Abstract

Individuals and organizations throughout South Asia have been striving to implement refugee laws for decades. Although there have been several accomplishments for the human rights community, like Pakistan's agreement to house over three million refugees at one point, the struggle for refugee rights continues. Refugees still have no legal protections in Pakistan or elsewhere in South Asia. In the last few years, proponents of refugee law have settled on a determined mission to institute domestic legislation, country by country, throughout South Asia. At the center of those efforts is the Model National Law on Refugees, a comprehensive bill that sets out the definition of a refugee and the rights that person enjoys. While the content of the Model Law fits precisely the needs of refugees and South Asian nations, the plan for individual implementation is somewhat flawed. Due to the interests of states, laws protecting refugees are generally only feasible when adopted in multilateral settings. Previous studies have discussed the importance of incorporating the interests of states when conceiving a plan for refugee reform, although few have addressed the topic head on. The pro-versus-con debate over refugee rights has polarized into two seemingly distinct positions - that of the human rights community that puts forth ideological arguments, and that of the so-called "political realists" who elevate the interests of the state. However, both camps have failed to recognize vital overlaps between their philosophical standpoints. Specifically, both groups have neglected to discuss the state's interest in adopting refugee laws.