As defined by the United Nations, a refugee is an individual who is forced to leave their home nation due to war, persecution, or violence, and at the end of 2025 over 117.8 million people were forcibly displaced from their homes. Current driving factors of the crisis include the Russo-Ukraine War, Syrian and Sudanese civil wars, climate displacement similar to the recent Venezuelan Earthquakes, human rights violations and oppression, and states’ political or economic collapse. 

Worldwide responses stem from N.G.O.s, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (U.N.H.C.R.), the United Nations aid services, and sovereign nations. The U.N.H.C.R. focuses on providing emergency aid to refugees, international legal protection, and finding permanent locations for refugees to rebuild their lives. Other sectors of the United Nations also provide humanitarian focused aid, and N.G.O.s provide aid typically in forms of food, water, shelter, and healthcare, as well as advocating for their situations. 

Although refugees are given aid and international support, due to prolonged conflicts, refuge often being found in lower-income or conflict border zones, and the amount of displaced individuals, the crisis continues to worsen. Current refugee response protocol is based on the 1951 Refugee Convention, which was initially created to address the aftermath of World War II in Europe. Despite the convention aiding many individuals post-WWII, with the current global refugee crisis, it is evident that it is not highly effective long-term and may not be able to accommodate the massive influx of refugees that are currently present. 

In simple terms, the refugee crisis has become persistent and is worsening due to nations not being able to accommodate large numbers of refugees, nations having domestic policies in place that restrict refugees, and newer U.N. nations not being a part of the 1967 Protocol, meaning they have less of a legal requirement to accept refugees under the U.N. convention. 

For example, Greece and Italy have become forerunners among nations accepting refugees within Europe. According to GreekReporter, Greece has seen a 104% increase in first-time asylum seekers, which is over 40,000 individuals, and according to the European Union Agency for Asylum, Italy has seen almost 10,000 first-time applicants within one month. The two nations primarily see refugees from Bangladesh, Egypt, Sudan, and Afghanistan, all of which are nations that are faced with violence, economic hardship, and persecution. Despite the reasons for seeking asylum or refuge, Greece and Italy are unable to accommodate such large numbers of refugees, leading them to send refugees to Albania, in Italy’s case, and for Greece to produce off-shore hubs to hold refugees whose applications were denied or are being deported. Greece has also recently started to reopen Syrian and Afghan applications with the goal of deportation and returning them to their nations, as stated in Al Jazeera. These measures, although at times not supported by the U.N., are technically legal due to loopholes within the 1967 Protocol because they are still accepting the refugees and their applications for review, even though they often send them to off-shore locations to limit their refugee influx. 

Newer U.N. member states, such as Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E., and Qatar have not signed the 1951 Refugee Convention or 1967 Protocol, meaning they have less of a U.N. obligation to accept refugees or treat them fairly if accepted. Refugees tend to be placed by the U.N.H.C.R. in middle to lower income nations, which does not currently include the Gulf States. These states have greatly increased their economies and resources, so they have more resources present than most of the nations refugees are placed into. Like in most nations, however, there are tradeoffs present. There is the risk of refugees facing Sharia law, which can limit women’s abilities to rebuild their lives, or the Kafala system within these nations since their refugee policy is in the hands of national law, not the U.N. 

The United States utilizes another loophole within the 1967 Protocol. President Trump capped the number of immigrants to 7,500 per year, and the nation has not commented on their rate of accepting asylum seekers, but it is stated by the Migration Policy Institute that the U.S. has a massive asylum case backlog of 3.9 million cases. The U.S. is technically not violating the signed protocol, but with migrant caps, a large number of backlogged asylum cases, and strict immigration enforcement, refugees are largely deterred from attempting to relocate to the U.S.

Due to the longevity and severity of the refugee crisis, reform must be made to take steps towards solving it. First and foremost, amendments should be made to the 1951 Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol. An outline that affects hundreds of millions of individuals should not have loopholes or low enforcement. For example, Greece should not be able to send Syrian and Afghani refugees back to their nations based on the belief that the conflict in those nations has shifted, especially when Syria and Afghanistan are both faced with humanitarian crises, instability, and lingering violence. Moreover, the U.S. should be required to expedite the speed of their asylum cases. A nation that has a surplus of resources in relation to most others should be required to house more refugees. Lastly, through diplomatic incentives and communication, all U.N. states should agree to signing the 1967 Protocol so there is an equal responsibility and requirement to aid in the crisis. This would include the Gulf States in accepting asylum seekers and refugees under U.N. law protection, leaving refugees less susceptible to regional issues like Sharia law and the Kafala system. 

Aside from all member states signing the Protocol and amendments being made to make it more strictly enforced, each member state that is economically and regionally able to effectively accept refugees should be given a minimum amount that they can accept per year. This would eventually create an equal burden across many different states, rather than nations like Turkey, Uganda, Greece, and Italy taking on the brunt of refugees over wealthier nations. Stricter amendments and a more equal, leveled burden can then be a part of a greater framework to fight the crisis. 

Creating a refugee crisis framework would equalize responsibility across nations. In partnership with the U.N.H.C.R., nations could focus on building refugee housing, funding programs, creating scholarships, and setting up refugees with jobs or work visas so they have the opportunity to rebuild their lives and become self-sufficient again. To encourage communities to build housing or provide jobs to refugees, governments can provide cities and towns with potential tax cuts or extra funding. Supporting refugees would also benefit the current citizens by providing new voices and perspectives in society and the workforce. Nations who participate should be given incentives, such as aid supplied by the U.N. that can be utilized towards the refugees’ needs.

Creating a framework would require greater international communication and efforts from national and state governments, the U.N., N.G.O.s, and refugees; however, focusing on a greater international community is a step in the right direction for this crisis. For far too long, only a handful of nations have taken on most of the burden, which has allowed the crisis to worsen. Creating a framework and strengthening the Protocol will allow for more and wealthier nations to take on responsibility while also supporting refugees. 

The root of the global refugee crisis is the causes for displacement. In order to create lasting change, these causes must be addressed. Conflict prevention, equal humanitarian rights in accordance with international law, climate concerns, and peace building are all aspects of displacement that must be carefully considered and reformed. Starting with an international framework would be the primary start, but these issues must be prioritized as well to prevent more refugee crises from occurring.