The United Nations’s refugee agency has urged host countries to refrain from implementing any new policies concerning the status of Syrian refugees, stressing that it is not currently promoting large-scale voluntary returns to Syria.  

UNHCR urged host countries to exercise caution over the forced return to Syria of refugees who are demonstrably in need of international protection. It also called for alternative solutions, such as granting citizenship to long-term refugees—or granting those ineligible for citizenship a residency status that preserves their existing refugee rights.  

The agency said it encourages the creation of resettlement opportunities for the most vulnerable Syrian refugees, and the development of complementary pathways for refugees for whom return or integration in their first country of asylum is not a viable option.  

These recommendations came in UNHCR’s May update on Syria, which argued that the human rights and security situation in Syria had not changed in a permanent and fundamental way that would allow for the activation of the “cessation of hostilities” clauses of the 1951 Refugee Convention.  

Were they to be activated, Articles 1C(5) and 1C(6) of the treaty could permit the return of Syrians who had been recognized as refugees based events prior to December 2024 and the fall of the Assad regime. Yet given the fragile state of reconstruction and recovery in Syria, UNHCR argues that there is still a real risk that rapid, large-scale return to Syria could further destabilize the country.  

Article 1C(5) stipulates that a person’s refugee status can be terminated when “the circumstances in connexion with which he has been recognized as a refugee have ceased to exist.” The assessment process preceding such a decision must conclude that substantial and lasting changes have occurred, and that sufficient time has passed to allow for a robust assessment of their impact. These changes must have taken place peacefully and within a constitutional framework, involving free and fair elections, resulting in a genuine change of government that guarantees its commitment to respecting fundamental human rights. The country must further be characterized by relative political and economic stability.   

In a case like that of Syria, where change took place violently through the military overthrow of the previous regime, this assessment requires a longer period of time before the robustness of the new situation can be assessed, as progress towards genuine reconciliation is challenging.  

Such an assessment must also be based on numerous foundations, including the existence of an effective legal and justice system, sufficient infrastructure to enable the population to exercise their rights (including the right to a basic livelihood), a level of democratic development in the country (including adherence to international human rights instruments), free access for independent national or international organizations to verify respect for human rights, and the protection of various rights such as freedom of expression, assembly, and religion.  

Other important indicators include the passing of amnesty laws, the repeal of repressive laws, and the dismantling of the former security apparatus. The burden of proof lies with the host country to demonstrate that such a fundamental change has taken place, and that the application of the two articles is appropriate. The county of origin, meanwhile, is responsible for facilitating monitoring of these conditions within its borders.   

Historically, such provisions have rarely been invoked on an individual basis, but they have been applied collectively on numerous occasions. For example, the UNHCR applied them to refugees from Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary on November 15, 1991, following the collapse of communist regimes with the end of the Cold War and their transition to democracy. Similar applications were made to refugees from Chile in 1994, Malawi and Mozambique in 1996, Bulgaria and Romania in 1997, Ethiopia in 1999, and East Timor in 2002.  

In this context, the UNHCR appears unlikely, at least in the immediate term, to change its stance on Syrian refugees or accept the application of general detention provisions to grant them asylum; the conditions that led to their displacement, along with the continued fragile humanitarian, economic, and security situation in the country, are expected to continue throughout the transitional period—at least half a decade.