As the world's refugee crisis is exponentially increasing, the perennial debate on the scope and challenges of refugee protection, notably the parameters of Article 1A(2) of the Refugee Convention, remains at the forefront. Against this backdrop, Burson and Cantor attempt and succeed in infusing a well-nuanced, comparative dimension to the contemporary discussion on the questions of if and how international human rights law informs and shapes the definition of a refugee. The qualifier of the editors, that this volume of contributions does not by any means exclude the importance of the remainder of Article 1 of the Refugee Convention in its exclusive emphasis on Article 1A(2), effectively narrows the scope of the study. It allows more in-depth inquiry into this particular area, without the attendant criticisms of overemphasis on one issue to the exclusion of the remainder of the Article.

Through fourteen carefully curated chapters, the editors have developed several strands of argument pivoting around the “interpretative interaction between refugee law and human rights law”. Burson, Kirk, Simeon, Anker and Vittor, Husain, Bank, Costello, Jubilut, and de Andrade and Marques Gilberto, have empirically analyzed how human rights law has at times been influential in expanding and elucidating, but at other times limiting the scope of, the refugee definition in select national (both common law and civil law) and supranational jurisdictions. These contributions have highlighted how crucial the relevant—though often disregarded—elements of political will and political culture are in impeding or broadening the acceptance of human rights law in refugee protection, having a reach far beyond that of the law. Likewise, Foster, Dimopoulos, Schultz and Einarsen, and Crawley approach the issue from the thematic perspectives of socioeconomic rights, disability rights, IPA, and gender. These analyzes once again reflect a plurality of interactions between human rights law and the refugee definition at the thematic level. Cumulatively, the volume is unequivocal in answering in the negative the question posed at the outset of the volume: Does human rights law remain on the borders of refugee protection? However, it also emphasizes widely differing forms and levels of integration of human rights law, both in jurisdictional and thematic approaches to the refugee definition, illustrative of fragmented acceptance.

The comparative approach chosen by the editors serves to provide multiple insights into a heated debate without providing an artificially finite response to the question. Rather, the different themes running through the chapters serve to highlight the seminal effect of human rights law in understanding who a refugee is. The volume also raises pertinent questions on the fragmented approach which, explored further, would provide definitive responses to achieving interpretive harmony between refugee law and human rights law with a view to strengthening the refugee protection regime. The volume concludes with an invitation to closer scrutiny and detailed examination of the influence of human rights law on the refugee definition in order to appreciate its implications for the future of refugee protection. This book should stimulate interest amongst academics, practitioners, and researchers alike.