Language matters. When we frame rights as assistance, we risk weakening accountability.

Let’s use terms such as “persons entitled to international protection” or “rights-holders”. In my view, these expressions more accurately reflect the corresponding obligations of States and refugee rights…

Refugees are rights-holders and States are duty-bearers. The repeated use of the term “beneficiaries” risks reinforcing an 𝒂𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒆-𝒃𝒂𝒔𝒆𝒅 𝒏𝒂𝒓𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒆, weakening the understanding of international protection as a legal duty derived from international treaties and the principle of non-refoulement

The 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol establish 𝐛𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 for States, it cannot be reduced to acts of benevolence. Likewise, the EU Convention on Human Rights (1950) and the Charter (2000) enshrine rights that must be guaranteed to all persons under State jurisdiction

The term “beneficiary” suggests a favor, not a right. International protection is not charity, it is a binding legal obligation rather than a benefit granted at the discretion of States or institutions, as if it were mere assistance, rather than a duty grounded in international law.

😌

🍓

So do I!

📌 *Eligibility:*
Work from a feminist, women's, girls, trans rights and/or intersex rights perspective in the Americas, Asia and Europe.

💡 Don’t miss this chance to secure funding for impactful WLO work!

Apply now: 👉 www.tfaforms.com/5121246

💵 *Value of Grants:*
€5,000 - €50,000 per year, average grant size €35,000

📅 *Deadline:*
March 31, 2025