International regimes became the topic of scholarly discussion in the study of International Relations only in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Very little scholarly explanation has so far been provided to clarify why, when or under what circumstances international regimes modify or collapse, while the expectations of the regime participants may change and disperse. This paper aims to explore how states that are not traditionally considered the most significant for the creation, design and continuation of the regime might challenge its framework and under what conditions these actions could impact the regime. Poland acceded to the International Refugee Regime (IRR) in 1991 after beginning its transformation. In the process of analysis, we argue that the Polish actions challenging the IRR by breaching its norms were initially accommodated with a mixture of cautious tolerance (especially among the EU member states who wished to keep the migration flows through the Polish-Belarusian border stalled there), and tacit criticism expressed by international governmental institutions unwilling to exhort too much pressure in order not to lose access to people with humanitarian and protection needs. We also claim that although the Polish authorities challenged the core rules of the IRR, their policies and actions have not led directly to a permanent destabilisation of the regime, not to mention its dissolution or collapse. However, unless not repelled in a direct and robust way by major participants of the regime, they might result in undermining the core framework of the IRR.