On 1 and 2 May 2008, at York University, some magic happened at the Research Workshop on Critical Issues in International Refugee Law. The participants left with brains buzzing with ideas and stimulation, better informed, and with a sense of challenge for further inquiry. But we also left with a feeling of inspiration.

In the two days of intense discussion there was a wonderful sense of engagement and uplift with a group all focused on the constructive development of this most important area of the law. These outcomes are not so common in meetings of legal discourse. How and why did it happen that way?

Clearly, the careful selection of the topics for discussion was a central element in the success of the workshop. As the papers in this collection demonstrate, the workshop program reflected some of the most challenging contemporary issues in refugee law.

We first explored the divergence between states' practices in the interpretation of the Convention and considered the question of whether uniformity in interpretation was a desirable, let alone an achievable, goal. Then, we examined the developments of protection outside and beyond the Convention grounds by reference to various forms of subsidiary or complementary protection which have been evolving to meet needs not catered for by the Convention.

On the second day, the workshop considered the effect of the spread of terrorism and, in particular, the events of 9/11 on the application of the Convention, and, especially, the consequence of these developments on the interpretation of the exclusion provisions in Article 1F of the Convention.