Refugee Problems In Africa Research Articles

Article III of the OAU Refugee Convention in Context: the Emergence of Subversion in the African Inter-State System

Abstract On the face of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa, the refugee problem in Africa is explicitly a multi-dimensional humanitarian, political, and security challenge. Linking the problem of refugees in Africa to the challenge of coexistence among then newly independent African States, Article III of the OAU Convention prohibits subversion by refugees. This study examines the evolution of this prohibition in the context of the history of post-colonial transition and authoritarianism which birthed it, and whose consequences are far from extinguished; suggesting that this context provides greater clarity to the scope and function of the prohibition as an obligation founded in a duty of friendly relations owed by African states to one another. Despite this, the language of the prohibition in the OAU Convention nevertheless lends it to sovereign self-help in a global context of rising authoritarian rule.

Replacing the Persecution Condition for Refugeehood

In this article, earlier versions of which were presented at the IVR World Congress in 2019 and in graduate student workshops at the University of Pennsylvania, the author offers a critical look at the existing definition of a refugee in international law, in particular, in the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. The Convention recognizes a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion as a condition for a person to be granted refugee status. However, this leaves significant gaps in the protection of persons fleeing indiscriminate or generalized violence or harm, although such people today constitute a significant proportion of those forced to move from their country of nationality. The author emphasizes that within some regions and countries there are legal instruments capable of bridging these gaps (the 1969 Organization of African Unity Convention on the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa, the 1984 Cartagena Declaration on Refugees, as well as temporary protection in the EU and the US), but the UN Convention continues to be deficient in this regard.
 The author proposes to correct these shortcomings by applying the “needs-first” approach, which understands refugees as all displaced persons fleeing sufficiently serious threats. The author presents her own definition of a refugee as “any person with a well-founded fear that their fundamental human rights are urgently threatened; who would have no recourse to their home government, even if appropriate international assistance were available; and whose interests can only or best satisfied by means of refugee – that is, by means of protection from a political authority that is not their own, usually in the form of asylum within the territory of that country.”
 The author acknowledges that her proposed “needs-first” approach is not without its drawbacks, and the main challenge in its implementation is to avoid becoming a purely humanitarian measure and to preserve the political identity of the individuals who are fleeing the threat to countries not of their nationality.

The right and role of critiquing the contemporary patchwork of protection

The right and role of critiquing the contemporary patchwork of protection

Introduction: Refugees, Returnees and Internally Displaced Persons in Africa

On 10 September 2019, the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa (OAU Refugee Convention) turned 50, while on 23 October 2019 the African Union (AU) Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa (Kampala Convention) turned 10. It is against this backdrop that the designation by the AU Assembly of Heads of State and Government of 2019 as the Year of Refugees, Returnees and Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) in Africa, is significant.

Non-refoulement Principle and Its Application to Refugees and Asylum Seekers Who Have Committed Offences in Africa

Abstract The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1969 African Union Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa have been ratified by many African States. These treaties deal with, inter alia, the principle of non-refoulement generally and the protection of asylum seekers or refugees convicted of offences. Some States in Eastern and Southern Africa have also enacted domestic legislation giving effect to these treaties and the principle of non-refoulement is provided for in most of these pieces of legislation, albeit sometimes in different ways. This article assesses legislation and case law from Eastern and Southern African States to demonstrate how courts have dealt with the principle of non-refoulement in the context of refugees and/or asylum seekers who have been convicted of offences. It also considers relevant legislation and case law prohibiting extradition if there are grounds to believe that the extradited person could be subjected to torture in a receiving State.

Mauritian Courts and the Protection of the Rights of Asylum Seekers in the Absence of Dedicated Legislation

Abstract Mauritius became a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention through succession but is yet to accede to the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees. It has signed but not yet ratified the OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa and has not signed the African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa. Unlike many other countries in Africa, Mauritius has not yet enacted domestic legislation dealing with the issue of refugees. However, international human rights obligations and domestic legislation allow the rights of asylum seekers to be protected in Mauritius. This article argues that the principle of non-refoulement bars Mauritius from extraditing or deporting an asylum seeker to a country where he or she will be persecuted or where his or her rights will be violated, and that asylum seekers and citizens are equally protected by the Constitution with regard to absolute rights. However, limitations may be imposed on asylum seekers in their enjoyment of non-absolute rights. For such limitations to be lawful, they must aim to achieve the objectives stipulated in section 3 of the Constitution.

Reconsidering African Refugee Law

Abstract Fifty years have now passed since the 1969 Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa was adopted by the Organization of African Unity (OAU). Within international refugee law, the OAU Refugee Convention (OAU Convention) is often taken to encapsulate the ‘African’ legal approach to refugees. This anniversary represents an opportune moment to review the state of ‘African’ refugee law. This article seeks to contribute to that regional undertaking by providing insights based on a comparative analysis of national refugee laws in African States. This encompasses consideration of how national law engages with the OAU Convention, as a centre of gravity for refugee law development in the region, but it extends also to exploring whether an ‘African’ approach to refugee law can be discerned in the novel ways in which the national refugee laws of African States (i) implement other refugee and human rights law treaties, and (ii) create new refugee law rules without precedent in treaty law. By building a more comprehensive picture of comparative refugee law in Africa, the study aims to complement existing refugee law studies in Africa that focus mainly on the international law level or on local implementation within only one or two States.

The Supervision (or Not) of the 1969 OAU Refugee Convention

Abstract This article covers the supervision of the 1969 Organization of African Unity Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa (1969 Convention). It begins by defining treaty supervision and describing key understandings of it in the international refugee law literature. These are then harnessed to create a model of supervision (the Supervisory Model) to frame the ensuing discussion. How the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees is supervised is presented within this Supervisory Model, by way of background. The article then moves on to its principal focus, beginning with an overview of the calls for, and claims regarding, supervision of the 1969 Convention. The need for supervision is then established based on two principal elements. First, the 1969 Convention’s incomplete implementation in States parties to the treaty, in both refugee status determination and in relation to rights guaranteed by the instrument. Secondly, existing bodies with quasi-supervisory or supervisory mandates – the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees – are not effectively redressing such implementation deficiencies. With the need for supervision established, a new supervisory mechanism is proposed and the procedural options to create it are outlined.

Ethiopia's Refugee Policy Overhaul: Implications on the Out of Camp Regime and Rights to Residence, Movement and Engagement in Gainful Employment

Ethiopia became the second largest refugee hosting country in Africa – with the count of registered refugees and asylum seekers reaching 905,831 as of 31 August 2018. Displaced from twenty-six countries worldwide, most refugees fled from protracted crisis, famine, instability, forced military conscription and repression in South Sudan, Somalia and Eritrea. Although Ethiopia acceded to the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (hereafter called the Refugee Convention) and has furthermore ratified the Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa (hereinafter called the African Refugee Convention), it has, for the most part, pursued a strict encampment policy and adopted restricted service provision approaches in the administration of refugees’ affairs. Compared to a range of international legal obligations it has assumed, some limitations continued to feature nationally – hampering the effective implementation of the rights of refugees in various scales. Since 2016, Ethiopia’s policy drive in relation to refugees started to gravitate from the current ‘camp-based basic services provision’ approach to a more ‘progressive and rights-centered’ model that also considers alternatives to the encampment of refugees. A landmark expression of nine intertwined pledges – proposed on the occasion of the 71st UN Summit on Refugees and Migrants held in New York, kindled a new glimmer of hope for the refugee community and furthermore provided a solid political basis and direction for enhanced protection and provision of civil, political and socio-economic services to refugees. At the Summit, Ethiopia rolled a comprehensive approach – committing, in global solidarity, to provide refugees shelter, rights and improved livelihood opportunities. To carry out the commitments, Ethiopia embarked on the design of a holistic policy frame, legislative actions and strategic response mechanisms fostering peaceful coexistence, greater inclusion and entitlement of refugees. As such, one interwoven policy regime that assists refugees to receive enhanced protection and attain quality livelihood is related to interventions focusing on the regulation of practice relating to the Out of Camp Policy (OCP), legal residency, freedom of movement and engagement in gainful employment. Over the years, positive headways have been recorded in Ethiopia’s policy orientation on refugees. Yet, in many areas including residency, freedom of movement and engagement in gainful employment, refugees’ legal entitlements and experience remained challenged by regulatory gaps and uncertainties. This set of circumstances entailed that the evolving legal frameworks, institutional response mechanisms, challenges and opportunities need to be analyzed in the contemporary context in order to understand the full spectrum of their contents and implications on the rights of refugees and recommend informed interventions. The central objective of this empirical study is to review normative developments, institutional arrangements and experiences in Ethiopia – particularly focusing on rights of refugees to legal residency, freedom of movement and engagement in gainful employment – both within and outside of the OCP setting. More specifically, the study scrutinizes key features of international and national legal frameworks that are pertinent in the context of the rights of refugees in Ethiopia, new changes in policy and regulatory approaches, and the projected effect of the application of such approaches. Furthermore, contours of Ethiopia’s OCP regime – including the processes, eligibility requirements, and rights and obligations of refugees granted such status will be examined in context.

Key Legal Considerations on the Standards of Treatment of Refugees Recognized under the 1969 OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa

19 December 2017 [With thanks to UNHCR for providing this document]

Responsibility Sharing: Towards a Unified Refugee Protection Framework in Africa

In most African countries, refugees are not welcomed with the sense of regional solidarity that surrounded the promulgation of the 1969 OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa. Instead, African states have increasingly followed the lead of European states by closing their borders, deporting those who have made it into their territories or restricting them to camps. Even in those countries where refugees are admitted, their treatment does not meet the Convention’s standards and obligations. Despite South Africa having enacted legislation, the Refugees Act, which is hailed as one of the most liberal domestic refugee protection frameworks in Africa, it has regressed in its refugee protection policy. Continued conflict in the Horn of Africa, environmental disasters and struggling economies have resulted in a migratory flow of people to South Africa. This paper will argue that due to the fragmented manner in which African states approach refugee protection, countries such as South Africa, that have liberal and progressive refugee protection frameworks, will continue to experience higher migration flows and thus shoulder a greater responsibility. In response to this migratory pressure, this paper will demonstrate how the South African government has begun to intentionally and unlawfully violate the Refugees Act as well as regional obligations, and will demonstrate how South Africa has adopted policies and practices aimed at hindering, discouraging and restricting access to asylum. This paper will propose that African states should adopt a unified regional approach to refugee protection in order to share the responsibility of refugee protection.

Religious and ethnic politics in refugee hosting: Somalis in Nairobi, Kenya

Perception of refugees in Nairobi goes beyond the generic and homogenizing term ‘refugees’ and the legal instruments guiding the hosting of refugees. Legal instruments such as the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1969 African Union Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa take the position that refugee hosting is humanitarian and apolitical. Based on the experiences and circumstances of Somali refugees in Nairobi, this paper takes a contrary view and argues that refugee hosting is political and shaped by interpretation of the conflict that the refugees fled and their perceived political implications for the host country. The paper locates accentuation and criminalization of Somali religious affiliation in the localization of global conflicts and globalization of local conflicts in which the predominantly Muslim Somali refugees become the local and regional epitome of contemporary global terrorism as the conflict in Somalia has global ramifications due to its association with global terrorism. Having demonstrated the role of regional and global politics in the hosting of Somalis in Kenya, the paper also argues that Somalis are not helpless victims of circumstances as they create counter-narratives that seek to de-legitimize politicization and criminalization of their religious and ethnic affiliations.

Recognizing Socio-Economic Refugees in South Africa: a Principled and Rights-Based Approach to Section 3(b) of the Refugees Act

Section 3(b) of South Africa's Refugees Act, which substantially reproduces the expanded refugee definition from the Organisation of African Unity Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa (OAU Convention), accepts the refugee status of a person who, owing to ‘events seriously disturbing public order in either a part or the whole of his or her country of origin or nationality, is compelled to leave his or her place of habitual residence in order to seek refuge in another place outside his or her country of origin or nationality’. This article argues that socio-economic factors should be taken into account in assessing such refugee claims, in relation to the ‘events seriously disturbing public order’ and the compulsion to leave. The argument is based upon a consideration of South Africa's constitutional and international human rights commitments, its post-apartheid role within the international community and its legitimate policy concerns, as well as conceptual objections to the traditional dichotomy between refugees and economic migrants. In light of these considerations, the article then proposes an analytical framework for assessing this type of s. 3(b) refugee claim. Finally, this proposed framework is tested against fictional case studies set in Ethiopia, Zimbabwe and Mozambique. These case studies further undermine the traditional refugee/migrant dichotomy and suggest that the proposed framework is manageable, rights-regarding and restricted on principled grounds. It is hoped that the proposed analytical framework can provide a coherent and practical way forward in South African refugee law that recognizes the universality and indivisibility of fundamental human rights. Further, given the growing international consensus regarding the indivisibility of civil-political and socio-economic rights, this article may inform debates about the treatment of socio-economic rights deprivations in refugee law beyond South Africa and the OAU Convention.

A Critique Of The Rights Of Refugees Under The OAU Convention Governing The Specific Aspects Of Refugee Problems In Africa

Generally speaking, a refugee is a person forced to leave home for certain specified reasons and who is outside the country of his or her origin and does not have its protection. It is currently estimated that between 20 and 40 million refugees are spread across the world due to forced and involuntary movements, and is thus one of the most traumatic problems facing the world today. Conflicts and other life threatening disasters occur daily, forcing people to flee their countries of residence to seek refuge in other countries for safety. Africa has the largest number of refugees, hence there is a need for a regional convention that will adequately provide a cushion for the problems that may arise from this deluge. As the name implies, the 1969 OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugees' Problems in Africa seems to be such a desirable Convention. The Convention has many positive aspects, but leaves much to be desired in terms of tackling the basic problems encountered by refugees in Africa. There is consequently a need for a total overhaul of the Convention to make it more positively responsive to the contemporary challenges posed by refugee problems in Africa. East African Journal of Peace and Human Rights Vol. 12 (2) 2006: pp. 152-182

Refugee Status Determination in Africa

Thirty-fi ve years after the adoption of the Africa-specifi c treaty on refugees, the 1969 Organisation of African Unity Convention Governing the Specifi c Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa, the issue of refugees remains high on the agenda of many African countries. With States increasingly carrying out individual status determinations, either under their own auspices or through the offi ces of the UNHCR, insuffi cient guidance has been given to decision-makers on how to interpret this instrument by either the UNHCR or the African Union, in addition to which there is limited published case law available. How does the OAU Convention defi nition deal with issues of the interface between migration and asylum? Does the practice of African States in regularly giving sanctuary to persons escaping environmental catastrophes give rise to a right to asylum under the treaty? What about persons fl eeing terrorist attacks? Is the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees still relevant to displaced persons in Africa? This article takes a renewed look at each of the elements of the legal defi nition of a “refugee” under the OAU Convention in the hope of providing some guidance to decision-makers, lawyers and asylum-seekers alike. This article fi nds however that many questions remain unanswered, and although a myriad of different interpretations are possible, the greatest strength of the OAU Convention appears to rest less in its specifi c terms than the humanitarian spirit in which it is applied.

International instruments. States parties to the 1969 OAU convention governing the specific aspects of refugee problems in Africa

Journal Article International instruments. States parties to the 1969 OAU convention governing the specific aspects of refugee problems in Africa Get access Refugee Survey Quarterly, Volume 21, Issue 1_and_2, April 2002, Pages 375–376, https://doi.org/10.1093/rsq/21.1_and_2.375 Published: 01 April 2002

The cross-fertilization of international humanitarian law and international refugee law

RésuméLes liens entre le droit international des réfugiés et le droit international des droits de l'homme sont étroits. Il en est de même entre le droit international des réfugiés et le droit international humanitaire. À l'aide de deux exemples, l'auteur met en évidence l'interdépendance de ces deux branches du droit. Il démontre d'abord que la situation juridique de la victime d'un conflit armé et celle du réfugié ne sont pas identiques, même si elles sont étroitement liés, et soulève ainsi la question de l'application cumulative des deux orders juridiques. Il examine ensuite un deuxième point d'interaction entre ces deux ordres, à savoir le sort juridique des personnes qui ont fui leur pays d'origine à cause de violations graves du droit international humanitaire (crimes de guerre) et établit finalement que droit humanitaire et droit des réfugiés non seulement peuvent s'appliquer simultanément, mais encore s'influencent mutuellement.

Conference papers. Thirty years on: a legal review of the 1969 OAU Refugee Convention governing the specific aspects of refugee problems in Africa

Journal Article Thirty Years on: A Legal Review of the 1969 OAU Refugee Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa Get access George Okoth-Obbo George Okoth-Obbo Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Refugee Survey Quarterly, Volume 20, Issue 1, January 2001, Pages 79–138, https://doi.org/10.1093/rsq/20.1.79 Published: 01 January 2001

International instruments. States parties to the 1969 OAU convention governing the specific aspects of refugee problems in Africa

International instruments. States parties to the 1969 OAU convention governing the specific aspects of refugee problems in Africa

States Parties to the OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa of 10 September 1969

States Parties to the OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa of 10 September 1969