borders.

Few events demonstrate this crisis as clearly as the sinking of the Adriana in June 2023. It was an Italy-bound fishing trawler carrying an estimated 750 migrants when it capsized and sank in the Mediterranean, despite hours of monitoring by Greek officials. An estimated 600 men, women, and children died, sparking global outrage and raising questions about the international community’s failure to uphold legal obligations to protect refugees fleeing political violence and persecution.

As the Convention’s anniversary passes, the international community stands at a crossroads. Rather than abandoning the Convention’s principles, countries must renew their commitment to protecting the world’s most vulnerable population, especially in an era of growing displacement and humanitarian need.

The 1951 Refugee Convention was created to ensure safety and fundamental rights to those fleeing conflict and persecution. Written while the world was still reeling from the atrocities of World War II, the Convention sought to address the plight of people fleeing political and religious persecution in Europe.

But today’s world has significantly evolved since 1951. Beginning in the 1990s, there has been a notable shift from asylum to containment. As the number of forcibly displaced individuals increases—driven not only by protracted crises but also by climate change and other factors—so too does the political backlash against refugees and other migrant communities. The Convention’s protections are increasingly being tested and, in some cases, ignored. After decades of implementation, the Convention has not failed—countries have.

Rather than adapting protections to address the realities of contemporary displacement, many countries are restricting asylum access. Governments, predominantly in Western Europe and North America, are limiting migration by focusing their efforts on deterring movement and containing refugees in their region of origin.

Several EU member countries have called for tougher immigration laws, including Italy, Hungary, and Poland. Even countries that historically welcomed immigrants, like Denmark and Sweden, are adopting stricter immigration policies, driven in part by growing concerns about integration challenges and the strain on public resources.

The EU has struck several deals with countries outside the bloc, beginning with Turkey in 2016 and expanding to include Egypt, Lebanon, Mauritania, and Tunisia. These agreements aim to control and manage migration flows into Europe, often in exchange for financial aid. (The United Kingdom also sought to sign its own migration deals, including with Rwanda, which ultimately did not take effect.) This overall attitude shift is occurring across the EU and across political leanings.

And it’s not just Europe. In the United States, the second Trump administration has tightened access to asylum and sought to prevent migrants from entering the country. This has included indefinitely pausing the refugee resettlement program, which has helped resettle refugees in the United States for nearly five decades. Additionally, the administration has further militarized the US-Mexico border and carried out mass deportations.

A Proven Track Record

In light of growing anti-immigrant attitudes globally, the foundational principles of the Convention are needed today more than ever—particularly the right to seek asylum. Since the Convention’s adoption, more than 50 million people have been resettled, repatriated, or integrated.

After the fall of Saigon in 1975, the Convention’s framework helped resettle millions of people from Southeast Asia. In later decades, it protected refugees fleeing major conflicts in Afghanistan, Rwanda, and Syria. Most recently, the Convention has been utilized in response to the Ukraine war, with several European countries providing temporary protection and asylum to Ukrainians. By the end of 2024, there were nearly 31 million refugees under the UNHCR refugee mandate; more than half came from Afghanistan, Syria, and Ukraine. And refugees’ needs are increasing. According to UNHCR, approximately 2.9 million more refugees will need resettlement in 2025, with the largest need in Asia and the Pacific.

But all hope is not lost. Even as some countries restrict asylum access, others continue to provide protection. Some of the world’s poorest countries host the largest refugee populations; in 2024 low- and middle-income countries hosted 73% of the world’s refugees. Lebanon, for example, hosts an estimated 1.5 million Syrian refugees, despite being in the midst of a prolonged economic and political crisis. Uganda, classified as a low-income country, is home to one of the world’s largest refugee settlements, Bidi Bidi.

Ultimately, reinvesting in the Convention’s ideals and refugee protection means ending pushbacks at sea—the illegal practice of forcibly returning refugees and migrants to the country they came from—and opaque third-country migration deals, where countries agree to receive deportees with no existing ties to their nations. It means ensuring fair, efficient, and accessible asylum procedures through increasing refugee resettlement quotas, expanding humanitarian visas, and providing more financial and logistical support to countries hosting large refugee populations.

The Convention has endured through the decades not because it is a perfect framework, but because its core promise to protect the world’s most vulnerable people is timeless. The world can, should, and must do more.

 

Diana Roy is the Senior Writer/Editor for Latin America and immigration at the Council on Foreign Relations and a 2025 Rising Expert in Migration with Young Professionals in Foreign Policy.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author(s) alone and do not necessarily reflect those of Geopoliticalmonitor.com.