The World as it Face another Era of Injustice

The transnational reach of information warfare, the growth of global terrorism, the
blending of domestic and international criminal acts and easier access to weapons of
mass destruction have raised the stakes in terms of the types of threats posed to states
and their citizens. The numerous numbers of casualties in every warzone causes a
worldwide concerns especially if these casualties resulted to a significant number of lost
of lives, not only to the combatants but also to the innocent civilians that are trapped in
that situation. Protocol I Article 44.3 of 1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva
Convention relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts states
that In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effect of
hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population
while they are engaged in an attack or in a military advantage to be gained. A widely
held view of international humanitarian law is that there is a bright line separation
between combatants is obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population
while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. . .
. However, the hostilities around the world had undeniably caused us much heartache
especially that the ones suffering much from these are the children.
It is saddening that the capacity of international humanitarian law and adequately
addressed conflict in its modern form is being grappled with by government officials and
legal practitioners, undergoing judicial review, carefully being analyzed by legal scholars
and receiving close scrutiny by the media. Despite the present of International
conventions such as the Geneva Convention that regulate the laws on war, the right of
people especially on their right to have a protected and secured life, is on the verge of
falling apart.
Because of these internal conflicts, refugees struggled to find a place to be their haven.
The 1951 Convention endorses a single definition of the term refugee in Article 1. The
emphasis of this definition is on the protection of persons from political or other forms of
persecution. A refugee, according to the Convention, is someone who is unable or
unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being
persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social
group, or political opinion. They are defined and protected by International law, and
must not be expelled or returned to situations where their life and freedom are at stake.
However, The Convention does not however apply to all persons who might otherwise
satisfy the definition of a refugee in Article 1. In particular, the Convention does not
apply to those for whom there are serious reasons for considering that they have
committed war crimes or crimes against humanity, serious non-political crimes, or are
guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. The
Convention also does not apply to those refugees who benefit from the protection or
assistance of a United Nations agency other than UNHCR, such as refugees from
Palestine who fall under the auspices of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency
for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). Nor does the Convention apply to
those refugees who have a status equivalent to nationals in their country of asylum.
In 2014, the number of refugees rose to 14.4 million. A further 5.1 million
registered refugees are cared for in some 60 camps across the Middle East by the
United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East
(UNRWA), which was set up in 1949 to care for displaced Palestinians. The conflict in
Syria continues to be by far the biggest driver of migration. But the ongoing violence in
Afghanistan and Iraq, abuses in Eritrea, as well as poverty in Kosovo, are also leading
people to look for new lives elsewhere.
The protection of refugees has many aspects. These include the safety from
being returned to danger, access to fair and efficient asylum procedures, and measures
to ensure that their basic human rights are respected while they secure a longer-term
solution.
However, the worlds system for protecting refugees is broken. It is obvious -
from Australia to South Sudans vast camps, from Istanbuls cold streets to the
European Unions heavily fortified walls.
Worldwide, 19.5 million people have been forced to seek sanctuary abroad.
Governments have a duty to help them. Yet, despite the hardships these refugees had
been fighting hard just to get to a place where they will be safe, most rich countries are
still treating refugees as somebody elses problem-- another disheartening fact in this
situation. Relative to this, in May 2015, thousands of people fleeing persecution in
Myanmar suffered for weeks onboard boats while Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia
bickered over who should help them. Hiding behind closed borders and fears of being
flooded, they have conveniently allowed poorer, mainly Middle Eastern, African and
South Asian countries, to host an incredible 86% of all refugees. Where is the problem
here? It is obvious, and is very disappointing that those who have pledge support are
hiding from obligations. Wealthy countries quite simply arent keeping their high-profile
promises to fund aid for refugees abroad.
For example, the UN has received less than half the funding it needs to support
Syrias 4 million refugees. This is now forcing 80% of refugees living outside camps in
Jordan to do dangerous, degrading jobs or send their children out to beg.
South Sudans forgotten refugee crisis has been met with a pitiful 18% of the
money needed for absolute basics like food and medicine.
Another injustice here is that some refugees were still abused after what theyve
been through just like in Durban, South Africa, where at least four people died, many
were seriously injured, and over 1,000 mainly Burundian and Congolese refugees
forced to flee after violence and looting broke out in April and May 2015.
And by ignoring most appeals for humanitarian aid, they have left UN agencies
so broke they cant even feed many refugees properly anymore.
The world has a very short memory. In the aftermath of World War II, most
countries agreed to protect refugees through the 1951 Refugee Convention, and
through UN agencies like the UNHCR.
 Barbed wire fences and chronic underfunding have left that vision of a better
world in tatters. By ignoring the warning signs, world leaders have allowed a huge,
global humanitarian crisis to unfold.
People are dying while governments spend billions on border control. With that
21 million and above numbers of world refugee crisis, ten percent (10%) of the world
population is refugees. Eighty six percent (86%) of these refugees still needed
resettlement and majority of the remaining fourteen (14%) were hosted by the
developing countries.
With the facts introduced above, it is only proper that a solution will be proposed
to at least address this problem. There is nothing more profound answer to this problem
other than fully eradicating war in the agenda of all nations. However ideal, this would
not be possible because first and foremost the laws on war are too complicated to
understand. There are too many facets to be considered and we need expertise to be
able to come up with a viable solution on how to attain worldwide peace.
Thats the reason why I opted to just discuss possible inputs to at least minimize
the injustices that refugees often experience. First, for those that application for asylum
had not yet been approved, we should rally for another convention on refugees that will
really uphold their rights and is fully funded or rather, why not create a centralized
Agency or an International Administrative Body that will look after the welfare of the
refugees-- an organization that is funded by the World Bank Organization to avoid that
problem on finances and also the dependency to the support given by other countries?
Secondly, it would be nice if we take legal action, in a form of a treaty, on the
cases of refugees, a legal agreement that no matter what, signatories to that treaty will
readily accepts refugees after reaffirming their identitiesthat the very slow process of
applying for asylum would be eradicated. Relative to this, countries who failed to
conform with the treaty will be sanctioned twice the damage inflicted to the refugees.
And lastly, why not instead of the civilians, forced the parties engaging in the
combat to move out of the country and fight on the warzone designated by the
International Community to totally wipe the possibility of injuries on the part of the non
combatants. In this, well have fewer casualties, and lesser number of people who are
forced to move out of their birthplace.
The message here is really simple, if we can just welcome these refugees with
open arms, then this problem would not have arise.