{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013033175355450236, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004739336492890996, 'mean_word_length': 5.7063492063492065, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Balancing national security and refugee rights under public international law

Does the national security exception in international refugee law constitute a real, legally measurable justification, or rather an excuse for introducing the politics according to the will of current government? A lack of sufficiently comprehensive set of rules within the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees entails large, but not unlimited, subjectivity in interpreting legal norms. This work briefly presents the relevant legal norms and proposes a model aiming to balance between refugees' rights and national security interests. The model can help in limiting subjectivity during adjudication process by quantifying the boundaries to implementation of the limitations of refugees' rights. The provided example demonstrates the use of the model.