Search

This dissertation explores a significant yet understudied puzzle in international refugee policy: why states that have not signed the 1951 Refugee Convention and lack domestic legal frameworks for refugee protection still provide sanctuary to large refugee populations. Focusing on four South and Southeast Asian countries—Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand—this study compares their responses to Rohingya refugees from Myanmar. Despite their shared status as non-signatory states, these countries exhibit divergent refugee policies. Bangladesh and Malaysia have, over time, provided substantial protection to Rohingya refugees, while Indonesia and Thailand have engaged in practices of deterrence and refoulement. The research introduces the concept of "regime yoking," a strategy employed by weaker states within the complex international regime landscape. Unlike "regime shifting," where powerful states relocate rule-making processes to more favorable international venues, regime yoking occurs when states move these processes to the domestic level, selectively harnessing the authority of overlapping international regimes. Bangladesh and Malaysia, for example, yoke the refugee regime, represented by UNHCR, with the orderly migration regime, represented by IOM. In these states, when the balance of authority is shifted towards the refugee regime, it leads to institutional changes that enhance refugee protection. Conversely, in Indonesia and Thailand, where the balance shifts towards the migration regime under IOM, refugees are more likely to be criminalized and denied protection. This dissertation argues that regime yoking not only shapes refugee policies in the short term but also induces long-term normative shifts within state institutions, challenging the conventional wisdom that non-signatory states' refugee policies are driven solely by domestic political interests or international pressure. By demonstrating how non-signatory states can develop robust refugee protection frameworks through the strategic yoking of international regimes, this study provides a new theoretical model for understanding the interaction between international norms and domestic policy in the Global South. The findings have broad implications for the study of international regime complexity, refugee protection, and the agency of weaker states in global governance.