The line that refugee status is of a purely ‘civilian and humanitarian’ character cannot be strictly maintained. It has become commonplace to point out the dangers posed to the general refugee population due to the presence of combatants in or within the proximity of a refugee camp, where a separation of civilian and non-civilian elements may indeed be deemed necessary. Forgoing the scholarship pertaining to the context of the refugee camp, which has absorbed most of the attention in this area, this paper will focus on the de jure legitimacy of a combatant seeking asylum, particularly away from the conflict zone. In light of this, there is a firm need to redraw the distinctions in this area and to account for the lack of dependence to and deference of international refugee law towards humanitarian law. There remain definitional and interpretative complexities that prevent a clear implementation of rules, particularly in non-international armed conflict. While the concern in not tarnishing asylum regimes is a legitimate one, it must be admitted that losing sight of the individuality and diversity of combatants and their motive, as occurs in the current discourse, is also erosive of protection needs and political rights, primarily the right to self-determination.

难民地位纯粹是“平民和人道主义”特征的观点不能得到严格维持。指出由于在难民营内或附近存在战斗人员而给一般难民带来的危险已变得司空见惯，在难民营中，确实有必要将平民和非平民分子分开。放弃了与难民营有关的奖学金，该奖学金吸引了该领域的大部分关注，本文将着重于法律上寻求庇护的战斗人员的合法性，特别是远离冲突地区的合法性。有鉴于此，迫切需要重新划分这方面的区别，并考虑到国际难民法对人道主义法的缺乏依赖和尊重。仍然存在定义和解释上的复杂性，妨碍了规则的明确执行，特别是在非国际性武装冲突中。尽管对不损害庇护制度的关注是合情合理的，但必须承认的是，忽视战斗人员的个性和多样性以及他们的动机（正如当前的话语所述）也侵蚀了保护需求和政治权利，主要是对人权的保护。自决权。