This article examines the drafting history and the provisions of the Asian–African Legal Consultative Organisation Bangkok Principles on Status and Treatment of Refugees and considers their current relevance to the ongoing displacement of Rohingya refugees, the overwhelming majority of whom are hosted by South and Southeast Asian countries that are not parties to the 1951 Refugee Convention. It argues that the current relevance of the Bangkok Principles is underpinned by the fact that they reflect the experiences, views and practices of the relevant Asian countries, as evidenced by the drafting history and state practice. Such experiences, views and practices underlie notable differences between the Bangkok Principles and the 1951 Refugee Convention regarding minimum standard of treatment, preference for voluntary repatriation as the pre-eminent solution, addressing root causes, etc. Understanding and acknowledging those differences is crucial to any realistic assessment of what the relevant Asian countries are ready to accept and how to persuade them to do better. Furthermore, the soft law nature of the Bangkok Principles does not render them irrelevant or ineffective in the context of South and Southeast Asia. If the international community endeavours to promote a rules-based response to the Rohingya displacement and encourage multilateral dialogue and cooperation, the Bangkok Principles should not be overlooked.