How did you come to choose your research topic?

The research topic was inspired by both my longstanding interest in refugee issues and my professional experience in refugee status determination. The turning point came in late 2019, when my home country, Thailand, introduced a significant new policy on refugee protection. The idea was born one evening over dinner in early 2020, when I learned that Thailand had, for the first time in its history, established a formal national screening mechanism to determine the status of persons seeking international protection within its jurisdiction. This development immediately caught my attention. I remember thinking that it could mark an important step forward for refugee protection in the country. At the same time, however, it raised a fundamental question: how could we ensure that this new mechanism would genuinely strengthen protection for refugees, rather than functioning as a deterrent disguised as protection? 

As I explored the issue further, I discovered that other non-party states in Southeast Asia, including Indonesia and Malaysia, were also considering similar approaches. It soon became clear to me that this was not simply a domestic policy development, but part of a broader, previously overlooked trend in the international refugee regime: the growing practice of non-party states establishing formal asylum or status determination procedures while remaining outside the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol. 

Recognising the legal significance and practical implications of this emerging phenomenon ultimately led me to make it the focus of my research.

Can you describe your research questions and the methodology you use to approach those questions?

The central research question of my thesis is: what obligations under international law do states not party to the refugee conventions have when establishing national asylum procedures? Building on this question, I developed two more specific questions. First, has the refugee definition under Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention attained customary international law status and become binding on non-party states? Second, do rules and standards of international law outside the Refugee Convention impose obligations on non-party states in relation to asylum procedures?

To answer these questions, I employed a doctrinal legal analysis combined with a comparative approach. I examined treaty law, customary international law, the jurisprudence of international and regional human rights bodies, the practice of UN treaty bodies, and relevant soft law instruments. I also used Thailand — the first and most prominent example of this emerging phenomenon — as a case study to illustrate my analytical findings.

Can you tell us about these findings?

The thesis finds that the Article 1A(2) refugee definition of the 1951 Convention is not a rule of customary international law and therefore does not bind non-party states in assessing protection claims. Its legal effect remains confined to the convention-based instruments. The thesis further demonstrates that when non-party states assume responsibility for determining the status of persons seeking protection within their jurisdiction, they do not operate in a legal vacuum. Rather, they remain bound by obligations arising primarily under international human rights law, including ensuring access to asylum procedures without discrimination and guaranteeing the procedural safeguards required for their conduct.

What could be the social and/or political implications of your findings?

The completion of my PhD research coincides with the 75th anniversary of the 1951 Refugee Convention — a timely reminder of its enduring importance to international refugee protection. While the vast majority of states are parties to the Convention and its 1967 Protocol, my thesis brings attention to those that remain outside this framework but nonetheless host large refugee populations. It underscores that protection beyond the Refugee Convention is legally significant and, where there is sufficient political will, can provide meaningful protection.

As more states establish national asylum procedures without ratifying the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol, my research offers a systematic legal analysis of this emerging phenomenon and provides a legal framework for understanding the international obligations that govern these procedures. This evolving practice is only beginning to unfold, and whether it will enhance — or risk undermining — refugee protection remains to be seen. I hope my findings will contribute to informed policy discussions and support governments, international organisations, courts, and civil society in developing asylum procedures that are consistent with international law and better protect the rights of people seeking asylum.

*     *     *
 

On 23 March 2026, Jittawadee Chotinukul defended her PhD thesis in International Law, titled “Seeking Asylum beyond the Refugee Convention: Exploring Non-Party States’ Obligations under International Law”. Committee members were Professor Vincent Chetail (2nd from the right), Thesis Supervisor; Professor Andrew Clapham (right), President of the Committee and Internal Member; and Professor David James Cantor, School of Advanced Study, University of London.

Citation of the PhD thesis: 
Chotinukul, Jittawadee. “Seeking Asylum beyond the Refugee Convention: Exploring Non-Party States’ Obligations under International Law.” PhD thesis, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, 2026.
Access:
An abstract of the PhD thesis is available in the Geneva Graduate Institute’s repository. As the thesis itself is embargoed until June 2029, please contact Dr Chotinukul for access.

Banner image: photo by Kaban-Sila/Shutterstock.
Interview by Nathalie Tanner, Research Office.