INTRODUCTION The Rohingya crisis has illuminated a failure on the part of the global community to stop or prevent the well-documented sustained persecution of an ethnic and religious minority—or to hold accountable those responsible for it. The long-term and cyclical history of forced displacement of the peoples of Afghanistan, again triggered by yet another chaotic government transition, similarly highlights inadequacies in international diplomacy and peacekeeping. These long-standing conflicts have resulted in major outflows of refugees that have most significantly impacted South and Southeast Asia. While attention ebbs and flows in response to developments in both Myanmar and Afghanistan, the countries in the Global South hosting most Rohingya and Afghan refugees deserve consistent attention and unwavering support. The Term “Refugee” Knowing that states in the Global South often learn from and value one another’s experiences, this report highlights positive legislative, policy, and practice examples, as well as communityled examples of resilience and solidarity, with the aim of inspiring the further advancement of rights for populations with precarious legal status. The report provides a regional and Global South-based analysis of refugee protections in Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, and Thailand in order to inform efforts to increase protection for at-risk and underserved refugee communities in these and other host states. The states surveyed in this report are not signatories of the 1951 Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol; however, as this report shows, many non-signatory states nonetheless offer important protections through domestic legislation, policy, and discretionary administrative and executive actions, which are often, but not always, derived from or informed by international human rights law instruments.12 Finally, it is important to note that in South and Southeast Asia, national protection frameworks assume even greater significance given the absence of a regional human rights framework.13 This report therefore takes a comparative approach toward mapping and analyzing patchwork sets of legislation and administrative decision-making which, taken together, govern each country’s reception, identification (or refusal to identify), and provision of rights or guarantees to individuals who have fled persecution and are in need of protection. 5 UND OING PRECARIT Y: ELE VATING P OSITIVE PR ACTICES FOR REFU GEE PROTECTION IN SO U TH AND SO U THE AST ASIA