A GUIDE TO USING THIS REPORT This report highlights ways in which countries in South and Southeast Asia that are not signatories to the 1951 Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol have nonetheless extended protections for and advanced the rights of refugees living within their borders through various legislative and administrative practices. The guide seeks to promote practical and actionable steps that can be adopted and adapted in other settings, informing existing and emerging efforts to help refugees defend and realize their rights. The research underlying this report was undertaken by the Refugee Solidarity Network and the Open Society Justice Initiative beginning in July 2018. It involved multiple stages and methods, including: • desk review of primary sources, such as legislative acts, administrative orders and memos, and judicial opinions and decisions; • findings, reviewed by experts, from six host countries: Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, and Thailand;1 • consultations, held in-person in Kuala Lumpur, Dhaka, and Cox’s Bazar, from April 2019, and then virtually up to December 2020; This report provides a snapshot of policies and practices in place at the time of its writing (between 2019 and 2021). It is not intended as a comprehensive enumeration of all relevant positive practices in the region, nor does it include a thorough overview and discussion of the legal frameworks identified in each setting. Legal practitioners, advocates, and policymakers working on refugee rights issues in South and Southeast Asia are the report’s primary audience and therefore some degree of familiarity with migration and refugee issues in the region on the part of the reader is assumed. The report fully appreciates the risks associated with highlighting government action that falls short of established international protection standards. To be effective, any strategy aimed at improving conditions for refugees must involve a nuanced understanding of the evolving political dynamics that shape refugee and migration policy. The report’s suggestions do not ignore those realities but seek to provide ideas for consideration for those engaged in the difficult task of navigating such complex environments. • review and substantial contributions by regional expert Brian Barbour;2 • verification of findings and research into developments pertaining to the positive practices compilated in this report; • peer review by T. Alexander Aleinikoff and Ian M. Kysel of the Secretariat of the Global Strategic Litigation Council for Refugee Rights. 2 UND OING PRECARIT Y: ELE VATING P OSITIVE PR ACTICES FOR REFU GEE PROTECTION IN SO U TH AND SO U THE AST ASIA