When domestic, regional, and international conflicts impinge on human rights to life and freedom to access healthcare, work, and other forms of freedom, many affected individuals are left with one choice for survival- flight. The choice for flight, nonetheless, is not an easy decision, because of the problems of leaving erstwhile stable sources of income and local kinship and community ties, and yet thousands of refugees from all over the world, are forced to flee their countries in order to seek for asylum in other nations.
Not all countries have laws protecting or proving refugee rights. There are two existing treaties that seek to protect broad refugee rights, in line with their human rights, and these are the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. There are now 146 States that are signatories to one, or both, of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, and one of the recently added countries is Afghanistan. Additional countries have developed refugee legislation and asylum-seekers gain access to certain non-signatories.
One of the recent wars that ignited an exodus of refugees is the U.S-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003. An article noted that The Iraqi refugee outflow since Americas 2003 intervention is far greater than that resulting from the Indochina war, but it has evoked a dramatically less vigorous response. The refugees from the Indochina war resulted to an approximately 322,000 Indochinese refugees, while the 2003 Iraqi war refugees are approximated at around 2 million, as of 2009 alone. Apart from this recent war, Palestinian refugees also continue to resettle outside Israel in hundreds of thousands. This paper discusses the refugee status in convention and non-convention countries. It describes refugee status in the United States and compares this to refugee status in Jordan and Syria, as well as Lebanon, who are non-signatories to the 1951 Refugee Convention. This research paper contends that since Jordan and Syria are not signatories to the 1951 Refugee Convention, and that though they may be accommodating a great number of refugees, they are unable to legally protect the refugees and provide them adequate social welfare services and employment, because of the absence of local policies that deal directly with the status of refugees and because they are not party to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol.
II. ROLE OF THE UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSION FOR REFUGEES (UNHCR)
Before this paper proceeds in discussing the differences in the rights of the refugees in cosignatories and non-cosignatories to international refugee laws, this chapter discusses first the question of who protects and administers these laws. The Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights signed on 10 December 1948 by the General Assembly have stressed the principle that human beings shall enjoy basic rights and freedoms without discrimination, particularly since the United Nations has, on a variety of instances, showed its serious concern for refugees and launched efforts to help refugees exercise of these fundamental rights and freedoms.
There are also international agencies that support refugee rights. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) was created through the counsel of the Economic Survey Mission, as an auxiliary organ to the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolution 302 (IV) of December 1949 to join forces with local governments and provide direct relief and works programs as recommended by the Economic Survey Mission (Article 7a). Under this framework, the UNGA recognized that using the provisions of paragraph 11 of resolution 194, the refugee challenges of the Palestinian refugees must be overcome, in order to enhance conditions of peace and stability. The UNRWA does not provide legal protection to the Palestinian refugees, however, but it has been mandated to provide health, education and social services, so it can help economically empower Palestinian refugees and guarantee them social rights. These are two of the primary international organizations that aim to advance and protect refugee rights under the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol.
III. FINDINGS
Before this paper compares the status of refugees in the U.S., Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria, it will be helpful to understand current refugee conditions in these countries. Three years after the 2003 Iraq war, millions of refugees from Iraq abandoned their homes between 2006 and 2007. The estimates vary widely, but between one to two million Iraqis crossed the border into Syria and Jordan, and other nations. One of the dire consequences of the Iraq war was the displacement of many, which created a humanitarian crisis for nations that absorbed these refugees.
Due to the large number of Iraqi refugees, the then Undersecretary Paula Dobriansky stated that the United States would resettle 7,000 candidates, and already provided for 16,000 refugees. Several sources complained that this is meager compared to the 700,000 or more refugees admitted by non-signatories, Jordan and Syria. The Bush administration, at the time, appointed Lori Scialabba as head of the US Citizenship and Immigration Services and Foley (Department of Homeland Security) to see to it that 12,000 Iraqis were admitted into the United States by 2008. Foley stated that the current system could absorb around 17,000 Iraqis to settle in the United States. The United States spent more than 400 million on the Iraqis refugees in Syria in 2007, and has called on the international community to step up their support, stating that the Middle East problem is everyones problem.
Younes of the Refugees International has urged that the United States should improve its effort and show great leadership with respect to Iraq by increasing its assistance substantially. The U.S. former ambassador to the UN, John Bolton defended the United States that it has done generously enough with regard to the refugees. He noted that the United States is not to blame for what is happening in Iraq, and that the prevailing circumstances are as a result of deep animosities, which had existed in Iraq for decades.
On the other hand, the former UN humanitarian coordinator in Iraq, Denis Hallinday argues that the United States must take full responsibility for the refugees and that their actions in Iraq should lead to massive payments to the Iraqi people. The payments, he said, can be employed to rehabilitate the dilapidated country and to make available the services which would be very instrumental in repatriation efforts.
Notwithstanding, the International Rescue Committee (2009) staff members from London, Brussels and Washington visited the Iraqi refugees in the United States and concluded that the there were major structural challenges with regard to funding and organization. They are faced with issues such as homelessness and unemployment which is putting their well-being under threat. This is compounded by the high levels of injury, trauma and illness which have plagued the Iraqis, hampering their integration into the American society. This is despite the fact that many Iraqis are highly educated individuals, who are lawyers, doctors, accountants or scientist in their own capacities. It is still a challenge for them to find employment in the United States, even entry level jobs, because they are either treated as illegal immigrants or foreigners, without any legal protection for employment and discrimination.
The United States, being party to the 1951 Refugee Convention, by accepting the refugees, has the responsibility to grant them protection. Having no jobs, the Iraqi refugees have depleted their resources obtained from the International Rescue Committee (IRC) and day by day they are at the risk of being homeless. This is compounded by the fact that many are unable to pay for their rents for months and are being threatened by notices. Thus, it can be seen that the United States also spends on its refugees, in accordance with the 1951 Refugee Convention. However, its restrictions in allowing refugees to enter and earn income in the United States prevent refugees from fully accessing the rights to employment, education, and asylum.
Jordan has been receptive to the Iraqis, receiving several hundreds of thousands of them, most of whom were fleeing the country after the US-led invasion of Iraq. Despite the fact that the United States orchestrated the 2003 Iraq war, it has only resettled a paltry 16,000 refugees against about an estimated 1.2 million and 750,000 refugees hosted in Syria and Jordan respectively. Syria and Jordan are not party to the 1951 convention or to the 1967 Protocol, but have been cooperative with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in the implementation of MoU (Memorandum of Understanding) which was assented to by the two parties in 1998. The MoU provisions are similar to those under the 1951 convention, but without the benefits that the International Refugee Law 1951 Refugee Convention.
The Jordanian government has flexibly applied Article 5 of the Memorandum of Understanding, because legitimate refugees have sometimes extended their period of stay for a long time without being resettled. On the other hand, the Iraqis refugees who managed to be granted a refugee status in the United States are leading a life of frustration and despair. Several cases of Iraqi refugees have been deported or pending deportation, as many have been refused to be given a refugee status. These refugees are finding it difficult to get a job and are without secure income, while others are constantly under the threat of evictions from their homes. Having no jobs, these refugees are unable to support themselves and those who depend on them if public assistance is limited. Most of these refugees are traumatized and are need of additional financial support and healthcare.
The United States, Canada, New-Zealand, Australia and Ireland, though signatories to the1951 refugee convention, have taken up a relatively smaller percentage of refugees compared to the non-signatory Arab League states. On the contrary, Syria and Jordan, which are not parties to the convention, have hosted more Iraqi refugees than these countries combined. The United States has always been quick to state how they are dealing with the human rights crisis in Iraq. They have admitted more than 16,000 refugees and this figure was expected to double by the close of 2009.
An estimated 570 million has been spent since 2007 to enhance the conditions of the displaced Iraqis, although sources stress that the U.S. should take responsibility for the problems it created. An estimated 2 million Iraqis have left the country, as the U.S.-led invasion occurred. Syria and Jordan, countries which are not party to the 1951 convention, are experiencing burdens on their social welfare, and are increasingly controlling the inflows of refugees to prevent further escalation of national economic and political issues.
Entry to these countries
Before this paper proceeds to the conditions of the 1951 Refugees Convention Treaty, it is critical to also define a refugee within this accord. According to the 1951 Refugees Convention Treaty, a refugee refers to any person who
1) Has been considered a refugee under the Arrangements of 12 May 1926 and 30 June 1928 or under the Conventions of 28 October 1933 and 10 February 1938, the Protocol of 14 September 1939 or the Constitution of the International Refugee Organization
2) As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to wellfounded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it
The 1967 Protocol revised the definition of a refugee, by removing time and geographic constraints. Jordan and Syria are not signatories to both the 1951 Refugees Convention Treaty and the 1967 Protocol. They have no policies that define who refugees are and their rights. Both countries provide asylum to many refugees, but generally treat them as foreigners with no employment rights.
Initially, Jordan had flexible immigration policy towards Iraqis. For instance, they were accepted to enter the kingdom of Jordan with valid passports and no special entry visas were required. Generally, they were issued with a visa valid for one month at the border of entry in addition they were allowed to register as visitors for an extended period of three to six months, although they were denied working permits and the residence permits which were given subject to renewal.
Jordan tightened entry and residence restrictions in the wake of Iraq terrorist bombings of three luxury hotels in Amman in late 2005, which resulted in the death of sixty people. Since the terrorist bombings, the Jordanian authorities have stringently turned away Iraqis at the border and they have further limited the time of validity of entry visas to three days. Renewal of Iraq residency permits has been scrutinized and more conditions have been attached to them. These measures have led to soaring numbers of illegal Iraq refugees in Jordan. Nonetheless, the Jordanian government has continued to faithfully give out one-year renewable permits to Iraq students, investors and employees.
The Jordanian authorities have passed legislations to govern Residence and Foreigners. The law No. 24 of 1973 imposes a JD1.5 per day fine on visitors who overstay beyond their permitted period of residence. Because of these fines, some of the Iraq families who are willing to go back to their homes cannot do so, because of their penalty debts to the government. The Jordanian government normally gives the illegal Iraqi residents a grace period to facilitate their status and to acquire legal residency in accordance to the law.
The grace period of status rectification is a platform for the illegal Iraqis to comply and facilitate their legality in accordance to the Jordanian laws. Nonetheless, Jordan has never instigated inspection campaigns to validate the compliance of Iraqis to residency and labor laws as it routinely does towards illegal foreign workers. Jordan has still sought to regulate the flow of Iraqis. Consequently, Iraqis who wish to enter the Jordan territory as of May 1, 2008 must possess a visa issued in advance. Owing to the absence of an operational Jordanian embassy in Iraq they have been forced to apply through the international courier TNTs offices in Baghdad or through Jordanian missions in third countries. A consensual agreement between TNT and the Jordanian government has permitted TNT to accept visa applications from Iraqis. Applicants receive the feedback from the Jordanian government within two weeks. On the other hand, many Palestinian men, who married in Jordanian wives, were granted the right of stay in Jordan.
The essence is that Jordanian authorities do not consistently enforce immigration laws against Iraqis who have overstayed and as a rule Jordan has implemented a policy of significant tolerance and clemency in enforcing immigration, residency and working laws towards Iraqis living in Jordan. It must be stressed that still there is some opposition to the Iraq presence in Jordan especially due to the prevailing socio-economic hardships endured by Jordanians owing in part to the overwhelming numbers of Iraq refugees and the rise in the cost of living in Jordan.
On the other hand, Syria is no party to the 1951 Refugee Convention, although after the Iraqi War in 2003, it granted Temporary Protection Regime (TPR) for all Iraqi nationals in Syria upon the Syrian authorities consent. The right to entry is stricter, because of the need of consent, compared to Jordan, which provides the rights to enter its state, from people who have historical or traditional links to the Kingdom of Jordan, such as Syria, Iraq, and Egypt.
This paper discusses also the plight of Palestinian refugees. As in other Arab contracting states, the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon are entitled to identification cards and travel documents. Nevertheless, the Palestinian refugees freedom of movement and residency is subject to subjective implementation and changes in the political atmosphere. For instance, the Lebanese interior minister issued a declaration in 1978 regulating the entry and exit of Palestinians into and out of Lebanon. This declaration effectively prevented 15,000 Libya-based Palestinians with Lebanese residence from returning to Lebanon without a special re-entry visa after Colonel Gaddafi expelled them from Libya. This entry restriction also affected other Lebanese Palestinians who happened to be outside Lebanon at the time. This pronouncement violated article (9) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which Lebanon had ratified. In addition, it contradicted with the Lebanese commitment as a member of the Arab League with emphasis to the Casablanca Protocol of 1965.
This paper proceeds to the actions of other signatories. In the last five years, signatories to the refugee convention of 1951 have hosted refugees from Sudan, Somali, Iran, Kurdstan, Iraq, and Palestine. The U.S., Canada, New-Zealand, Australia and Ireland, though signatories to the refugee convention, have taken up a relatively smaller percentage of refugees compared to the non-signatory Arab League states. On the other hand, the government of Brazil generously accepted to resettle 108 remaining Palestinians in November 2007. These Palestinians became the first batch of refugees coming from outside Latin America to benefit from the solidarity settlement program adopted by 20 Latin American countries, suggested to the long-lasting solution for refugees in the 2004 Mexico plan of Action. With the eventual evacuation of Al Ruwaished, the camp originally established after the US led invasion in Iraq was finally closed down. More than 650 Kurds were resettled abroad in northern Iraq, although 190 of them remained in the camp. It is worthy pointing out that the UNHCR does not recognize them as refugees because it believes that they still have an alternative long-lasting solution in Northern Iraq and hence do not need to be resettled outside the region. This shows that signatories provide refugee status and entry, although they also restrict the granting of refugee status in many cases.
Right of Asylum
Political refugees who seek asylum in Jordan are protected by the Jordanian Constitution of 1952 which bans extradition on account of their political beliefs or for their defense of liberty. In practice, Jordan is not party to the 1951 Convention or the Casablanca Protocol. The 1965 Casablanca Protocol manifests the attempt of the Arab League to make sure that there is a minimum of protection to Palestinians living in Arab states, by accepting the right of Palestinian refugees to work, to travel freely either inside or outside of their territories, to unite with family members, to own private property, to benefit from a wide spectrum of international human rights guarantees. Nonetheless, the Casablanca Protocol is not equally or consistently executed by Arab states.
Furthermore, Jordanian municipal law does not provide asylum seekers a complete package of human rights as enshrined in the 1951 convention. Jordan has not included the definition of refugees in its legislations and it has not institutionalized policies for the determination of refugee status.
Nevertheless, because of its central location, it has constantly found itself on the receiving end as fleeing refugees from the Palestinian territory seek asylum in Jordan. After the second Gulf war, UNHCR opened a regional office in Amman to provide international aid to Iraq asylum seekers. In addition, Jordan signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with UNHCR which effectively permitted UNHCR to assist refugees and other persons under its obligation with the exclusion of Palestinian refugees (Article 3).
The MOU domesticated the provisions of the refugee convention of 1951 and the promulgations of the 1967 Casablanca protocol which Jordan had not acceded to. The MOUs definition of refugees was a replication of the definition endorsed by the 1951 convention and the 1966 protocol, both of which are concerned with the status of refugees but without geographic and time limitations (Article 1 of the MOU).
The principle of non-refoulement stipulates that no state shall refuse admission to people claiming to be refugees. This means that based on the MOU, Jordan cannot deny the entry of refugees seeking asylum in its territory or expatriate refugees to countries where their life or freedom could be threatened on the basis of their racial, religious, national, membership of particular social group or political opinion (Article 2).
There was a consensus that UNHCR could be responsible for interviewing asylum seekers who entered Jordan surreptitiously and who were being held by authorities. After interviewing the illicit refugees, UNHCR will give its recommendations within one week except for special cases which require further procedures but even then the period should not exceed one month (Article 3). Although Jordan is expected to establish institutional mechanisms for transparent status determination (Article 14), these institutional mechanisms have not yet been legalized.
The UNHCR and Jordanian government have concurred that asylum seekers and refugees should be protected as per the internationally recognized standards. Consequently, refugees should be granted the legal status and UNHCR should strive to find long-lasting solutions be it voluntary repatriation to the mother country or resettlement in third party countries. Article 5 of the MOU limits the timeframe for repatriating legitimate refugees to less than six months. Despite these provisions, Jordan has no concrete plans for local integration, even though this is what preferred by many Iraqis, Palestinians and Kurds.
The Jordanian government has flexibly applied Article 5 of the Memorandum of Understanding, because legitimate refugees have sometimes extended their period of stay for a long time devoid of being resettled. The living conditions for the Iraqi refugees in Jordan have been governed by bilateral agreements, national law, the international conventions on human rights and other general international law. However, it is just a small fraction of Iraq refugees, who can expect to be considered for resettlement to these countries, because Jordan has no plans for local integration for these refugees.
Syria Arab Republic (SAR), on the other hand, broadly tolerates the refugees presence, but it has also not legalized their status. It also has no policies regarding asylum and it is merely waiting for the refugees to return to their national countries. Protection is only extended to those who can obtain the general recognition Letter and asylum Seekers Attestation Letter provided to refugees registered with UNHCR office in Damascus. The Syrian Government also acknowledges the need to accommodate refugees, based on the arrangement for the Palestinians who entered Syria after the military operations in Iraq and who were registered by UNHCR.
In addition, new immigration legislationregulations, which were signed during 2004 and 2005, states that if an alien is expelled from SAR territory heshe may not be allowed to return except with the permission of the Minister of Interior. For Arab nationals, they may stay in SAR for three months, but more than that, they must make a request for residence permit that must be submitted to the Immigration and Passports Department. In summary, for Syria There are no specific legal or administrative provisions for asylum seekers and refugees. They are treated in accordance to the relevant provisions of the immigration laws.
This paper proceeds to Palestinian refugees. For more than six decades, Palestinian refugees have continued to present one of the largest and most protracted cases of displacement in the world. Majority of these Palestinian refugees were displaced in the mid-20th century when the state of Israel employed military force and invaded Arab villages and towns. Besides, numerous displacements have occurred since, for instance, during the 1967 Arab-Israel war. The wave of Palestinian displacement has generated massive international debate, especially to the parties of the international refugee convention of 1951. Since most Palestinian refugees live in Arab countries such as Syria, Jordan and Lebanon and in the occupied Palestinian territories, such as East Jerusalem and the Gaza strip, many have been deprived of the basic human rights enshrined in the convention, because these states are non-signatories to the convention.
For instance, according to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), Lebanon hosts approximately 500,000 Palestinian refugees. More than half of these live in 12 refugee camps, while the rest reside in major towns and gatherings outside the camps. The Lebanese legislations continue to consider Palestinian refugees as foreigners. In these regard, the Lebanese laws denies the Palestinian refugees the basic rights granted to its citizens, while at the same time not according them the refugee rights documented and enshrined in the refugee law and the relevant international instruments. In spite of their prolonged longevity in Lebanon, they still lack provisions acknowledging them legally. Thus, unlike most laissez-faire democracies, where citizenship rights are determined by the period of residency, Lebanon nationality is not easily granted to refugees.
Since 1948, Palestinian refugees have lived under harsh conditions, because of political and racial issues, among other concerns. The United Nations has dedicated a secretariat devoted specifically to their rights. Although Jordan is a non-signatory to the refugee convention, it granted some of them with Jordanian citizenship. Syria is hosting 450,000 Palestinian refugees, 250,000 of whom are living in camps. Nevertheless, the Syrian government has granted them only with working and traveling rights, when they have acquired the necessary permits. The Lebanese government is hosting 400,000 Palestinian refugees half of whom living in camps. In addition to these officially registered numbers of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, 10 have not been registered and approximately 15,000 are non-ID Palestinians. Lebanon and Syria have ratified the 1965 Casablanca protocol on the treatment of Palestinian refugees. Generally speaking, the rights of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon are severely truncated they have no rights to Lebanese schools andor health facilities.
Right to Education
Before the 20062007 school year, all foreign children (Iraqis included), were not legalized to attend Jordanian public schools. But those who held residency permits were enrolled in the private schools. Due to this restriction, only 14,000 Iraqi children were able to attend Jordanian schools in years 20052006, rising to 18,000-19,000 students in private and public schools in 20062007 school year. Despite this remarkable increase, as many as an estimated 200,000 Iraqi refugee children were still not able to attend school.
In August of 2007, Jordanian Ministry of Education allowed all school going children to attend both private and public schools regardless of their status of residency. According to the Ministry of Education at the time, an estimated 50,000 Iraqis were earmarked to attend schools by the end of 2007 unfortunately, only 22,000 had enrolled by the end of September the same year. This slow down in the enrollment process was attributed to other factors, such as fear of being sent back to their countries. Most Iraqi refugees had overstayed their visas, but continue to stay in Jordan, and so they fear that they might be rounded up and repatriated back to their homeland, if they send their children to Jordanian schools. Other factors included the fact that many children continue to work in Jordan and many families are unable to afford fee payments required in primary and secondary schools. In any case, about 24,000 Iraqi refugee children attend schools in Jordan, of which 6,000 attend private schools. This implies vast majority are attending schools in Jordan.
The Jordanian constitution guarantees education to nationals, but it does not prohibit the foreign children from attending schools. The Kingdom is party to the 1989 CRC. Article 28 of the CRC provides for the rights of children to education. Jordan is also party to the CERD (Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination) which implies that it has to make sure that public education is made available to the undocumented immigrants and non-citizens.
Syria, on the other hand, offers free basic education to all, including refugees. The cost of higher education is frequently small. The surge of refugees compounded with the already continuous increase in enrolment, which resulted to school and classroom overcrowding. This has negative effects on equality of access to learning and education and on the health of students and teachers. There are increasing concerns that Syria would soon not be able to sustain its growing student population.
Lebanon also provides for basic education for its refugees. Palestinian refugees have been granted access to Lebanese government schools and Lebanese Universities though with attached conditions i.e., admission to government vocational training is a preserve of the Lebanese nationalities and the faculty of Arts in state Universities is absolutely reserved for the Lebanese students.
Right to Work
According to Article 23 of the Jordanian constitution, every Jordanian has the right to work. Furthermore, Article 12 of 1996 Jordanian Labor Law provides for the employment of foreigners. However, approval is required from the Ministry of Labor and this approval depends upon the lack of ability and relevant experience among the Jordanians. Furthermore, priority is given to the Arab workers.
To work in Jordan, Iraqi and Palestinian refugees have to possess a one year work permit from the Ministry of Labor. The ministry charges a fee for the permit issuance and renewals through the employer. Foreign workers, including the Iraqi refugees, who violate the Jordanian law, are subjected to deportation and cumulative fines. If deported, they are not allowed to return until three years are passed from the date of deportation. Jordan applies rather strict rules when in it comes to admission of Iraqi refugees solely because of the socio-economic conditions bedeviling the country. These are some of the reasons why some categories of jobs in government and public sectors and other occupations which are connected with national defense and security are reserved for the nationals of Jordan. The non-Jordanian nationals are not allowed to join unions.
Despite these provisions, many Iraqi refugees are experiencing workplace discrimination. In an interview with Kristele Younes, a Refugees International researcher narrated some of the harrowing experiences of Iraqi refugees
We saw a lot of Iraqis who were actually educated and who were skilled workers, but very few were actually able to get jobs in Jordan and Syria. Those who were able to get jobs were getting jobs under the table, in the black market, were underpaid, were exploited, and could not basically defend themselves because they are not entitled to anything under Jordanian or Syrian law for that matter. The very vast majority of the refugees do not work.
Other sources also highlight not all refugees can get fair compensation for their work or even find stable work, in the first place.
Refugees in Syria, on the contrary, do not possess the right to work, and though some refugees can deal with informal employment, this legal restriction is a great limitation in UNHCRs aim of providing sustainable self-reliance activities that would alleviate them from dependency on social welfare assistance. Even when Palestinian refugees do have the right to work, it is observed that the lack of giving the legal right to work to other refugees will persist to be a challenge.
The Lebanese Laws, on the other hand, view Palestinian refugees as foreigners. Still, Palestinian refugees have been guaranteed the right to work and social security under the Declaration No (17561) of September 1962. This declaration which regulates the foreign labor in Lebanon integrates three restrictive principles concerning the rights of Palestinian refugees to work and employment in Lebanon. They are
The right to secure work permit
The right to national preference and
The reciprocity of rights and obligations.
A source says, however, that Palestinian refugees have difficulty in obtaining work permits. Palestinians who have secured work permits also do not benefit from Lebanese social security arrangements, despite the fact that they make regular contributions as other Lebanese workers. Since 2005, the Lebanese government began admitting Lebanese born Palestinians into manual and clerical jobs formerly unavailable to them, while Palestinian refugees have been banned from seeking professional employment. The Lebanese laws and state practices concerning employment are inconsistent with the Lebanese commitment under the Convention of Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
Healthcare
Iraqis are allowed access to subsidized healthcare in Jordanian hospitals irrespective of their residence status, but if the Iraqi refugees want more medical care then they have to pay for it in the private hospitals. Jordan is a signatory of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESC) of 1966 , the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) of 1965, and the Convention of the Child (CRC) of 1989. These Conventions assure the rights to access to physical and mental health care.
On the other hand, the Syrian government is maximizing limited resources to execute necessary surgical operations, health care interventions, and vaccinations against epidemics and childhood immunizations. Basic healthcare services are free, including hospitalization, and the increasing numbers of refugees is exerting a toll on Syrias healthcare system. Lebanon shows a different health provision for refugees. One source states that for more than 60 years Palestinian refugees have been denied access to Lebanese government hospitals and associated health services. These contradictions in signatories to international treaties and experiences of refugees remark the disparity between treaties and compliance.
III. CONCLUSION
What emerges from these findings is how countries, which are not party to the 1951 Refugee Convention, act in a more responsive manner than signatories, like United States, particularly in terms of accepting refugees. The Republic of Syria and the Kingdom of Jordan are not party to the 1951 Convention or the 1967 Protocol. Syria and Jordan has a Memorandum of Understanding with the UNHCR and the Jordanian government has flexibly applied Article 5 of the Memorandum of Understanding, because legitimate refugees have sometimes extended their period of stay for a long time without being resettled. The United States could not adequately absorb Iraqi refugees, as compared to Jordan and Syria. Nonetheless, the increasing rate of refugees in Jordan and Syria produce certain humanitarian crises, because of the burden on their limited state resources. Furthermore, there are reports that there are also gaps between human rights treaties that Jordan and Syria are signatories of, and actual treatment of refugees. Sources call for a stronger monitoring process from the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, so that these disparities can be adequately addressed, and for refugees to enjoy human rights, even if they are considered as stateless.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment