ASEAN and its approach to forced migration issues

The failure of regional refugee protection and responsibility sharing: Policy neglect in the EU and ASEAN

“…The growth of intra-regional labor flows in recent decades (Huguet, 2016), particularly the movement of semi-skilled and unskilled workers (Kneebone, 2011), has prompted a number of reactionary national policies to manage, and control, migration. In a region characterized by high mobility, national governments individually and as part of ASEAN have focused predominantly on the issue of regular and irregular migration rather than refugee protection (Petcharamesree, 2016). On the one hand, receiving states have been concerned over the effects of growing foreign workers for their own domestic labor force, while on the other hand, sending states have been preoccupied with ensuring that their own citizens receive adequate rights and protection abroad (Huguet, 2016;Kneebone, 2011Kneebone, , 2014.…”

“…Existing scholarly analysis has appropriately documented how national governments have utilized regional frameworks such as the 2007 ASEAN Declaration on Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Migrant Workers, which was later fleshed out by the 2017 ASEAN Consensus on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Migrant Workers and the ASEAN Convention Against Trafficking in Persons (2015) to address refugee protection issues (Curley and Wong, 2008;Kneebone, 2011Kneebone, , 2016Petcharamesree, 2016;Thuzar, 2017). The remainder of this section, however, will focus specifically on the implications of ASEAN's fledging human rights framework on regional governance and policy development on refugee protection as distinct from issues of labor migration.…”

“…The main refugee receiving ASEAN countries—Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia—have not adopted national legislation to govern asylum entry and asylum procedures. They have not signed the 1951 Geneva Convention or its 1967 Protocol and ‘lack a formal legislative and administrative framework to address refugee matters’ (Petcharamesree, 2016: 177). Only two ASEAN states are signatories to the UN Refugee Convention—the Philippines and Cambodia.…”

“…According to Nethery (2014: 112) ‘most Asian states were absent from the proceedings’ that led to the creation of the Convention, and those who did participate ‘expressed a sense of frustration that their contributions were marginalised.’ Thus, the Geneva Convention and the norms of refugee protection have been viewed as ‘irrelevant to Asia’ (Nethery, 2014: 108). As a consequence, only a small number of refugees in Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia are recognized as refugees (Petcharamesree, 2016: 176).…”

“…As Kneebone (2011: 145) argues, issues about ‘migrant or “foreign” workers … raise perceived and real political and security implications which appear to outweigh the “human security” dimension.’ In countries such as Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia, trafficking in particular has become the dominant theme and lens through which refugee movements have been addressed. In these countries, persons who cross the border without permission and proper documents are ‘considered as illegal immigrants’ (Petcharamesree, 2016: 179). Considering the vulnerable plight of refugees, it is often unlikely that they possess the correct travel or identification documents.…”