Talk:Convention relating to the Status of Refugees

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject New Zealand  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Human rights (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject International relations  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Canada[edit]

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. 144.136.192.45 (talk) 05:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

What does not being a party to the convention do?[edit]

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."
while the Protocol says:
"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."
and
"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)

Arabian Gulf[edit]

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 129.127.54.164 (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Does this page need to be protected from vandalism[edit]

Considering the current political climate in the US, UK, and elsewhere, would it be a good idea to lock down this article to dissuade vandalism? Darqcyde (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 29 May 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus, default to previous stable title, Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. Jenks24 (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)



United Nations Convention relating to the Status of RefugeesConvention relating to the Status of Refugees – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC) – L.tak (talk) 06:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @L.tak: sorry, the rationale seems not to pop up: Convention relating to the Status of Refugees|reverting a bold move of last night, which I contest. Mover (Miniapolis) suggests that the words UN need to be added as part of the official name, but the UNHCR version and the depositary seem not to agree. L.tak (talk) 06:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose A document authored by the UN should include that attribution in the title since, by definition, it is the common name.  Philg88 talk 07:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure what you are saying... Does the fact that the UN is the depositary, automatically render such a convention's name to include the word UN? There are many examples where it does (UNCLOS), but also many where it doesn't (CWC, arms trade treaty). I think we should evaluate what the common or the formal name is according to reliable sources. So lets revert so the BRD cycle can run its course... L.tak (talk) 08:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • A revert in the middle of an RM is not a good idea. Let this run for the full seven days and a clear consensus should emerge as to the desired outcome.  Philg88 talk 09:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • No problem to leave it here and see if there indeed was consensus for the move to United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees... Looking forward to your reaction on my question on your rationale! L.tak (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)