Migration Law and Refugee Rights in South Asia: Legal Gaps and 2023–24 Developments.
Abstract
Migration and refugee flows have long shaped the political, demographic, and legal landscapes of South
Asia. The region—comprising India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, the Maldives, and
Afghanistan—hosts more than six million cross-border migrants and refugees, yet lacks a unified regional
legal framework comparable to the 1951 Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol. This absence of a binding
normative regime has left the protection of displaced populations to the discretion of national governments,
often producing fragmented, inconsistent, and politically contingent policies. The years 2023 and 2024
witnessed new pressures: the continuation of the Rohingya crisis, the exodus of Afghans after the Taliban
takeover, climate-induced displacement in Bangladesh’s coastal belts, and internal migration driven by
economic precarity post-Covid-19. At the same time, digital border surveillance, citizenship registries, and
the intersection of national-security legislation with humanitarian law have intensified debates about rights,
sovereignty, and belonging.
This paper examines the legal and institutional gaps governing migration and refugee protection in South
Asia, tracing their colonial origins, post-independence evolution, and contemporary challenges. It argues
that while constitutional provisions and human-rights jurisprudence in several South Asian states indirectly
safeguard certain entitlements of refugees and migrants, the absence of codified refugee law leaves these
protections vulnerable to executive discretion. The study employs a mixed methodology combining doctrinal
analysis, comparative law, and policy review of developments through 2023–24. It demonstrates that regional
cooperation under SAARC has remained largely declaratory, failing to translate humanitarian commitments
into binding obligations. The paper concludes that a South Asian Regional Refugee Framework anchored
in human-rights standards, complemented by domestic legislation harmonised across states, is essential to
bridge the normative and institutional deficits that currently undermine both state capacity and human
dignity.
Asia. The region—comprising India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, the Maldives, and
Afghanistan—hosts more than six million cross-border migrants and refugees, yet lacks a unified regional
legal framework comparable to the 1951 Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol. This absence of a binding
normative regime has left the protection of displaced populations to the discretion of national governments,
often producing fragmented, inconsistent, and politically contingent policies. The years 2023 and 2024
witnessed new pressures: the continuation of the Rohingya crisis, the exodus of Afghans after the Taliban
takeover, climate-induced displacement in Bangladesh’s coastal belts, and internal migration driven by
economic precarity post-Covid-19. At the same time, digital border surveillance, citizenship registries, and
the intersection of national-security legislation with humanitarian law have intensified debates about rights,
sovereignty, and belonging.
This paper examines the legal and institutional gaps governing migration and refugee protection in South
Asia, tracing their colonial origins, post-independence evolution, and contemporary challenges. It argues
that while constitutional provisions and human-rights jurisprudence in several South Asian states indirectly
safeguard certain entitlements of refugees and migrants, the absence of codified refugee law leaves these
protections vulnerable to executive discretion. The study employs a mixed methodology combining doctrinal
analysis, comparative law, and policy review of developments through 2023–24. It demonstrates that regional
cooperation under SAARC has remained largely declaratory, failing to translate humanitarian commitments
into binding obligations. The paper concludes that a South Asian Regional Refugee Framework anchored
in human-rights standards, complemented by domestic legislation harmonised across states, is essential to
bridge the normative and institutional deficits that currently undermine both state capacity and human
dignity.