Solidarity and Accountability: Can the Global Compact on Refugees Enforce Refugee Protection Obligations?

While it is evident that the burden-sharing proposed by the Global Compact on Refugees (GCR) is a form of solidarity, it remains to be seen whether this represents solidarity between states to the exclusion of refugees themselves. If so, this may justify the critical conclusion drawn by renowned refugee scholar James Hathaway that the GCR is a cop-out by the global North to pick and choose who, when and how they want to share the burden of refugee protection rather than a form of solidarity. This article therefore considers whether the solidarity and community foreseen by the GCR have made things better for refugees who are supposed to be the primary beneficiaries or merely better for the refugee hosts. Recognizing that the basis of the GCR is the rights-based approach of the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, this article argues that an investigation is warranted into whether the solidarity envisioned by the GCR can operate as a legal concept in this context and therefore hold the international community accountable for the protection of refugees.