Although it falls beyond the scope of this report to describe each of those international obligations in detail, it is worth noting a few key provisions of international human rights law that have been interpreted to extend to non-citizens in need of international protection and have been applied by refugee host states in a variety of contexts. The rights enumerated above are well-established within international human rights mechanisms and would apply in South and Southeast Asia states that have ratified them. However, as is the case with the 1951 Refugee Convention, a number of the region’s states have not ratified these instruments. As a result, advocating for and realizing refugee protections in the region generally requires a distinct approach—involving asserting the broader international humanitarian and human rights obligations of states, including those derived from customary international law norms. Of primary importance is the norm of non-refoulement, which is found expressly in international refugee law, international humanitarian law, and international human rights law, albeit with different scopes and conditions of application. Under international refugee law, Article 33 of the Refugee Convention and its Protocol prohibit the return of persons to territories where their life or freedom would be threatened. This is particularly recognized where there is a risk of torture and severe ill-treatment, arbitrary deprivation of life or of fundamental human rights, or other form of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. Additionally, a number of other grounds might be covered depending on the treaties ratified by the states concerned. The prohibition against refoulement applies to all refugees, regardless of whether their status has been formally recognized. Crucially, because the core principle of non-refoulement has become customary international law, it binds all states regardless of whether they are a party to the Refugee Convention.16 International and regional instruments and jurisprudence establish the obligations and guidance necessary to prompt states to provide legal protection for non-citizen populations in precarious legal situations, including those seeking asylum and stateless individuals. Precisely why states act (or refuse to act) in defense of protection seekers is not easy to understand, though it is often geopolitically determined. Supra-national rights regimes, however, can and do play an important role in states’ decision-making processes.17 But, as emphasized in this report, efforts centered around national-level commitments are often more impactful than those leveraging international regimes in advancing rights and protections for refugees. It is on these efforts and the lessons learned from them that this report will focus. 9 BE YOND REFU GE: ADVANCING LEG AL PROTECTIONS FOR ROHINGYA C OMMUNITIES IN BANGL ADESH