5주차｜사회·노동·인권 (+ 난민·이주)_이상은

[경사로출구]

UNHCR High Commissioner’s statement to the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly

As delivered

By Filippo Grandi, UN High Commissioner for Refugees, in New York

6 November 2025 

https://www.unhcr.org/news/speeches-and-statements/unhcr-high-commissioner-s-statement-third-committee-un-general-assembly?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Glossary

1. forced displacement → 강제이주
2. mixed movements → 혼합이주
3. asylum system(s) → 난민보호제도(비호제도)
4. principle of non-refoulement (또는 non-refoulement) → 강제송환금지원칙

Words : 754

Mr. Chairman,

By its very definition, forced displacement is dynamic. It is a complex phenomenon – people may flee a country at the same time as others return to it. This is the reality today in South Sudan for example, or even in Sudan.

Population flows and displacement patterns are constantly evolving in response to a multitude of factors — war and violence certainly, but also the effects of climate change, poverty, economic opportunities, and so on. As a result, mixed population flows, consisting of both refugees and migrants, have grown. From a legal point of view, they belong to distinct categories. Refugees are forced to flee; migrants leave for other reasons. In practice, they often move alongside each other, along transnational routes that span large geographic areas. Through the Sahara; across the Mediterranean, the Balkans, the Andaman Sea; in Latin America or towards Southern Africa.

I have spoken extensively about this phenomenon, so I will not elaborate on this issue in detail. UNHCR fully recognizes that responding to mixed movements is a complex challenge. We know that asylum systems can become overwhelmed and can be misused by people who do not need international protection — to the detriment of refugees, for whom asylum is lifesaving. And we agree: it is imperative that the integrity and the efficacy of asylum systems be maintained. We can help you with that.

But the solution does not lie in restrictions, barriers and pushbacks — practices that breach international obligations and endanger people who have no choice but to flee.

To be clear: legal measures that strengthen borders are absolutely legitimate. In fact, they are necessary. But such control and deterrence measures are not sufficient as — alone — they do not solve the problem.

Instead, it is more strategic to look at entire displacement routes and identify measures that provide protection and opportunities to people on the move, and their hosts, as early as possible — beforepeople cross several borders. That is the essence of the ‘route-based’ approach that UNHCR, together with the International Organization for Migration and others, has been advocating in recent years. Such measures include strengthening asylum systems, developing mechanisms for lawful transfers of asylum seekers to safe third countries, or indeed — for those individuals who do not need protection -– setting up return programmes. They also include creating predictable and regulated migration pathways — for labour, education or family reunification.

Here again, l encourage you to consult with us. We have issued extensive technical guidance on these issues, so that responses can be both effective and lawful.

This brings me to my next point.

There has been a push recently — partly as a reaction to these challenges — to question the continued relevance of the international legal framework that governs asylum.

Under the guise of effectiveness, or based on arguments that asylum undermines national sovereignty, some have even called for the 1951 Refugee Convention to be replaced by a new instrument. These arguments are misguided. Let me explain why.

To begin with, we should keep in mind that the fundamental principles of asylum are timeless and universal. People who flee persecution and violence should be welcomed and protected, not turned away or left to die. I hope we can all agree on that. This is the principle of non-refoulement that is at the heart of the 1951 Convention and clearly established as a norm under international customary law. And the Convention is the instrument which has guided States in codifying these long-standing norms. As such, it is a direct expression‎ of State sovereignty. This is a critical point.

But asylum is not a backdoor for migration. Quite the opposite, States have the duty to manage their borders. We all agree on that too. The modern institution of asylum — rooted in the Refugee Convention — is the tool that enables States to meet both obligations. To their citizens and to refugees.

To question the effectiveness of the current framework is also to view it selectively, from too narrow a perspective — as if all refugees were moving to Europe or North America. That is quite the opposite. Every day, because asylum is upheld in Chad, for example, the lives of thousands of Sudanese refugees are saved. Refugees’ lives have been saved in Moldova, Ethiopia, Bangladesh, Costa Rica and many other places thanks to the institution we all built together. What could be more effective at a time when military might is replacing diplomacy and dialogue as a means of resolving conflict?