therefore, of the refugees it protects. The reasons behind these attacks on the Convention appear to be linked primarily to the rising number of asylum-seekers, the increase in people-smuggling networks, the perception that the majority of asylum-seekers are "bogus," and the high costs involved in maintaining asylum systems.
These concerns are understandable, but the critique of the Convention tends to ignore some vital basic factors, Firstly, the main reason the numbers soared was that there were three major wars in Europe during the 1990s, in addition to numerous other conflicts around the world. Secondly, the whole point of the Convention is precisely to make the distinction between those who need the international protection that official refugee status affords, and those who do not. Therefore, one set of argument is that it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the Convention per se.
The Convention has also been wrongly blamed for a collective failure to manage the soaring numbers of would-be economic migrants. The Convention was never intended to sort out all the world's migration problems. "The trouble is, with virtually no other migration path open from poor countries to rich ones, the Convention has been subjected to pressures which should be catered for by alternative migration management tools.
On the cost of managing asylum-systems, we need to look at some states having rigorous process of detaining every single asylum-seeker entering the country without proper documentation. "This is an extremely expensive way of dealing with asylum-seekers, as well as inhumane and, arguably, quite at odds with Article 31 of the Convention." Asylum systems in some countries are inefficient, sometimes taking years to reach a decision. "This means not only considerable extra costs in terms of social benefits, but it also makes such countries attractive to economic migrants, stimulating a “vicious circle of increased numbers, higher costs, and slower decisions”.

The most worrying trend is the growing number of states violating Article 33 of the Convention, which says, "No contracting state shall expel or return a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened…" If refugees are sent straight back to danger - or are prevented from leaving their countries in the first place - then all the other measures designed to protect and assist them count for nothing. Under international law this should not happen, and blatantly ignoring international law is a dangerous path to tread."
The 1951 Refugee Convention has come under increasing scrutiny in recent years, with some governments questioning its continuing relevance. UNHCR has been paying special attention to the problem, analysing the extent of the practice in recent years in terms of the number of countries involved and the number of people affected. This is being done in the context of the "Global Consultations on International Protection", talks between UNHCR, governments, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and experts focusing on how States are interpreting and implementing the 1951 Refugee Convention and examining protection problems that are not fully covered by the treaty, so as to better protect refugees. Most notably the Executive Committee constituted is able to incorporate some of the non-signatory countries to voice their concerns and proactively contribute to the refugee protection regime.
On the basis of above discussion it was concluded that the relevance of 1951 Convention still exist and can’t be ignored and a fresh look is necessary to deal with the emerging issues. The purpose should be to uphold the rights of human beings to safeguard his rights and human security.

The IDP Crisis Today and The Protracted IDP Situations in Africa (5 December 2007)