The limitations of voluntary repatriation and resettlement of refugees

Abstract

UNHCR is charged with the pursuit of durable solutions for the problem of refugees. Those solutions are voluntary repatriation and assimilation within new national communities which means either local integration in the country of refuge - tangentially touched upon in this paper - or resettlement in a third state. ‘Voluntary repatriation’ is the generally preferred solution whilst ‘resettlement’ is considered to be the solution of last resort. This chapter will focus on the limitations of both solutions. Voluntary repatriation is an inherently complex and demanding solution. Beyond that, it hinges on the formal link of nationality - alternatively, in the absence of that particular link and even more tenuous: mere residence in the country of origin - of the refugees concerned even though that link may, owing to the passage of time, have turned into a rather artificial one and the same applies to former habitual residence of one’s forebears. Resettlement is a solution for relatively few refugees, tainted by scarcity and the leeway that apparently is considered, right or wrong, to inhere in the discretion of states to offer resettlement places. Both solutions date from a specific historic time and context, whereby resettlement, rather than local integration, developed as the solution for those who had valid objections to returning to their respective countries of origin. Nonetheless, on the basis of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, those with valid objections to return - that is, refugees in the sense of the Convention - are in essence entitled to local integration in the country of refuge rather than resettlement. In view of the limitations of voluntary repatriation particularly with respect to those who are trapped in protracted refugee situations, the original priority given to resettlement is worth revisiting.