This study identifies and examines an emerging phenomenon in the international refugee regime: the growing practice of non-party states establishing formal asylum or status determination procedures on a permanent basis while remaining outside the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol. The study addresses two central questions. First, has the refugee definition under Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention attained customary international law status and become binding on non-party states? Second, do rules and standards of international law outside the Refugee Convention impose obligations on non-party states in relation to asylum procedures? It focuses on Thailand as a paradigmatic case of this phenomenon. The study argues that the Article 1A(2) refugee definition has not crystallised into customary international law and therefore does not bind non-party states. It further demonstrates that when non-party states assume responsibility for determining the status of persons seeking protection within their jurisdiction, they do not operate in a legal vacuum. Rather, they remain subject to obligations arising primarily from international human rights law, including ensuring access to asylum procedures without discrimination and guaranteeing the procedural safeguards required for their conduct. The study provides a systematic legal analysis of this emerging phenomenon and offers new insights into the legal obligations of non-party states, the broader implications for refugees and asylum seekers, and the evolving architecture of international refugee protection beyond the Refugee Convention framework.
