ABSTRACT
This thesis raised the controversy over the problems that occurred on the Brazilian border with Venezuela in 2018. The political, social and economic crisis in Venezuela caused an increasing flow of refugees to Brazil so that the Brazilian Federal Judge ordered the closure of the Roraima border. This study aimed to determine the controversy of the closure of the Roraima border regarding Brazil's obligations as the State party of the Geneva Convention 1951 and the New York Protocol 1967. This study is normative legal research. Data sources were obtained from literature studies and also interviews with competent in this regard, the Brazilian Ambassador and the Representative of UNHCR located in Jakarta. Based on deductive data analysis and sources, the decision of the Brazilian Federal Judge did not violate Brazil's obligations as a state party of the Convention and Protocol. The Brazilian Federal Government stated that the Judge's decision was illegal. In its steps, Brazil had provided humanitarian aid and protection to Venezuelan refugees entering the country. From this study, it was concluded that the decision of the Federal Judge does not have a prolonged influence on Brazil regarding the implementation of its obligations as a state party of the Convention and Protocol, even though the border had been closed for a while.

Keywords: Refugees, Closure Border, State Party Obligations, Federal Judge’s Decision, Federal Government.