Codifying a Domestic Definition of “Refugee” and Legislating Procedures for the Rescue, Monitoring, Registration, and Accommodation of Protection Seekers Given the hesitation in many South and Southeast Asian host countries to even use the term “refugee” in official discourse or policy, Indonesia’s explicit recognition of a refugee status has been lauded as a promise to refugee rights and protection.68 Implementation challenges aside, the symbolic significance of this recognition cannot be understated: It has enabled a shifting of narratives regarding refugees toward one of their protection rather than their supposed invasion, and has led to the creation of legal pathways and a more comprehensive and codified protection framework. Despite the fact that Article 1(2) of the 2016 presidential decree includes a definition of “refugee” that mirrors the Refugee Convention’s, other provisions in the decree adopt an approach which more closely follows a pattern of immigration management. Rather than recognizing refugees as rights-holders, they are treated as passive agents to be managed—persons that need to be “detected,” “sheltered,” and “safeguarded.”69 This immigration management approach, in turn, has led some Indonesian commentators to argue that the decree is not a genuine legal framework for protecting refugees and granting asylum so much as a discretionary “humanitarian” adaptation of an immigration management framework designed to deal with the emergency influx of refugees and asylum seekers.70 Notwithstanding these critiques, it is important to recognize that the presidential decree continues to provide a promising precedent for refugee protection in a region where most states have not adopted the Refugee Convention and instead choose to host refugee communities on a discretionary and ad hoc basis. INDONESIA Presidential Decree No. 125 Year 2016 established the division of labor of various ministries regarding refugee protections and registration and codified repatriation as a voluntary request on the part of the refugee.71 With the issuance of this decree, which defined for the first time the mechanism for asylum applications, the right to apply for asylum in Indonesia laid out under the 1999 Law on Foreign Relations was finally effectively implemented.72 Judicial Practices Juridical Recognition of the Principle of Non-Refoulement as Binding Customary International Law Bangladesh has tacitly, if not in writing, admitted Rohingya individuals into its territory as refugees based on their having fled torture and persecution. Administrative precedent from 1989-1991 and 1992 has additionally established that Rohingya who came to Bangladesh from Myanmar were accepted as refugees and have been allowed to stay in Bangladesh. The court’s judgment in the RMMRU case recognized that Rohingya are living in Bangladesh as refugees, effectively conferring a form of international protection. 19 UND OING PRECARIT Y: ELE VATING P OSITIVE PR ACTICES FOR REFU GEE PROTECTION IN SO U TH AND SO U THE AST ASIA