Revitalizing and reforming international asylum law: a proposal to add gender to the refugee definition

• Author: Michelle Shapiro
• Position: Received her J.D. from Georgetown Law in May 2021 with a certificate in Refugees and Humanitarian Emergencies
• Pages: 795-822

REVITALIZING AND REFORMING

INTERNATIONAL ASYLUM LAW: A PROPOSAL

TO ADD GENDER TO THE REFUGEE DEFINITION

MICHELLE SHAPIRO*

ABSTRACT

On July 28, 1951, the U.N. Conference of Plenipotentiaries adopted the

Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which set out international

principles for the protection of refugees and provided a definition of refugee.

The 1967 Optional Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees broadened

this definition, removing the geographic and temporal restrictions of the

1951 Convention. While purporting to be gender-neutral, the refugee defini-

tion excluded gender as a basis for asylum, which has posed a challenge for

gender-based asylum seekers. While some steps have been taken to address

this gap, such efforts have largely been insufficient. Countries have also taken

steps on their own to protect refugees facing gender-based violence. For

example, in Matter of Kasinga, the BIA recognized that women fleeing gen-

der-based violence could be eligible for protection in the United States.

However, without robust international protections for gender-based claims

(that place such claims on the same level as the other enumerated grounds),

such claims remain vulnerable, as demonstrated by the actions of the Trump

administration. Moving forward, it is imperative to ensure that gender-based

claims are firmly protected within a modern legal framework. I argue that the

best way to do this is through a new convention protocol that adds gender to

the refugee definition as the sixth protected ground.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 797

II. GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE ........................... 798

* Michelle Shapiro received her J.D. from Georgetown Law in May 2021 with a certificate in

Refugees and Humanitarian Emergencies. She is currently a fellow at the DC Affordable Law Firm.

Michelle was a Managing Editor of the 35th Volume of the Georgetown Immigration Law Journal.

© 2022, Michelle Shapiro.

795

III. OVERVIEW OF REFUGEE LAW .......................... 799

A. History of International Refugee Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 799

B. Current International Refugee Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 801

1. International Refugee Framework.............. 801

2. Gender Compared to Other Asylum Grounds. . . . . . 801

IV. EXCLUSION OF WOMEN AS PERSISTING GAP IN THIS FRAMEWORK . . . 803

A. Historical Exclusion of Women from the Refugee

Protection Regime ............................ 803

B. Efforts to Include Women in the Current Refugee

Framework ................................. 805

1. Gender Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 805

2. Particular Social Group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 805

C. Existing Domestic Refugee Systems in the Absence of

Comprehensive International Solutions. . . . . . . . . . . . . 807

1. Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 807

2. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 809

V. THE REFUGEE DEFINITION SHOULD BE EXPANDED TO INCLUDE

GENDER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 812

A. Proposal for Convention Protocol ................. 812

1. Non-Self-Executing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 812

2. Need for a Binding Legal Instrument............ 813

3. Challenges and Lessons from the Global Compact . . 813

B. Proposal Advantages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 814

1. Protects Gender-Based Asylum Seekers Amidst an

Anti-immigrant Political Climate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 814

2. Frames Gender-Based Violence as a Significant Issue

of Public Concern. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 817

a. Significant Issue ....................... 818

b. Of Public Concern. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 818

VI. COUNTERARGUMENTS TO PROPOSAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 819

VII. CONCLUSION ..................................... 821

VIII. APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 822

A. European Asylum Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 822

796 GEORGETOWN IMMIGRATION LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 36:795