The 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol are the only binding international instruments under which the parties of the instruments agree to protect refugees. However, there are gaps in the existing protection mechanisms for refugees at sea. Moreover, the South East Asian States are non-parties to the 1951 Refugee Convention; the States argue that they have no treaty obligation to accept Rohingya boat refugees. In this context, this article revisits the traditional view of ‘soft laws’, suggesting a fresh look at ‘soft laws’ regarding boat refugees. This article argues that even though the States are non-parties to international refugee law, the South East Asian States are members of the UN General Assembly, IMO, and ExCom. These international bodies have adopted numerous resolutions, guidelines and conclusions on refugee protection at sea; therefore, the States have international obligations to boat refugees according to Article 38(1)(C) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice 1945, the general principle of international law.

1951 年的《难民公约》和 1967 年的《议定书》是唯一具有约束力的国际文书，文书缔约方根据这些文书同意保护难民。然而，现有的海上难民保护机制存在差距。此外，东南亚国家不是 1951 年《难民公约》的缔约方；各国争辩说，他们没有接受罗兴亚船难民的条约义务。在此背景下，本文重新审视了“软法律”的传统观点，建议重新审视有关船只难民的“软法律”。本文认为，尽管各国不是国际难民法的缔约方，但东南亚国家是联合国大会、国际海事组织和执行委员会的成员。这些国际机构通过了许多关于海上难民保护的决议、准则和结论；1945 年国际法院规约，国际法的一般原则。