This article explores three different methodological approaches to the UN 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees—and international refugee law (IRL) more broadly. These are termed the internal, external and dialectical approaches. It is argued that the dialectical approach, which combines elements of the internal and external approaches using a materialist postcolonial perspective helps make out in the light of changing conditions a more persuasive case for liberal interpretation and reform of the 1951 Convention. Put differently, the article is about the limitations and failings of mainstream IRL scholarship, which essentially pursues an internal approach to the 1951 Convention. It is equally about the need to decolonize and transform the pedagogy and research of IRL. This article concludes with some suggestions to advance refugee rights that would allow the 1951 Convention to respond more effectively to the protection needs of refugees around the world.