Abstract
In an ideal vision of the international refugee protection system, two fundamental conditions should prevail: (1) all individuals genuinely in need of refugee protection should receive it, and (2) those responsible for criminal acts, particularly serious international crimes, should face criminal accountability. This vision assumes that exclusion clauses, such as Article 1F of the 1951 Refugee Convention and similar provisions in regional instruments like the 1969 OAU Convention, the 1984 Cartagena Declaration, and the 2011 EU Qualifications Directive, are unnecessary. Under this framework, no one meeting the refugee definition in these instruments would be denied protection, while those guilty of serious crimes, as defined by the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, would be prosecuted. This approach aligns with the goal of ending impunity for grave international crimes and ensuring accountability for acts of persecution. The first part of this article argues that serious criminality should be addressed within the inclusive definition of a refugee rather than through exclusionary provisions like Article 1F. It contends that Article 1F is outdated and inconsistent with contemporary international norms, potentially leading to unjust outcomes for asylum seekers. Given its complexity and diminishing relevance, Article 1F could be repealed, and Article 1A(2), which defines refugee status, could be amended to exclude individuals responsible for serious crimes. Furthermore, when credible evidence links an asylum seeker to such crimes, prosecution should follow, thereby advancing international justice and ending impunity. The second part offers a critical commentary on the first, urging caution before adopting radical changes to exclusion clauses. It emphasizes the need to contextualize the issues raised, questioning the assumptions underlying the human rights and international criminal justice frameworks. These questions are explored on conceptual, legal, and practical levels. The commentary concludes with overarching observations on the criticisms and proposals discussed.