technicalities and concentrate on the realities.  The entire life can’t be passed in exile.  The problem needs to be identified and solved.  People should have a better protection regime with a right to health. She emphasized that in the present scenario a fresh look is needed on the 1951 Convention and Protocol of 1967, so that new challenges can be faced with more systematic and humane manner.
Patrick Hoenig stated that the 1951 convention has been the point of contention from the developed and developing countries. While developed countries are bidding for a rights based approach; developing countries on the other hand have been voicing their incomprehension as to why they would be expected to abide by standards that the North no longer seem to accept; specially when northern countries assume only a fraction of the responsibilities for refugees. His discussion revolved around four dilemmas that point to the significant gaps in 1951 convention.  The four dilemmas were: 
I.    The dilemma of defining who is a “refugee”: The definition under the 1951 convention has been widened under the “Organisation of African Union Refugee convention (1969) and Cartagena Declaration (1984). All these definitions have protection mechanisms with an underlying rights based approach.  Another realist inspired school of thought argues that individual refugee determination procedures are impractical in mass influx 
II. The dilemma of legal protection vs material assistance: One of the major debates of the early UN years was on the nexus of legal and material assistance. Some of the northern states have demanded that UNHCR should have a mandate for providing material aid to refugees. Saddled with the enormous burden of partition, India and Pakistan had argued that providing legal standards without concomitant material assistance was a hollow concept. Recently hardliners in Europe argue that government assistance for housing, clothing and food should be cut to those 

excluded from refugee protection. At the same time they are protected from refoulement. This kind of approach does not safeguard human dignity.
III.  The dilemma of shared responsibilities:  A criticism commonly voiced in the global south, in that the international refugee regime does not concern itself with the burden sharing, even though the human condition of refugee in any part of the third world can’t be seen in isolation from developments in that first world.  On the other hand the argument is advanced that refugee protection and burden sharing should be de-linked as humanitarian requirement may vary.
IV.  The dilemma of unraveling consensus:  International law rests on “consensus”, constituting a system of “collective security”. It works on the assumption that all the states will follow the international law. Most of the Northern countries instead of following the 1951 convention has taken measures to tighten the borders. By the end of 2004 only two out of top ten receiving states were developed countries. This shows the inherent contradiction and dilemma that underlies the applicable nature of international human rights standards.
KM Parivelan argued that 1951 Convention couldn’t be seen in isolation.  He discussed in length the relevance of convention, even after 56 yrs of its existence the south Asian Countries have not signed its which raises the question marks of its relevance and existence.  He argued that it has helped countless people in the protection of the life and existences, who were forced to flee from their country having well founded fear of persecution, as a result of their regions, political or cultural differences.
In the recent years, however, the continuing validity of the 1951 Convention has been publicly questioned in some quarters. This has alarmed refugee protection activists, UN officials and aid agencies involved with refugees who feel that politics are being played at the expense of the Convention and,