English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Open

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Insights

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

This article details the central role—often overlooked in the literature—played by committed individuals and interested parties in establishing the refugee definition contained in the 1951 Refugee Convention. It conveys the struggle that took place between the two camps of national representatives who finalized the Convention, termed the ‘universalists’ and ‘Europeanists’ by one contemporary diplomat because of their contrasting geographical and conceptual preferences. Although various regional and international developments have complemented and broadened Article 1 significantly over the last 60 years, none of them have actually replaced it. Recent discussions over the need to adapt a more ‘political’ or ‘humanitarian’ refugee definition do not represent a new phenomenon; they merely resemble a modern continuation of the contrasting views put forward by a variety of personalities involved in the formation of the 1951 Refugee Convention.

The Genesis and Development of Article 1 of the 1951 Refugee Convention