Alternative paths to refugee and asylum seeker protection in Malaysia and Indonesia

Abstract

This article explores how refugees in non-signatory countries in Southeast Asia, particularly Indonesia and Malaysia, have some protection through alternative paths under international refugee law. These two countries provide forms of protection even if they are not States Parties to the Refugee Convention. These two case studies show that the governance of protection for refugee and asylum seekers is provided through alternative paths, even in the absence of international law and statist processes. These alternative paths offer a degree of meaningful protection, even if this is not tantamount to resettlement. Alternative paths of protection are initiated mainly by non-state actors. The states try to manage alternative protective governance to secure their interests by maintaining their sovereignty, on the one hand, and performing humanitarian duties on the other. In this regard, Indonesia and Malaysia have resorted to meta-governance to balance these two concerns.

Dua Jalur Penanganan Pengungsi: Analisis Diplomasi Migrasi di Asia Tenggara

“…39 Kemajuan signifikan dalam proteksi pengungsi ialah Peraturan Presiden (PP) 125/2016 yang ditandatangani Presiden Joko Widodo sebagai basis hukum dalam penanganan pengungsi, membebaskannya dari hukum migrasi, dan bekerja sama dengan UNHCR dan IOM dalam kesejahteraan pengungsi. 40 Pemerintah pusat juga berkolaborasi dengan pemerintah daerah sebagai focal point dalam menerima pengungsi. Akan tetapi, upaya ini bergantung pada penerimaan lokal yang terkait isu identitas dan solidaritas agama.…”

Indonesia di Antara Masalah Etnis Rohingya dan Etnis Uighur, 2014-2019

“…Perspektif kebijakan luar negeri memberikan pandangan bahwa kebijakan luar negeri Indonesia dipengaruhi oleh berbagai macam aspek, sehingga dapat menjelaskan perilaku Indonesia dalam merespon isu-isu tertentu (Pitsuwan, 2014;Karim, 2017;Rosyidin, 2017;Rosyidin & Dir, 2020;Purnama, et.al, 2019;Wicaksana, 2019). Sementara itu, beberapa sarjana berpendapat bahwa Indonesia melakukan prinsip Responsibility to Protect dalam konflik etnis Rohingya di Myanmar serta memberikan perlindungan pengungsi etnis Rohingya yang mengungsi ke Indonesia (Rosyidin, 2020;Prabandari & Adiputera, 2019). Perspektif hubungan bilateral memberikan pandangan bahwa hubungan internasional antara China dan negara-negara Asia Tenggara serta hubungan China dengan negara muslim dalam konteks hubungan bilateral dipengaruhi oleh sejarah dan budaya hubungan antara keduanya.…”

Forced Migration Governance in Southeast Asian Countries: ‘Same but Different’?

“…It was only in the recent few years that Indonesia started to develop a robust legal platform dealing with this issue (Prabandari & Adiputera, 2019). In 2016, there were two crucial policies released by the Indonesian authorities.…”

“…The document was signed by Indonesian President Joko Widodo on 31 December 2016. The Perpres, in particular, has been applauded as "the first of its kind in Indonesia" (Gordyn, 2017), a "significant development" (Prabandari & Adiputera, 2019), on the right track (Tobing, 2019), a promising step for Indonesia (Varagur, 2017) and an exemplary precedent for other countries (Gayatri & Bayani, 2017). The Perpres was also appreciated by the international community, considering it as a rare commitment (Tobing, 2019).…”

“…The last category is the comparative approach, where the study on forced migration involves two or more Southeast Asian countries. The examples are on Indonesia and Malaysia (Prabandari & Adiputera, 2019), Thailand, and Malaysia (Hedman, 2008;Lego, 2018) and Thailand and Myanmar (Grundy-Warr & Yin, 2002). These studies mostly viewed forced migration from the perspective of border protection and the proximity of these countries as neighbors.…”