Durable Solutions For Refugees Research Articles

Navigating Vulnerability and Integration: Refugee Resettlement from Rwanda to Third Countries under the Medical Needs Category

Abstract Resettlement is a limited resource available to only a fraction of refugees. Selection criteria, set by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and receiving States, may impose conflicting demands on refugees to exhibit both vulnerability and integration potential to be chosen, a phenomenon termed “promising victimhood”. Drawing on empirical data from interviews with 21 personnel from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and Save the Children International in Rwanda, this article explores how medical needs criteria impact the inclusion or exclusion of refugees for resettlement. It finds that the selection criteria favour refugees with treatable conditions and favourable prognoses, thereby excluding those with chronic or fatal illnesses or patients with poor life expectancy. The article argues that such criteria potentially undermine the humanitarian objectives of the resettlement programme by marginalising some of the most vulnerable individuals. It discusses the implications of these findings for global burden-sharing strategies and calls for strengthening the medical infrastructure in asylum countries. The article concludes by questioning whether resettlement, in its current form, can truly serve as one of the three durable solutions for refugees with medical needs, given that it remains an option for only a select few.

Modelling the determinants of voluntary repatriation: The role of ecosystem services in post-conflict reconstruction in Rakhine

Voluntary repatriation has the utmost importance in the contemporary understanding of refugee protection. Voluntary repatriation in safety and with dignity is considered to be the most desirable and durable solutions for refugees. However, voluntary repatriation represents increasingly daunting challenges to the refugees, the governments of both home and host countries, and implementing partners. The repatriation planning of Rohingya refugees is widely criticized as being profoundly premature and dangerous. Most of the refugees are set to return to destroyed villages where food and shelter are inadequate, ecosystem services overstretched, livelihood opportunities marginal and the physical environment unfit for human habitation. Investigating the view and perspectives of the refugees on the factors that influence their intention to return can inform the implementing actors to secure those conditions and ensure a durable solution. Here, we identify the conditions that influence the decisions by Rohingya refugees in protracted displacement regarding return to Myanmar. This research also addresses the dual challenges of repatriation and sustainable post-conflict reconstruction, and, more specifically, provides a framework on how to integrate ecosystem services in the repatriation process.

Outsourcing obligations to developing nations: Australia's refugee resettlement agreement with Cambodia

Despite a proclaimed commitment of the ‘developed West’ to international cooperation in the formation of durable solutions for refugees, a pattern of defensive policy designed to outsource obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention has emerged. In this context, on 26 September 2014, Australia and Cambodia signed a ‘responsibility sharing’ agreement for the relocation to Cambodia of recognised refugees who originally sought protection in Australia and were removed to Nauru for processing. Whilst the Cambodia Agreement is of particular relevance in the Australasian region, this paper will analyse its nature and effect against the backdrop of the global trend of burden shifting and the implications of such an agreement for international law. This paper will examine whether the Cambodia Agreementt complies with the 1951 Refugee Convention through an analysis of the potential issues with fulfilment of the rights found therein. This requires the establishment of a continuum of jurisdiction pursuant to which it is concluded that transferees under the Cambodia Agreementt remain under the effective jurisdiction of Australia. This paper concludes that while a developing country may have the capacity to provide the requisite standard of protection to refugees under the 1951 Refugee Convention, in practice Cambodia fails to do so.

A New Link in the Chain: Could a Framework Convention for Refugee Responsibility Sharing Fulfil the Promise of the 1967 Protocol?

Reflecting upon the 50th anniversary of the conclusion of the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, this article argues that it is time for the first two links in the chain of the international refugee protection regime – the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol – to be joined by a third. This third link, it is argued, should take the form of a mechanism designed to distribute more equitably between States the responsibility to provide protection and durable solutions for refugees and suggests that a tool developed by international environmental lawyers – the framework convention – could form the basis for coordinated, incremental improvement. After exploring the notion of responsibility sharing in international refugee law and examining the manner in which international environmental lawyers have tackled similar collective action problems, the article sets out the key elements of a proposed Framework Convention for Refugee Responsibility Sharing. It argues that such a convention would be: capable of being widely ratified, and thus able to serve as a forum for global efforts; principled; comprehensive; accountable; capable of linking issues so as to better serve the interests of States and refugees; and able to serve as a forum for the discussion and generation of new and innovative ideas. The article argues that there is, therefore, every reason to believe that a framework convention would lead to a more equitable sharing of responsibility for the world’s refugees, as well as an increase in the overall level of protection and the number and quality of durable solutions available.

Welcome or Not Welcome? Investigating the Causes of Host Countries' Receptivity to Refugees

Despite the increase of forced migrants in recent years and growing concern with their treatment, surprisingly few serious quantitative studies have been conducted on the factors that make countries more or less receptive to refugees. This study analyzes several variables for their effect on levels of policy receptiveness toward refugees. The results indicate that perceived levels of political stability had a reliable and strong positive effect on levels of refugee inclusion. Interestingly, level of education had a weaker inverse relationship with refugee inclusion. Thus, the more that a country’s population felt that their government was politically stable (e.g., not at risk of overthrow) the more open their policies toward refugees were. However, albeit to a lesser extent, the more educated a country was, the more restrictive its policies were.Though further empirical research on this question is clearly needed, these initial findings suggest that the international community’s efforts to find durable solutions for refugees are entwined with efforts to promote stability within host countries. Thus, helping reduce internal tensions within countries may not only help avoid conflicts that contribute to the world’s refugee population but may also help cultivate new homelands for refugees.

Negotiating Durable Solutions for Refugees: A Critical Space for Semiotic Analysis

Despite the proliferation of specialised agencies designed to reduce the prevalence of refugees worldwide, the number of individuals fleeing persecution is increasing year on year as endemic violence in countries such as Iraq, Somalia and the Syrian Arab Republic continues. As a result, media broadcasts and political dialogues are saturated with discussions about these “persons of concern”. Fundamental questions nonetheless remain unanswered about what meaning these actors attribute to the label ‘refugee’ and what intent, other than paucity of knowledge, might be driving the term’s use or manipulation. Though this is evidently important in the public arena, where incorrect conflations fuel mistrust and misunderstandings, the ramifications of these divergent understandings at the level of multi-lateral politics have yet to be critically explored. This article applies Barthes’ theory of the multiple orders of the sign to address this. Using the case study of the negotiations preceding the invocation of the Cessation Clause for Rwandan refugees, it illustrates how the word refugee is susceptible to numerous, simultaneous understandings, and discusses the implications of these manifold interpretations for how durable solutions are envisaged and negotiated in the refugee regime. In the case of Rwandan refugees in Uganda, this has meant that over a decade of stalemated discussions between the Governments of Uganda and Rwanda and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees over their future have been broken by a series of bilateral concessions that, whilst diminishing the political significance attached to this protracted caseload, have failed to address the continuing precarity of their situation. By conceptualising the word refugee as a sign according to the Saussurean model of semiotics, this paper therefore argues that despite the term’s established legal-normative definition, its inherent malleability makes it susceptible to processes of political instrumentalisation. This elevates the refugee as a rhetorical figure above the refugee as a physical-legal body entitled to certain forms of assistance.

Guarantees the Protection of the Rights of Syrian Refugees in Jordan

Forced migration of the Syrians is one of the major international challenges today and lies at the heart of the basic concepts of humanity and equality. War, conflict, environmental disasters and human are forced the individuals to move in search of safety and stability. This research defines international and regional systems, and the standards for the protection of refugees from the legal perspectives, and theoretical and practical. Also this research analyzes private protective mechanisms such as supplementary protection or temporary escalating challenges for the protection of refugees caused by the increasing mixed migration of Syrians to Jordan and are analyzing the links between human rights law and humanitarian law and refugee law in the views of States' compliance with its legal and ethical obligations, Which gives the three durable solutions for refugees (repatriation, local integration and resettlement) special attention and express some of the major challenges presented by each and every one of them. This research Shows challenges of complex emergencies, which discuss flows collective responses as developed by the international community to provide humanitarian aid effective, such as the

Protection of Refugees in Non Signatory States

The humanitarian approach of offering sanctuary to frightened strangers and the victims of persecution and violence has become not only an existing reality but also has acquired the status of international tradition. In the aftermath of World War II, the United Nations General Assembly created the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which is mandated to protect and find durable solutions for refugees. Its activities are based on a framework of international law and standards. The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (herein after referred to as “1951 convention”) is the foundation of international refugee law. It defines the term “refugee” and sets minimum standards for the treatment of persons who are found to qualify for refugee status.While Ratification of a Treaty clearly conveys in rem, the Government's express intention, that the State is willing to be bound by the Convention concerned and it’s undertaking to fulfill the Convention's provisions; non ratification conveys, if not otherwise, the unwillingness to be obliged to. As of 1st April 2011, there are 144 state parties to the convention. The increasingly difficulty in reconciling the humanitarian impulses and obligations with their domestic needs and political realities often discourages the States not to sign the 1951 convention as it is rights based. Thus Non Signatory State means a State, irrespective of its respect for refugee law, has neither ratified the convention nor the 1967 Protocol.

Field Experiences, Major Actors and Policies The Balkans at a Cross-Road: Progress and Challenges in Finding Durable Solutions for Refugees and Displaced Persons from the Wars in the Former Yugoslavia

Field Experiences, Major Actors and Policies The Balkans at a Cross-Road: Progress and Challenges in Finding Durable Solutions for Refugees and Displaced Persons from the Wars in the Former Yugoslavia

Framework for Durable Solutions for Refugees and Persons of Concern

Framework for Durable Solutions for Refugees and Persons of Concern

The Role of International Law and Human Rights in Peacemaking and Crafting Durable Solutions for Refugees: Comparative Comment

The Role of International Law and Human Rights in Peacemaking and Crafting Durable Solutions for Refugees: Comparative Comment

Spatial practices of integration and segregation among internally displaced persons and their hosts in Sri Lanka

This article recounts how a group of Muslim internally displaced persons from the Northern Province of Sri Lanka arrived and settled in the North-Western Province of the island. The account is placed in the context of local integration, as one of the so-called durable solutions for refugees and displaced people. It is argued that it is useful to study integration and segregation as related processes. The main focus of the article concerns the development of resettlement villages for displaced people and how this has made it necessary for local people to reconstruct and redefine their places. One particular confrontation that took place between local Sinhalese people and displaced Muslims is discussed, to show how the negotiation of place may become violent. The article concludes by arguing that, in order for the process of local integration to succeed, active participation by all groups involved in the local integration process is a prerequisite.

Preventive detention

For nearly fifty years, any discussion of “refugees” presupposed “exile” as a tautological given, the starting point either for providing temporary asylum or for solving the refugee problem. During that time, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) promoted three durable solutions for refugees: (1) voluntary repatriation, (2) local settlement, or (3) third‐country resettlement. Each solution took exile as its starting point; and two of them accepted exile as a permanent fact. Although voluntary repatriation was the preferred solution, in most cases during the Cold War the prospects for voluntary return seemed remote, even illusory. A few lucky refugees made the best of exile, resettling in Canada, the United States, or some other far‐off country; but the overwhelming majority remained in a holding pattern, languishing for years in grim, Third World refugee camps. They remained refugees with no solution. They could not be said to be locally integrated (durable solution no. 2), because their rights were often stricdy limited. At best, they enjoyed a temporary asylum, tolerated until the time came when it would be safe to go home. With the end of the Cold War, and with the prospect of renewed refugee flows having more to do with local, often ethnic, conflicts than with superpower or ideological rivalries, the international community has been determined not to repeat what it sees as its past mistakes. To be avoided at all costs is the prospect of creating new lost generations, stagnating in refugee camps—the breeding grounds of frustration, dependency, violence, and political extremism. Beyond the toll on the lives of refugees, however, is a growing view among host governments that the post‐Cold War costs of hosting refugees far outweigh the benefits. Why, the reasoning goes, should outside countries that do not produce the human rights abuses and political violence that cause refugees to flee be forced to shoulder the refugee burden? Why, due to the bad luck of their geography, should countries such as Thailand, Turkey, Mexico, Pakistan, or Djibouti have their own stability threatened by the human dislocations caused by their neighbors? Is there no way to redirect the problem back to its source?