Abstract This article examines the enduring consequences of refugee exclusion under Article 1F(a) of the Refugee Convention for individuals associated with core international crimes (CICs), focusing on two groups: acquitted or sentenced former international defendants, and excluded but unprosecuted asylum-seekers at the domestic level. It argues that the interaction between international refugee law and international criminal law creates a structural mismatch. This mismatch, combined with a persistent “enemy of mankind” narrative, condemns individuals to prolonged legal limbo, often without prosecution, removal, or access to residence rights. The article critiques the assumption that association with CICs justifies permanent exclusion, highlighting how security rationales and stigma overshadow individualised assessments and evidence of rehabilitation. Against this backdrop, it proposes conceptualising a “right to start over”, grounded in human dignity. Two normative foundations support this right: European Union law protections of family life and residency, and the European Court of Human Rights’ recognition of a “right to hope” under Article 3 European Convention of Human Rights. The article concludes by advocating concrete solutions: resettlement mechanisms for acquitted or released international defendants, and leave-to-remain regimes for excluded but unprosecuted individuals. It argues that “undeservingness” should not be permanent, and that redemption must have a place within both refugee protection and international criminal justice.
Elies van Sliedregt (2026) studied this question.