Recently, we have witnessed global refugee crises caused not only by armed conflicts and wars but also by climate change. The situation is as serious as they were when the international community adopted the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (hereafter the 1951 Convention), requiring international cooperation and collaboration more than ever. However, the international responses have not been enough, even retrograde, to address the crises. For instance, refugee hosting countries, like Australia and the USA, used to provide resettlement opportunities for refugees over the long histories of immigrants, complying with the 1951 Refugees Convention. But now, even those countries are trying to evade refugee protection responsibilities. The indefinite delay of resettlement to the host countries, mainly in the global north, has led to a ‘protracted refugee situation’ in the accommodating countries in Southeast Asia, which reveals the limitation of the international refugee regime based on the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (hereafter the 1967 Protocol).

The refugee issues demand international collaboration because it is related to people crossing the borders. That is why the international community realized the necessity to regulate the issue and formulated the international refugee laws, including the 1951 Refugees Convention and the 1967 Protocol, to share the responsibilities. Korea also has taken part in these efforts by ratifying the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol in 1991 and legislating the Refugee Law in 2013 for the first time in Asia. In addition, the country has implemented a pilot program to resettle around 30 refugees yearly since 2015. However, there are many challenges to complying with international regulations and fulfilling responsibilities to protect refugees, as we noticed from the case of Yemen refugees claiming asylum in Jeju Island in 2018. Also, Korea has often been criticized for evading its fair share of refugee protection responsibilities due to its low refugee recognition rate, which is 2.8%.

This study aims to suggest some implications for refugee policies to help the Korean government carry out its obligations as a sound member of the international community. In this regard, some ASEAN countries may provide good reference points with their decades-long experiences coping with refugee issues. 

Southeast Asia is a region both to be the origins of refugees and to provide accommodating space for them over the years. This two-sided situation has been developed due to the ‘open regional system’ based on its geographical and environmental aspects. The countries in Southeast Asia have been the origins of refugees in their histories. Their histories have evolved by combining the external pressure and internal dynamics from the traditional state-building process and colonization by the Western powers to independence movements. All these events have frequently led to wars and conflicts with their neighbors and/or within the countries. At the same time, Southeast Asian countries have provided shelters for refugees flowing in from the neighboring countries.

In fact, from when we had no clear distinction between victims of disaster, displaced people and refugees, peoples in Southeast Asia have crossed the borders with much fewer restrictions. Although the modern state-nations have developed more strict distinctions based on peoples' origins and the borderlines, Southeast Asian countries have tolerated those moving into their territories and allowed their, though unofficial, integration. These Southeast Asian histories and experiences seem different from those assumed by the international refugee regime based on the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol. Thus, we may need different perspectives to understand them. This study aims to highlight the lessons learned from some ASEAN countries' experiences, explore the implications of improving the Korean refugee policies, and search for the themes and methods of future collaborations with these countries.

We select the countries for our study with a criterion: whether to ratify the international refugee laws. The first group includes those ratifying the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol, which means they are expected to have institutional protection for refugees, complying with international standards to some extent. These countries could be used as reference points for Korea under similar conditions. The second group consists of the countries without ratifying either but allowing the refugee influx for decades. They provide ‘partial’ or ‘unofficial’ protection for refugees because they do not recognize the refugee status but permit the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), International Organization for Migration (IOM), and other local/ international NGOs to help refugees. We select five ASEAN countries, the Philippines, Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Indonesia, and put the first two countries into the ratifying group and the other three into the non-ratifying group.

We use a comparative methodology, ‘contrast of contexts,’ to extract the implications of the refugee protection practices in the five countries with three variables, institution, geo-environment, and socio-political environment, reflecting the characteristics of the five selected countries. First, with the institution variable, we determine whether ratification of the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol would provide any actual protection to refugees. Second, we use the geo-environmental variable dividing Southeast Asia into two, mainland (Thailand and Cambodia) and maritime (Malaysia, Indonesia, and Philippines), to understand the influence of the geographical location and environmental factors on the refugee issues. This variable helps explain the ways of the refugee inflow and outflow and the size and composition of the incoming refugees. The last variable, the socio-political factor, is selected to explore the relationship between the levels of democracy and refugee protection. We categorize Thailand and Cambodia as electoral authoritarianism and Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines as electoral democracies. We also analyze what aspects of the political system may create differences in refugee protection practices. The political variable may affect the variety of actors, the autonomy of civil society, refugees' preferences, and local integration.

The existing literature on Southeast Asian refugee issues mainly focuses on ratifying the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol and criticizes the institutional weaknesses of refugee protection. 

Specifically, most studies are inclined to denounce the accommodating countries to control the refugee inflow with the immigration law, to regard their policies as defensive, and to depreciate the outcomes of the refugee-relevant practices in these countries. While the existing studies narrowly focus on the institutional protection the central governments provide, they ignore positive outcomes and achievements made by other actors, including local governments, international organizations, civil society, and refugee-led organizations. Our study wants to fill the gap by exploring the practices of refugee protection carried out by various actors, both governmental and non-governmental, by overcoming the weaknesses of regulations and policies through interaction.

Chapter 3 presents the essence of our study, investigating the refugee situations in the five countries and analyzing the refugee protection practices of different actors and their implications. 

Thailand's geographical location has made the country most susceptible to refugee crises caused by the events in the neighboring countries. Especially during the Indochina War, the country formed a primary policy direction in responding to the refugee crises, summarized as ‘humane deterrence,’ which Thailand has maintained until now. In 1979, when the country had the refugee influx from Cambodia, the Thai government enacted an immigration law, defining anybody entering the country without the government's permission as ‘an illegal immigrant.’ It has become the basic approach of the Thai government to apply not only to refugees from the Indochina War but also to any refugees arriving later, including massive inflow from Myanmar. However, in reality, the Thai government has accommodated around 100,000 Myanmar refugees in 9 refugee camps scattered along the Thai-Myanmar border and provided shelter by conniving the countless Myanmar people without refugee status to live as undocumented immigrants in the Thai territory. Even though the country did not ratify the 1951 Convention, she has the constitution and other domestic laws to be used for refugee protection while ratifying several international human rights laws to provide legal space for complementary protection. In addition, the country has allowed unofficial protection to be provided by international organizations, including UNHCR and refugee-supporting NGOs. In response to the prolonged Myanmar refugee situation, the Thai government formed the Provincial Admission Boards in the provincial governments to support the registration of qualified refugees for the third country resettlement program implemented by UNHCR, the USA and other Western countries in the mid-2000s. Also, the Thai government has provided medical services and education through various non-governmental actors' activities, including Mae Tao Clinic. In summary, while Thailand has insufficient institutional protection at the national level, the country has provided various complementary protection.

Malaysia has hosted the most enormous number of refugees in Southeast Asia. In 2022, the country was recorded to host 134,554 refugees from various origins, including those out of Southeast Asia and neighboring countries such as Myanmar, from which refugees passed through Thailand. The Andaman Sea Crisis of Rohingya in 2015 became a turning point in Malaysian refugee policies. Since then, the Malay government has allowed Southeast Asian refugees to stay temporarily in its territory until durable solutions for refugees are made. Recently, the refugee influx due to the military coup in Myanmar has increased the work burden of UNHCR, which has been the leading actor in determining the refugee status and protecting them, resulting in the deteriorating situation of refugees. Similar to Thailand, Malaysia has an immigration law to control refugees, thus leaving refugees without any legal status and making refugees vulnerable to arbitrary detention and deportation as illegal aliens.

When a country does not ratify the Refugee Convention, we may appeal to international human rights laws for complementary refugee protection. However, Malaysia ratified only three core international human rights laws: the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Even worse, the country made several reservations for each Convention, resulting in watering down the laws. Nonetheless, it is crucial to recognize that the country has allowed various international organizations, national agencies and civil society to promote the refugees' rights in alternative ways. In addition, recently, the Malay Prime Minister has taken more positive steps related to the refugee issues, such as using the term ‘refugees’ to refer to those who would be called ‘illegal aliens’ and urging cooperation and collaboration of Southeast Asian countries over the issues.

Moreover, there was a significant legal case in February 2023 about refugees' worker rights. A refugee worker brought a case of unfair dismissal and wage delay to the Industrial Court of Malaysia and received a favorable verdict. The victory was regarded as an official recognition of the rights of refugees as workers for the first time. The case was a part of the legal progress and achievements for refugees and other social issues, such as the death penalty and women's and minorities' rights, through legislation and court cases during the first half of 2023. The Malaysian experiences suggest an important lesson that enhancing democracy in a society may be as crucial as the international refugee regime in order to improve refugee protection.

Indonesia also did not ratify the refugee convention or the refugee law. The country has used the immigration law to deal with refugee issues. These facts may attribute the country seemingly to having very weak refugee institutions. However, contrary to the strict official position, the government has implemented refugee policies based on tolerance and co-existence. Mainly, the government has provided partial or informal protection by collaborating with international and local organizations working for refugees. These groups include UNHCR Indonesia, IOM, Jesuit Refugee Service Indonesia, SUAKA, Human Rights Working Group, and Amnesty Indonesia.

In addition, Indonesia ratified several international human rights laws, which can be used to advocate complementary protection for refugees. Also, in 2009, the country contributed to forming the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) and became the only country to appoint a human rights activist as its representative. AICHR is a body that copes with human rights issues that ASEAN may not officially cover. Thurs, it can work on refugee issues.

Historically, the Philippines has accepted refugees from various origins both in and out of Southeast Asia. The refugee history could date back to 1910 when White Russians escaping from Russia flowed into the country after World War I. Since then, the country has opened its door to refugees around the world nine times more and ratified the Convention and the Protocol in 1981, earlier than many other countries. Also, the country accommodated around 300,000 refugees from Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos during the Indochina refugee crisis.

Also, the country installed the refugee status determination system in 1988 for the first time among ASEAN countries. The Refugees and Stateless Persons Protection Unit under the Ministry of Justice introduced the procedures to determine the status of stateless persons in 2012, which are closely related to refugee status determination. Furthermore, the government enacted ‘the Rule on Facilitated Naturalization of Refugees and Stateless Persons’ in March 2022, the first case in the world for the judicature to lead the simplification of the naturalization procedures of stateless persons.

In addition, some of its cities have participated in the UNHCR campaign of Cities #WithRefugees since 2019. This is one of the examples of local governments taking part in the international initiative for refugee protection. In the campaign, 13 Philippines cities have signed the statement of solidarity together with more than 250 cities worldwide, pledging to support refugees and promote inclusion. In August 2023, the Philippines continued to respect international standards, including joining the ‘New Transit Agreement.’ However, despite its efforts, the number of refugees in the Philippines was only 856 in 2022. It may mean that the institutionalization of refugee protection may not be enough to protect refugees.

Once Cambodia was one of the origins of mass refugee outflow during the Indochina refugee crisis, the country ratified the Refugee Convention in 1992 following the Philippines, and all nine core international human rights laws closely related to refugee protection. In this regard, the country could be compared to the Philippines. However, the number of refugees staying in the country was only 24 persons in 2022, the majority of whom were Montagnard, the indigenous people from Vietnam Highlands escaping during the Vietnam War. In addition, even after the new government was set up through the 1993 election, the country has struggled with its domestic issues, including massive Internal Displaced Persons (IDPs) resulting from internal political turbulence.

Cambodia has a sound legal foundation for refugee protection both in general and in detail, with the constitution guaranteeing universal human rights and respect for international laws and with the 2009 enactment of a decree about the refugee status determination (RSD) procedure. However, especially the 2009 decree resulted in some negative outcomes. One of the most significant changes made by the decree was transferring the task of determining refugee status, which used to be done by UNHCR, to the Cambodian government. This change caused several problems. For instance, the RSD procedures have been considerably delayed, but there was no government support. This situation has increased the economic and psychological burdens of asylum seekers. Even worse, the Cambodian government has been criticized for using refugees for the country's economic gains. One such case was receiving tremendous aid from China after deporting Uighur asylum seekers to China in 2009. Another case was that the Cambodian government accepted 55 million Australian Dollars in return for signing an agreement about resetting Nauru refugees in Cambodia who initially tried to seek protection in Australia in 2014. To make matters worse, the country has no non-governmental actors except Jesuit Refugee Service Cambodia.

The comparative analysis of refugee protection practices in the five ASEAN countries reveals that the three factors proposed in the research methods were valid. In particular, geographical factor such as geographical proximity is directly correlated with the high level of refugee admission in Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia. Besides, the socio-cultural characteristics of mainland or island Southeast Asia also have varying effects on different countries. For example, the official religion of Malaysia, Islam, which is considered a characteristic of island Southeast Asia, plays as a pulling factor in drawing Muslim refugees into the country, including the Rohingya people from Myanmar.

It was also found that the economic condition of host countries is a significant factor. This claim is supported by the massive flow of refugees heading to Malaysia and Thailand, the two largest labor-importing countries in the region. Conversely, the economic factor also explains why the Philippines and Cambodia host a minimal number of refugees, although they are the signatories to the refugee treaties to some extent. Refugees tend not to consider the two countries as their final destination since the states provide minimal opportunities for refugee employment.

Economic factor provides valuable insights for understanding the prolonged refugee crisis in Southeast Asia. Given the significant delay and uncertainty of resettlement to the third country, refugees are more likely to move to host countries with relatively stable livelihoods. Refugees would prefer host countries that tolerate their presence to some extent over countries where employment opportunities are scarce- although the tolerance is entirely driven by the state's economic necessity. This finding seems to be valid in the cases of the five ASEAN countries analyzed in this study. Importantly, however, from the perspective of refugees risking their lives to escape their home countries, it is likely that their ultimate goal is not just to save their lives. Refugees are looking for places where they can not only economically survive but also live with the fundamental rights and dignity they are entitled to as human beings. This understanding draws our attention to the relationship between refugee protection and democracy. Comparing the level of democracy in the five ASEAN countries supports this assumption.

This study devised a comparative framework to distinguish between Thailand and Cambodia as the countries with an electoral authoritarian regime and Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines as the countries with an electoral democracy. This analytic frame was based on the idea that all the countries under study have electoral systems. However, in cases where authoritarian rule is strong, the effectiveness of these systems may be limited. However, this framework does not adequately explain the large-scale refugee movement towards Thailand. In this study, therefore, the role of democracy in refugee protection in each state was examined not only based on electoral systems but also by using various components of democracy. The analysis of democracy and freedom in the selected countries shows a significant relationship between the level of democracy of host countries and their refugee protection. The democracy factor was particularly useful in explaining the poor refugee protection in Cambodia, which has the lowest democracy index among the five countries assessed in this study. Protecting refugees is critically challenging in a country where political activities to hold ruling parties accountable are suppressed, and civil society advocating for the rights of minorities is absent, even if they all have the electoral system.

Although countries like Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines are often categorized as “flawed democracies,” their civil societies are active in refugee protection, and refugees living in those countries are also actively engaged in seeking their rights instead of remaining passive recipients of protection. Considering those cases, it is likely that the level of states' refugee protection improves with the level of democracy of the host country.

Building upon the comparative analysis of refugee protection practices in the five ASEAN countries, the following section explores some implications both for the Korean government and civil society in three aspects: for the refugee policies; for foreign policies; and for international solidarity of civil society.  

1) Implications for the South Korean government's refugee policies

The cases of the five ASEAN countries highlight the importance of establishing and strengthening collaboration between central governments and local authorities for refugee protection. In the case of Thailand, while it does not have a national-level refugee status determination process, it has created ‘local reception committees’ instead and allows local governments to assess the eligibility of refugees and grant them refugee status. Similarly, the Philippines published a Memorandum Circular on Local Government Assistance for Persons of Concern (POCs)' to strengthen local government's responsibilities and autonomy in refugee protection. The example of UNHCR's campaign, #WithRefugees, which involves 13 local cities in the Philippines, demonstrates that a country can provide meaningful support for refugees when local cities and communities voluntarily and actively engage in refugee protection. Ensuring autonomy for local governments in designing and implementing refugee policies is an important first step. However, it is also worth learning a lesson from Indonesia's failure. The case suggests that simply passing the responsibility to the local government without providing adequate funds and guidelines can burden local communities and lead to failure in refugee protection. Therefore, granting autonomy to local governments while simultaneously developing guidelines to enhance awareness and mutual respect for refugees, as well as providing appropriate incentives to the host communities, can be a way to address these challenges effectively. This approach strikes a balance between the central and local governments needed for an effective response to refugee protection.

Furthermore, as 2024 marks the 10th year of South Korea's resettlement pilot program, it is necessary to expand this initiative and make it a permanent policy. The country should consider enhancing its resettlement and complementary pathways, starting with refugees who have a sound understanding of Korean society and present a high willingness to resettle in the country. Since 2015, the South Korean government has resettled approximately 30 refugees annually through the resettlement pilot program. From 2015 to 2017, this program focused on resettling Myanmar refugees who were residing in refugee camps in Mae Sot, Thailand, and from 2018 onwards, it included refugees living in urban areas in Malaysia. South Korea's decision to resettle urban refugees in Malaysia is based on the assumption that urban refugees making a living in the service sector may be in a situation similar to that of the Korean labor market. Indeed, urban refugees from Malaysia have demonstrated high economic self-sufficiency. These cases highlight the importance of understanding the environments familiar to refugees in making resettlement programs. While the pilot program has been successful to some extent, it has only accommodated a small number of refugees. The government should consider expanding the program. 

In recent years, accepting refugees through complementary pathways has gained significant attention as an alternative solution to the limited number of resettlement opportunities. Very recently, South Korea also has tried it by bringing qualified refugee students for education. In addition, the Ministry of Justice has implemented a complementary pathway program to connect qualified refugee workers to job placement. However, similar to the resettlement program, only a few refugees have enjoyed these programs' benefits so far. In addition, the job replacement program has provided limited types of jobs, restricting refugees with skills and high education from utilizing their full capacities. It would be helpful not to treat refugees as a homogeneous group but to assess their diverse backgrounds and experiences and provide job opportunities accordingly. This more personalized and flexible approach also can help complement the limitations of current migrant labor employment policies as well. 

2) Implications for diplomacy and international development cooperation

The Korea-ASEAN Solidarity Initiative (KASI) is a foreign policy initiative focusing on Southeast Asia as one of the Indo-Pacific Strategies made by the new government of South Korea. Unlike the previous administration's New Southern Policy, the KASI is characterized by its emphasis on values and non-traditional security. The “values diplomacy” stresses the values of freedom and human rights, which can be extended to encompass various issues, including refugee issues. The emphasis on non-traditional security can be a basis for a comprehensive approach to refugee issues, requiring international cooperation and global governance beyond the borderland. Therefore, it is necessary to make the refugee issue one of the foreign policy agendas in the framework of value diplomacy and non-traditional security diplomacy. The East Asia Summit (EAS), ASEAN Plus Three (APT), and other consultative bodies would be desirable for discussions related to the refugee issue in Southeast Asia.

In order to alleviate the deepening refugee crisis around the world, it is vital to eliminate the root causes of refugees. Since refugees are generally more likely to originate in conflict or fragile states, it is crucial to reduce the causes of refugee outbreaks by leveraging international development cooperation programs for social stability and economic growth in conflict and fragile states. Along with this, efforts should be made to proactively accept and support refugees through policies and programs institutionalized by a cross-cutting approach and the Framework Act on International Development Cooperation and relevant degrees.

In this context, the Korean government must also actively develop and expand international development cooperation programs to solve the refugee issues. Over the past decade, only a tiny percentage of the international development cooperation programs implemented by South Korea have been related to refugee issues. Recently, some donor countries have used official development assistance (ODA) programs to help the receiving countries with the massive influx of refugees. Korea should also consider utilizing ODA to raise awareness of refugee issues and establish mid-long-term strategies, including allocating in-donor refugee costs, enhancing multilateral cooperation through international organizations such as IOM and UNHCR, and strengthening organic collaboration between central and local governments.

3) Implications for international solidarity of civil society 

Korean civic groups began a new form of international solidarity movement in the 1990s and have focused on solidarity activities with Asian countries as a core element of international affairs since the 2000s. Protecting immigrants has been a crucial component of these activities in which refugees and asylum seekers were beneficiaries. In this context, civil society's international solidarity activities have been a significant aspect concerning refugee protection in South Korea. Despite its importance, only a small number of civil society organizations have been engaged in refugee protection activities. Among the more than 10,000 organizations registered in the government's Management Information System of the Non-Profit/ Non-Governmental Organizations (NPOs or NGOs), only 14 organizations claim to conduct refugee-related activities. Even these organizations mostly focus on assisting refugees residing in Korea but barely support refugees largely located in Southeast Asia and other areas. Considering the refugee situations in Southeast Asia, such as the increasing number of refugees, the prolonged waiting times, and the geographical importance of Southeast Asia as a stopover, more groups must work on refugees in the region. It may not be easy to increase the groups only focusing on refugee issues. However, it is more feasible for other groups to extend their coverage to include refugees in healthcare, education, environment, peace, women's, and human rights movements. 

Moreover, the Korean organizations working for refugees in Southeast Asia mainly have concentrated in some densely populated refugee areas such as Mae Sot in Thailand and Cox's Bazar in Bangladesh. As indicated by the trend of refugees entering Thailand but heading to Malaysia, refugees continue to move around in Southeast Asia and scatter to the various areas in the region. Therefore, Korean civil society needs to expand its geographic scope of activities in response to the refugee movement trend. Solidarity with local refugee support groups in the areas is one of the proper ways to overcome the limitations of human and financial resources. In addition, they should make efforts to find ways to leverage government financial resources. To this end, civil society organizations seeking to engage in refugee assistance activities need to clarify their identity as refugee assistance organizations and stand in solidarity with other like-minded organizations. This effort will increase the visibility of refugee protection activities, which in turn will increase the likelihood of categorizing refugee assistance as one of the government's policies of international development cooperation.

It is also important for Korean civil society to note triangular cooperation in which refugee support organizations in the ASEAN countries are accustomed to working with international organizations and governments. Korean civil society organizations actively participate in the Asia Pacific Refugee Rights Network (APRRN) as part of international solidarity. However, in order to further increase the strengthening effect of solidarity, they should put an effort to encourage academia and UN organizations to be involved. In addition, they need to envision a multifaceted and comprehensive approach to refugee protection not only through legal and institutional channels, including refugee screening systems and human rights protection, but also by activating complementary pathways and collecting and evaluating refugee-related data.