CONSIDER CALLING FOR TEMPORARY PROTECTION IN THE ABSENCE OF LONG-TERM SOLUTIONS, WHILE REMAINING AWARE OF ITS LIMITATIONS The first two decades of the 2000s saw an increase in scholarship and examination of the place of temporary protection within the international refugee protection regime.126 Temporary protection has increasingly shifted from being viewed as a complement to international protection only to be used in mass influx situations to a means for states to accomplish existing obligations, whether within the Refugee Convention or more broadly (as outlined briefly above in this report’s section on international human rights law as a basis for “complementary” protection).127 Currently, the number of temporary protection regimes being implemented in this way across the world is growing. For example, Turkey formally adopted a temporary protection regime in 2014 for Syrian nationals and refugees who were previously provided protection in Syria.128 In 2021, Colombia announced that it would institute a formal temporary protective status for Venezuelan nationals, identified by some as having been modeled on the Turkish example.129 And Peru employed a Temporary Stay Permit (Permiso Temporal de Permanencia, or PTP) for Venezuelan nationals who entered the country within a certain time period, extending to those individuals a legal status and the right to work for a period of one year.130 The extent to which temporary protection regimes can prove instructive depends on the formalization of the framework, whether it includes a distinct legal status under law, and what rights are attached to the recognition of temporary protection status. Formulating a distinct legal status that is separate from that which governs other foreign nationals without protection needs often serves an important function as a basis from which further, longer-term protections can be sought.131 Where fundamental rights such as education, health care, and legal access to work are granted as part of a temporary status, the protection offered can be in line with that of the traditional international framework (i.e., the 1951 Refugee Convention). In other words, temporary protection regimes can accomplish the end goal of legal protection for refugees, despite the major weakness that they do not offer long-term certainty to populations in need of such protection. Given the prevalence and prominence of status-related issues and challenges across the region, temporary protection may be a useful tool for advocates in the region. While temporary regimes present significant challenges for refugees in the form of possible extended legal limbo, especially when adopted for lengthy periods of time, temporary protective statuses may at least begin to address the legal precarity that is the focus of this paper. Such regimes would help satisfy the concerns of many host governments of shouldering responsibility for large populations with limited resources, while also improving the lack-of-status issues that have plagued these communities. In particular, they can mitigate the risk of detention and removal for protection seekers. While temporary protection regimes should not be viewed as replacement for long-term protections, the role of temporary mechanisms should not be understated or overlooked, particularly in states with no existing refugee framework, including those in South and Southeast Asia. Advocates may wish to call for the use of such schemes, and in doing so ensure that the temporary status at its inception offers a pathway to transition to a more permanent one. 40 UND OING PRECARIT Y: ELE VATING P OSITIVE PR ACTICES FOR REFU GEE PROTECTION IN SO U TH AND SO U THE AST ASIA