By Sakhawat Sajjat Sejan and Anik Das *
Refugee law has undergone several successive evolutions. It grew its branches with the adoption of the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Refugee Protocol. These instruments remain the ‘pioneers’ of refugee protection, determining who will be assigned refugee status while demarcating states’ obligations. Yet, despite the evolution of refugee law to address new vulnerabilities, one factor remains conspicuously absent: age. While gender-based persecution and gender-sensitive approaches to refugee protection have gained traction since the 1990s, older refugees—though representing between eight and ten percent of the global refugee population—are still invisible in the legal framework (UNHCR, 2022). While the absence of age as a criterion of protection reflects the historical context of the Convention’s drafting, this perpetuates systemic neglect in contemporary practice.
The absence of age in the definition provided by the 1951 Refugee Convention has farfetched implications. The definition of ‘refugee’ in article 1A(2) of the Convention includes persecution on the basis of race, religion, political opinion, membership of a particular social group and nationality as criteria to be considered a refugee. Article 3 of the Convention focuses on non-discrimination in applying rights on the ground of race, religion or country of origin. However, nowhere in these articles is age mentioned. This silence has meant that older refugees are neither conceptualized as a distinct category of vulnerability nor entitled to differentiated protection. This approach asks for customized protection that incorporates mobility assistance, financial security, social integration and healthcare for older refugees. Instead, the system has evolved through what scholars call an “adult normative lens,” implicitly assuming that refugees are working-age, able-bodied, and male (Goodwin-Gill & McAdam, 2021). Such assumptions fail to reflect the realities of displacement and reinforce structural ageism in humanitarian practice.
The demographic evidence makes the problem more urgent. UNHCR data suggests that 8.5% of refugees are aged 60 or older, though the proportion is likely higher in protracted displacement contexts where populations grow older over time, as in Palestinian camps in Lebanon or Syrian communities in Jordan (UNRWA, 2021). In many cases, older people account for over 12–15% of the refugee population. Older refugees face multidimensional vulnerabilities: chronic illness, disability, and reduced mobility limit their access to aid and services; the breakdown of family and community networks results in isolation and psychological distress; barriers to labour markets enforce economic dependency; and in some conflicts, older people are deliberately targeted or abandoned. Mortality rates confirm the gravity of the risks. During the South Sudan crisis in 2012, displaced persons over fifty were found to be four to five times more likely to die than younger cohorts (HelpAge International, 2014). The absence of age as a protected characteristic in refugee law mirrors the earlier exclusion of gender. For decades, gender-specific harms such as sexual violence, forced marriage, or discriminatory laws were overlooked because they did not fit the Convention’s narrow definition of persecution. It was only through sustained advocacy, strategic litigation, and the development of UNHCR guidelines that gender was incorporated into refugee law and practice (Crawley, 2001; UNHCR, 2002). Like gender, age is an immutable characteristic that profoundly shapes social identity and vulnerability. Like gender, its neglect undermines the principle of non-discrimination. And like gender, its eventual recognition requires moving away from the idea of formal equality – treating everyone the same – towards substantive equality, which demands differentiated treatment based on real differences in circumstance (Fredman, 2011).
Age has to follow the same trajectory as gender in refugee law. International and regional human rights frameworks have already laid the legal foundation for this shift. Rights without any discrimination are guaranteed by the Universal of Declaration of Human Rights 1948 (UDHR), where age is included in ‘other status’ through logical inference. Other status is an expansive and ever-evolving concept in the UDHR that does not limit the grounds of discrimination to specific categories. Rather, it aspires to include age, genetic features, sexual orientation, disability and other characteristics to ensure non-discrimination. Age is exclusively forbidden as a ground for discrimination in the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’ General Comment No. 20. The European Court of Human Rights has observed in Thlimmenos v. Greece (2000) that states practice discrimination not only by not treating everyone equally, but also by not treating those in different situations differently. Applied to refugees, treating older and younger persons identically without regard for their distinct vulnerabilities amounts to indirect discrimination. Similarly, in other cases such as Applicant S v Minister for Immigration (2004) and Ward (1993), the Australian High Court and the Canadian Supreme Court, respectively, acknowledged that immutable features like age can form the foundation of a ‘Particular Social Group (PSG).’ UNHCR itself acknowledged in its 2009 guidelines (UNHCR, 2009) that age may qualify as a PSG, yet in practice age-based claims remain rare and inconsistently adjudicated. However, regional frameworks demonstrate the feasibility of broader interpretations of the PSG concept, relating and expanding it to an older refugee-sensitive approach to ensure appropriate protection. The Cartagena Declaration and the African Union Refugee Convention extended the refugee definition by including incidents ‘seriously disturbing public order’ and generalized violence, categories that can disproportionately affect older people. The European Union’s Qualification Directive (2011) requires consideration of vulnerable groups, explicitly including older persons. These examples show that age-sensitive protection does not require rewriting the Refugee Convention but can be achieved through evolved interpretation, regional innovations, and soft-law instruments.
Also, the principle of non-discrimination provides the normative anchor for an age-sensitive approach. Both the 1951 Convention and broader human rights law require equal protection, yet equal protection does not mean identical treatment. In fact, the doctrine of substantive equality requires differentiated treatment when circumstances demand it. For older refugees, this means acknowledging that their vulnerabilities are qualitatively different from those of younger adults and that their protection requires specific measures. The proportionality test used in human rights jurisprudence confirms the legitimacy of such measures. Notably, this test advocates for individual risk assessment and proportionate responses to threats while adopting necessary measures for refugee protection. Practices such as ensuring accessible camp infrastructure, prioritizing medical care for chronic conditions, or recognizing age as a factor in asylum procedures all pursue legitimate aims, are suitable and necessary, and impose minimal burdens compared to the benefits they confer. Beyond law, the ethical case is equally strong. The humanitarian imperative requires assistance based on need. Systematically overlooking older refugees breaches this principle not by explicit exclusion but by omission. Nevertheless, the challenge is not the absence of legal tools but the absence of political will and operational prioritization. As with gender-sensitive reforms, progress will depend on evidence, advocacy, and strategic engagement with institutions. Documenting age-specific harms, litigating test cases, and piloting age-inclusive programs can gradually embed age into the normative and operational fabric of refugee protection.
Despite this doctrinal potential, operational realities lag behind. UNHCR’s Age, Gender, and Diversity Policy formally recognizes age as a factor in protection. Yet field practice remains inconsistent. While data collection has improved, with more operations disaggregating age into five-year bands, this has not translated into proportional programming, meaning that services provided to refugees are not sufficiently tailored to comply with the specific demographics and needs as found by data. Hence, humanitarian operations often operate under a “triage logic,” where scarce resources are concentrated on groups perceived to offer greater return on investment—children, women of reproductive age, and able-bodied adults (Ferris & Donato, 2022). Older people, seen as less economically productive or less likely to integrate, are deprioritized. The consequences of this neglect are not only material but also social. Many older refugees come from collectivist cultures where family and community ties define identity and resilience. As a result, they depend on the family members of kins by default. For example, according to HelpAge International, older Syrian refugees in Lebanon and Jordan were seen to be extremely reliant on their family members or kin for their daily care, emotional well-being and financial support (HelpAge International, 2014). The same has happened with older Taiwanese and Vietnamese immigrants in the United States (Pan et. al. 2023). Displacement disrupted their collective networks, leaving older persons particularly vulnerable to isolation.
Studies also show that older people often attempt to recreate social bonds through “fictive kin” relationships, underscoring the need for programs that facilitate social inclusion (Antonucci et al., 2014). In fictive kin relationships, a refugee tries to create family like bonds with unrelated people such other refugees, aid workers and neighbours to feel socially included. Recognizing these dynamics could inform refugee integration strategies, where older refugees serve not only as dependents but as cultural mediators and stabilizers, transferring traditions and knowledge to younger generations. Also, the recognition of older refugees as a protected group would contribute to broader community resilience. Contrary to dependency narratives, older refugees often play central roles in caregiving, cultural preservation, and conflict mediation (Correa & Gifford, 2011). Their participation in decision-making can strengthen intergenerational cohesion and even support durable solutions such as repatriation: in past cases, elders have guided younger generations in decisions to return home, as seen in Croatia and Liberia. Integrating their voices is therefore not an act of charity but a recognition of their agency and contribution.
In conclusion, the exclusion of age from the Refugee Convention is a relic of its mid-twentieth century origins. In an era of demographic ageing and unprecedented displacement, this silence is no longer tenable. International law, regional practice, and humanitarian ethics all support the case for an age-sensitive approach. Incorporating age into refugee protection does not require rewriting the Convention but does require a paradigm shift in interpretation and practice. It requires confronting institutional ageism and moving beyond rhetorical commitments toward measurable reforms. Above all, it requires recognizing that the dignity of refugees cannot be fully realized while one of the most significant groups remains invisible in approaches to protection. Hence, a true age-sensitive approach must weigh the acknowledgment of unique needs with the empowerment of older refugees by recognizing their agency and resilience. It shall also ensure that they are not seen as the passive victims of persecution but rather as cultural anchors, sources of wisdom and active participants in their recovery and protection. The principle of non-discrimination demands no less.
References:
- Antonucci, T. C., Ajrouch, K. J., & Birditt, K. S. (2014). The convoy model: Explaining social relations from a multidisciplinary perspective. Gerontologist, 54(1), 82–92. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnt118
- Correa, V., & Gifford, S. M. (2011). Intergenerational exchange and belonging in refugee families. Journal of Refugee Studies, 24(1), 116–136. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/feq048
- Crawley, H. (2001). Refugees and gender: Law and process. Jordans Publishing.
- Ferris, E., & Donato, K. (2022). Refugees, migration and global governance: Negotiating the global compacts. Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/Refugees-Migration-and-Global-Governance-Negotiating-the-Global-Compacts/Ferris-Donato/p/book/9780367618384
- Fredman, S. (2011). Discrimination law. Oxford University Press. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/discrimination-law-9780199562558
- Goodwin-Gill, G. S., & McAdam, J. (2021). The refugee in international law (4th ed.). Oxford University Press. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-refugee-in-international-law-9780198808565
- HelpAge International. (2014). Older voices in humanitarian crises. https://www.helpage.org/resources/publications/older-voices-in-humanitarian-crises/ & Hidden victims of the Syrian crisis: disabled, injured and older refugees, https://www.helpage.org/silo/files/hidden-victims-of-the-syrian-crisis-disabled-injured-and-older-refugees.pdf
- Pan H, Qualter P, Barreto M, Stegen H, Dury S. Loneliness in Older Migrants: Exploring the Role of Cultural Differences in Their Loneliness Experience. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023 Feb 4;20(4):2785. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20042785. PMID: 36833479; PMCID: PMC9957511.
- UNHCR. (2009). Guidelines on International Protection No. 8: Child Asylum Claims under Articles 1(A)2 and 1(F) of the 1951 Convention and/or 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees https://www.refworld.org/policy/legalguidance/unhcr/2009/en/71246 UNHCR. (2022). Age, Gender and Diversity Accountability Report 2022. https://www.unhcr.org/age-gender-and-diversity-accountability-report-2022.html
- UNRWA. (2021). Annual operational report. https://www.unrwa.org/resources/reports
* Sakhawat Sajjat Sejan is an Assistant Professor of Law at Bangladesh University. Anik Das is an Apprentice Lawyer, at Chittagong District and Session Judges’ Court.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author/s and do not necessarily reflect those of the Refugee Law Initiative. We welcome comments and contributions to this blog – please comment below and see here for contribution guidelines.