THE UNITED NATIONS THE UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMISSIONER FOR REFUGEESHIGH COMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES

By: Darren Daley and Rizayel MukashevINTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS & GLOBAL

GOVERNANCEIPOL8547, Dr. Laurance

Fall 2009

Background:Background:

-The Russian Revolution The Russian Revolution and the famine in 1921 and the famine in 1921 produced a million Russian produced a million Russian refugees;refugees;-The League of Nations The League of Nations established High established High Commissioner for Commissioner for Refugees (HCR) in 1921;Refugees (HCR) in 1921;

Background (cont.)Background (cont.)

• WWII and the establishment of the United WWII and the establishment of the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA);Administration (UNRRA);

• The International Refugee Organization in The International Refugee Organization in 1946;1946;

• The establishment of UNHCR in 1951.The establishment of UNHCR in 1951.

States vs. UNHCR

States vs. UNHCR

Normalization of Repatriation

• 1980s and 1990s: UNHCR begins involuntary repatriation Deems when conditions are “safe” for return

without consulting refugees States pressure organization to relax this

position UNHCR demonstrates its substantial autonomy

Principles of refugee rights versus pressure from states and refugee circumstances

UNHCR begins allowing for exceptions Emergence of exceptions cascade to

become rulerepatriation culture

Discourse and Conceptual Change

•Prior to 1980s: Repatriation as permanent solution (asylum and resettlement)

•Post 1980s: Repatriation as preferred or durable solution

–The term “durable solution” does not exist in the UNHCR’s statute

»Term coined by High Commissioner Poul Hartling in late 1970s

•Signal to host countries concerned with the idea of permanent resettlement

Discourse and Conceptual Change (cont. 1)

• New categories introduced: conditions improved “substantially” or “appreciably” for safe return

• Subjective refugee consent is viewed as impractical, especially when working with large groups– Subjective replaced by more pragmatic,

objective criteria

Discourse and Conceptual Change (cont. 2)

• Modifying “voluntary repatriation” increases violation of refugee rights– Decision to repatriate no longer dependent on

refugee consent

• Efforts to avoid offending sovereignty-sensitive governments– UNHCR requests “safety and dignity” for

refugees, instead of respect for their human rights• Introduction of new concepts: “safe return”

and “voluntariness”• Reinterpretation of old concepts: “protection”

(no longer legal protection)

Bureaucratic Changes

• Inter-relationship between protection and solutions and refugee law and action – Emphasis on field operations and repatriation– Downgrade legal protection

• 1980s: disband Protection Division– Creation of Refugee Law and Doctrine

Result: protection officers loss of influence Reduced legal protection

– Designed to alter UNHCR’s definition of “protection” Shift in willingness to intervene

Rules and Decision Criteria• Formal and informal rules

– 4 Preconditions for Repatriation: previous position• Fundamental change in home country

circumstances• Voluntary decision to return• Tripartite agreement: UNHCR + host country

+ home country• Return marked by dignity and safety

– 3 Post-Reform Changes• Acing under less than ideal condition• Judge safe return in comparison to camp

conditions• Refugee rights should take into consideration

state’s rights and broader political objectives

Rules and Decision Criteria(cont.)

• Importance of repatriation as mechanism for rebuilding confidence and peacebuilding– Repatriation as effect or potential cause of

political stability

• Need for guidelines in the face of ambiguity• Confrontation: subjective willingness to

return vs objective situation awaiting refugee return home

• Handbook: repatriation is the ends with potential disregard for means– Product of resource constraints, state pressures,

staff succession

“Voluntary” Repatriation of Rohingyas: A Case Study

• Repatriation Exercise of 1994-1995: Refugees from Burma to Bangladesh– Bangladesh – UNHCR – NGOs – Burma – March, 1992: UNHCR joins assistance effort

• Involuntary repatriation vis-à-vis manipulation of data

• Conditions hadn’t changed / UNHCR better positioned to monitor

Widespread lack of residency proof UNHCR limited ability to monitor return On going human rights abuses in Burma

Case Study (cont.)

• Dec., 1992: UNHCR withdrawal in protest– Jan., 1993: protests bring Bangladesh back to

table with UNHCR

• The Desire to Return– Refugees were not presented repatriation as an

option– UNHCR embellished on improved conditions– UNHCR oversold their monitoring presence– UNHCR gave each family $20

• Burma Is Better Than It Was• Capacity to Monitor Return

Power and Pathologies

• Use of various crises and global developments to increase mandate

• Exploit moral authority• Coordinating body to humanitarian agency• Expanded concept of “refugee”• Solution preference: shift in 1970s from

exile toward repatriation• State pressure in response to regime’s

demands