This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
What about Canada's reservation to the convention?
Maybe they like to keep a bit of sovereignty? The Convention places obligations but no rights, is therefore a one-sided contract, especially as no provision seems to be made to exit the Convention. That would not have to mean that countries no longer accept refugees, only that they can set their own conditions and abuse may be addressed. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 05:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
What does not being a party to the convention do?
It is stated that three countries are party to the protocol, but not the convention. What is the practical result of that? This should be explained in the article. Zginder 2013-10-19T02:26:52Z
Is this insufficient? "It entered into force on 22 April 1954. It was initially limited to protecting European refugees after World War II, but a 1967 Protocol removed the geographical and time limits, expanding the Convention's scope." L.tak (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
It looks like that explanation isn't quite right. The text of the convention says:
"For the purposes of this Convention, the words "events occurring before 1 January 1951" in article i, section A, shall be understood to mean either:
(a) "events occurring in Europe before 1 January 1951"; or
(b) "events occurring in Europe or elsewhere before 1 January 1951"; and each Contracting State shall make a declaration at the time of signature, ratification or accession, specifying which of these meanings it applies for the purpose of its obligations under this Convention."
"For the purpose of the present Protocol, the term "refugee" shall, except as regards the application of paragraph 3 of this article, mean any person within the definition of article 1 of the Convention as if the words "As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and ..." and the words "... as a result of such events ", in article 1 A (2) were omitted."
"The present Protocol shall be applied by the States Parties hereto without any geographic limitation, save that existing declarations made by States already Parties to the Convention in accordance with article 1 B (1) (a) of the Convention, shall, unless extended under article 1 B (2) thereof, apply also under the present Protocol."
So the Convention is only limited to European refugees if states declare that, and the Protocols grandfathers in these geographic limitation declarations. TDL (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
So why aren't the Arabian Gulf countries, like the UAE, Saudi Arabia, et al, not interested in signing the convention?? Shame on these countries, they don't give a damn about foreigners and temporary foreign workers! They generally treat them with disdain. Most locals in these countries have forgotten that their own parents/ grandparents lived harsh lives too, without running water and without air-conditioning! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)