Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future, Članek / Article Avgust / August 2024, leto / year 9, številka / number 3, str. / pp. 173–189. * Korespondenčni avtor / Correspondence author 173 Prejeto: 13. februar 2024; revidirano: 26. april 2024; sprejeto: 13. maj 2024. / Received: 13th February 2024; revised: 26th April 2024; accepted: 13th May 2024. DOI: 10.37886/ip.2024.009 Temporary Protection and Continuation of Remote Work for the Country of Origin Piotr Sadowski * Faculty of Law and Administration, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Władysława Bojarskiego 3 Street, 87-100 Toruń, Poland psadowski@umk.pl Abstract: Research Question (RQ): Can under EU law (Directive 2001/55/EC) displaced persons continue working for public authorities of their country of origin or should their international protection be revoked by narrowly interpreting per analogy the 1951 UN Refugee Convention or should that UN treaty be interpreted according to the UNHCR’s not formally binding guidelines? Purpose: This research focuses on an analysis of differences between the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and Directive 2001/55/EC regarding definitions of persons who can benefit from these norms. Incidental contacts with a country of origin may not justify revoking a refugee status. It is unclear if the same reasoning applies to longer contacts. Continuation of employment for the country of origin is that form of the contact, so diplomats were denied a refugee status. A situation of persons who remotely work for public authorities of a country of origin differs from a situation of diplomats. Directive does not refer to a need to terminate contacts with that country. This article answers a question if under international non-binding laws persons working remotely for public administration of their country of origin have to be denied temporary protection. Method: Typically for legal science, this paper is dominated by a use of a dogmatic-legal and analogy methods. Critical comparative analysis of the UN (1951 UN Refugee Convention) and EU (Directive 2001/55/EC) law was made. Historical method helped to deduce intentions of the drafters of the 1951 treaty from Travaux préparatoires to show differences between these laws. Results: The 1951 Refugee Convention applies to persons who are unwilling or unable to be protected by their country of origin. However, Directive 2001/55/EC does not refer explicitly to a need to terminate all contacts with that country. Thus, beneficiaries of temporary protection should be able to continue their remote work for public authorities of a country of origin. Still, an asylum caseworker should be able to verify if these activities do not violate refugee law. If they do, temporary protection should be revoked in an individual procedure. Organization: The answer to the research question would help to determine whether providing work for authorities of a country of origin is always an obstacle to benefiting from temporary protection. This can increase coherency of decisions of case workers and judges on providing and revoking temporary protection. Consequently, it may increase predictability of an interpretation of law, and affect a legal situation of beneficiaries of temporary protection. Originality: 28% of displaced persons in Poland work remotely in Ukraine. This factor has been unnoted in other military conflicts, but this may change with a popularization of remote work also in public administration, so among persons who do not terminate their contacts with a country of origin. The 1951 Refugee Convention and Directive 2001/55/EC do not refer to such situations. Still, the Convention explicitly requires to terminate some contacts. Directive 2001/55/EC does not have such an explicit requirement. Previous research focused on a situation when a country of origin is a source of persecution or a when person continues employment in diplomacy. An impact of differences between a direct execution of sovereign powers of a country of origin in that country and in a country of residence on decisions on revoking protection have not been researched yet from a perspective of a soft law.