THE GENEVA CONVENTION AND THE ECLIPSE OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE NEW GLOBAL DISORDER
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19499191Keywords:
Refugee protection, Geneva Convention, Selective universalism, Externalization, Normalization of exceptionAbstract
The Geneva Convention and the Eclipse of Human Rights in the New Global Disorder.
Seventy years after the 1951 Geneva Convention, the international refugee protection system faces a crisis of legitimacy and implementation. Designed for post-war Europe, the Convention’s universalism has become selective, shaped by geopolitics, security agendas, and unequal regional responsibilities. With over 120 million forcibly displaced people worldwide, the gap between legal norms and humanitarian realities has never been wider. In Europe, the 2015 “refugee crisis” exposed a breakdown of political cohesion and solidarity. The EU’s response – culminating in the 2023 Pact on Migration and Asylum – continues to privilege containment and externalization (e.g., deals with Tunisia and Libya) over protection and shared responsibility. Italy embodies this tension, alternating between humanitarian innovation (such as Humanitarian Corridors) and restrictive, securitized policies. Globally, crises from Ukraine to Gaza, Sudan, and Myanmar underscore the regionalization of displacement and the asymmetry of responsibility between North and South. Environmental and hybrid forms of vulnerability – unrecognized by the 1951 definition – demand a conceptual expansion of asylum beyond individual persecution. The non-application of refugee law has become a political strategy: states uphold the Convention rhetorically while hollowing it out through restrictive clauses and accelerated procedures. This “normalization of exception” erodes both refugee subjectivity and the authority of international law itself, turning the Geneva Convention into a symbolic manifesto rather than an operative norm. Italy’s experience illustrates the dual path ahead: the dismantling of decentralized reception systems versus the promise of civil-society-driven humanitari an models. Ultimately, the renewal of the Convention’s spirit requires reframing asylum as a foundational right of democracy, not a privilege of sovereignty. In today’s global disorder, the treatment of refugees remains a moral litmus test for liberal institutions – echoing Arendt’s reminder that the “right to have rights” is the cornerstone of humanity
References
• ALEINIKOFFT. Alexander; ZAMORE, Leah, The Arc of Protection: Reforming the International Refugee Regime, Stanford University Press, Stanford, 2019.
• AMBROSINI, Maurizio, Irregular Immigration in Southern Europe: Actors, Dynamics and Governance, Palgrave, London-New York, 2018.
• BELEA, Simion, “Human Rights without Borders for Refugees and Asylum Seekers. Social and Jurisdictional Aspects”, Journal for Ethics in Social Studies ISSN: 2559 – 7612 2021, Volume 5, Issue 1, Pages: 23. | https://doi.org/10.18662/jess/5.1/39
• BETTS, Alexander; LOESCHER, Gil, Refugees in international relations, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010.
• COCCIA, Benedetto; RICCI, Antonio (eds.), Ospiti indesiderati. Il diritto d’asilo a 70 anni dalla Convenzione Onu sui rifugiati/ Undesired Guests. The Right of Asylum 70 years after the UN Refugee Convention, Istituto di Studi
Politici “S. Pio V” and IDOS, Roma, 2022.
• GOODWIN-GILL, Guy S.; MCADAM, Jane, The Refugee in International Law (4th ed.), Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2021.
• GUILD, Elspeth; CARRERA, Sergio et al., Reforming the Common European Asylum System: The New European Agenda on Migration, CEPS, Brussels, 2016.
• HATHAWAY, James C., The Rights of Refugees under International Law (2nd ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2021.
• LARKING. Emma, Refugees and the Myth of Human Rights. Life Outside the Pale of the Law, Ashgate Publishing, Farnham - Burlington, 2014.
• NICHOLSON. Frances; TWOMEY. Patrick (eds.), Refugee Rights and Reality, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999.
