Muhammad Shahid
For over forty years, Pakistan has been the world’s unsung host to millions of Afghan refugees a generosity unmatched in modern history. Since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, Pakistan has opened its doors to millions of Afghans, with current estimates placing the number at 3.7 million, both documented and undocumented. This remains the world’s most prolonged refugee crisis, costing Pakistan over $150 billion, claiming more than 80,000 lives in related security incidents, and reshaping the country’s demographic, economic, and security landscape.
Today, as Pakistan exercises its sovereign right to repatriate this population, criticism from the international community exposes a troubling double standard—one that ignores established legal precedent and Pakistan’s extraordinary humanitarian contribution. No other nation in modern state practice has hosted a refugee population of this scale, for this long, with such limited international support. Yet Pakistan continues to face scrutiny for asserting the very sovereign rights that states worldwide routinely exercise. Pakistan’s generosity has far exceeded any reasonable interpretation of international obligations, and what it seeks now is both lawful and justified.
The legal framework governing refugee protection and state sovereignty provides clear support for Pakistan’s position. As a non-signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, Pakistan’s obligations are limited to customary international law, which explicitly allows exceptions for national security, economic necessity, and mass influx situations.Customary law and widespread global practice confirms that states retain full discretion to determine the admission, stay, and removal of foreign nationals, constrained only by narrowly defined humanitarian exceptions.
Critics often invoke the principle of non-refoulement, but even under the Refugee Convention, this principle is not absolute. Article 33(2) allows exceptions when refugees pose threats to national security or public order.Around the world in Europe, North America, the Middle East, and Australia non-refoulement is applied flexibly when national interests are at stake. The International Court of Justice consistently affirms that state sovereignty includes the fundamental right to control entry, residence, and expulsion of foreigners, subject only to treaty obligations that do not bind Pakistan, and limited customary law exceptions that Pakistan clearly satisfies. Against this backdrop, Pakistan’s repatriation policy is not only lawful under international law but fully consistent with how states worldwide exercise sovereign authority.
The doctrine of changed circumstances further strengthens Pakistan’s legal position. Since August 2021, the Taliban has consolidated control over Afghanistan, ending the armed conflict that originally triggered refugee flows. While controversial, the establishment of a functioning government that controls the territory and has declared general amnesty for returnees fundamentally alters the legal calculus. Over thirty countries maintain diplomatic presence in Kabul, UN agencies operate throughout Afghanistan, and millions of Afghans continue to live peacefully within the country. These changed circumstances trigger cessation clauses recognized in international refugee law, whereby protection may legitimately end when the conditions that necessitated it no longer exist. Iran and Turkey have already begun repatriating Afghan refugees under similar assessments, yet face little international opprobrium despite shorter hosting periods and more forceful measures.Customary international law and consistent state practice make clear that refugee protection is not permanent and must cease when its original rationale no longer applies, this precisely the situation Pakistan now faces.
A survey of global state practice underscores how restrained Pakistan’s approach is. The European Union, despite vocally advocating refugee protection abroad, has built “Fortress Europe,” relying on pushbacks, detention centers, and third-country agreements to block refugee arrivals. Greece conducts aggressive maritime pushbacks, Denmark revoked Syrian refugee protections after less than a decade, and the United Kingdom attempted to transfer asylum seekers to Rwanda without processing their claims. The United States has expelled over two million migrants under Title 42, separated families, and enforced the “Remain in Mexico” policy, while Australia maintains offshore detention facilities in Nauru and Manus Island. Beyond the West, countries such as Saudi Arabia have deported millions of undocumented workers, Iran repatriates over a million Afghans annually, Turkey regularly pushes back Syrians and Afghans at its borders, India has deported Rohingya refugees on security grounds, and China continues to return North Korean nationals under bilateral arrangements. These practices demonstrate a clear global pattern: repatriation, deportation, and strict border controls are standard instruments of state sovereignty. Against this backdrop, Pakistan’s phased, voluntary, and humanitarian repatriation plan is far more measured than the approaches adopted worldwide, and firmly aligned with customary international norms.
Pakistan’s security imperatives further justify the policy. The country has lost over 80,000 citizens to terrorism, much of it linked to porous border areas where refugee movement was unmonitored. Groups like the TTP and ISIS-K, alongside criminal networks, have exploited these movements to conduct deadly operations. Security forces have documented thousands of cross-border infiltration incidents, seized tens of thousands of weapons, and uncovered widespread document fraud. International law explicitly permits denying protection to individuals who pose a threat to national security. Pakistan’s long-standing security concerns, validated by massive casualties and ongoing threats, clearly meet this threshold. UN Security Council Resolution 1373 reinforces states’ obligations to control borders and prevent terrorist movement, obligations Pakistan cannot fulfill while maintaining unrestricted refugee presence. Despite facing far greater threats, Pakistan has shown extraordinary restraint compared to nations that have quickly deported smaller populations under lesser risks.
Likewise, economic burden has also reached unsustainable levels. Hosting refugees costs Pakistan over $12.5 billion annually roughly 5% of its GDP while international assistance over four decades has totaled less than $3 billion. The refugee population strains infrastructure, healthcare, education, and labor markets, competing with a domestic population already facing inflation exceeding 30%, unsustainable debt, energy shortages, and water scarcity. The legal principle of ultra posse nemo obligatur which means that no one is obliged beyond their ability applies clearly here. No international legal framework expects a state to jeopardize its own citizens’ survival. Just as countries in Europe and Asia invoke economic concerns to justify stricter immigration policies, Pakistan is entitled to the same consideration, facing far greater pressures.
Pakistan’s proposed repatriation plan demonstrates restraint and humanitarian care. It includes a six-month voluntary return period with cash incentives and transportation assistance, followed by mandatory registration with biometric data, and orderly repatriation that maintains family unity and recognizes humanitarian exceptions. This measured, phased approach contrasts sharply with the immediate deportations, family separations, and detention practices common in wealthy nations handling far smaller refugee populations. Pakistan also offers property sale assistance and document processing services absent from most forced return programs worldwide. Criticism from nations that routinely employ harsh measures reveals a double standard: Pakistan is held to expectations these critics themselves refuse to meet.
Finally, the international community’s failure to provide meaningful burden-sharing undermines any moral authority to criticize Pakistan. Promised resettlement, development aid, and security assistance have largely gone unfulfilled, while Pakistan has borne the weight of hosting millions for nearly half a century. Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon receive far greater support for smaller populations while Pakistan’s repeated appeals have been met with token gestures. The global inconsistency is stark as wealthy nations expect Pakistan to absorb a massive, decades-long burden without comparable support.
As Pakistan moves forward, it does so on solid legal, moral and practical grounds. Its sovereign right to control borders, the customary law exceptions for security and economic necessity, the changed circumstances in Afghanistan, and its decades-long humanitarian contribution all justify this course. Pakistan’s forty-five years of hosting Afghan refugees at enormous cost in lives and resources represent a humanitarian effort unmatched in modern history. The international community’s criticism reflects not Pakistan’s failure, but the world’s failure to recognize and share the burden Pakistan has carried alone. The time has come for Afghanistan to take responsibility for its citizens and for the international community to focus on supporting their safe reintegration, rather than demanding Pakistan maintain an unsustainable situation that no other nation would accept.
Intro-Writer is a researcher and scholar of International Relations.
Email: mshahid.khan000@gmail.com
Leave a Reply