In discussions on migration, a basic distinction is often made between ‘voluntary’ and ‘forced’
Reflecting on the adequacy of existing institutions
Download 437.72 Kb. View original pdf
|
Assignment #11 (Group) Draft research proposal (PART 1)
| Reflecting on the adequacy of existing institutions The 1951 Refugee Convention was intended by its creators to be a living framework that would adapt to a changing context. Indeed, in the history of refugees, the regime has proven to be one of change and adaptation. However, today there are unprecedented levels of change in displacement. Numbers of displaced people are higher than at anytime since World War II. The complexity of drivers of displacement has grown, with causes of movement being as diverse as environmental change, food insecurity and weak governance causing people to move across borders for reasons that fall outside existing legal frameworks. Meanwhile, the willingness and ability of host states to provide protection and assistance is diminishing as capacities are overwhelmed and protection space dissipates. These issues lead to questions over whether the existing global governance model is fit for its changing purpose. In particular, it leads to two simple questions who to protect and how to protect?’ In terms of who to protect, one of the most longstanding debates relates to the question of whether to protect IDPs in addition to refugees and how to balance possible trade-offs between these imperatives. Throughout the s, some commentators argued that it was arbitrary to protect only those who had crossed an international border. Others argued that should UNHCR begin to protect IDPs, this would represent a potential conflict of interest to its refugee protection mandate, opening it up to being an instrument of states attempts to contain would-be refugees within the country of origin. Today, that debate is largely finished and IDPs area recognised part of the global governance of forced migration. More controversial is the question of who among those displaced across international borders should be entitled to asylum and international protection. While the definition of a refugee has expanded through regional conventions and through jurisprudence, it has done so relatively conservatively. While people fleeing persecution generally receive protection, those fleeing serious socioeconomic rights deprivations continue to be excluded from international protection. As new drivers of cross-border displacement emerge, including environmental change, where and how to draw the line of who should be entitled to protection will become evermore problematic. Some authors have argued that it makes sense to privilege those fleeing persecution. Price (2009), for instance, argues that persecution entails a severance of the state-citizen relationship, and consequently, requires asylum to be available as a path to an alternative citizenship. In contrast, we have argued that asylum – as access to territory – should be available to people fleeing serious levels of socioeconomic rights deprivation. This should be so because if people are simply unable to sustain the minimum conditions for human dignity in their country of origin, this represents just as much of a severance of the social contract as persecution does. What should matter, is not so much the particular cause of displacement but the threshold of human rights, which, when unavailable in the country of origin, necessitates border crossing as a last resort (Betts In terms of how to protect, the traditional model of assistance to refugees and IDPs is generally based on a humanitarian framework. A crisis breaks out, people are displaced and their basic needs are provided in terms of shelter, food and some level of security, often in refugee or IDP camps. In theory, emergency protection should quickly lead to durable solutions in terms of repatriation, local integration or resettlement. In practice, however, these solutions are rarely available. People spend many years in so-called protracted refugee (or IDP) situations, often without the right to work or freedom of movement (Loescher and Milner 2008). This approach needs to be rethought because it represents a denial of rights and a waste of human talent. It is also a deeply inefficient and ineffective way to assist people. Instead of Alexander Betts 318 being seen from a purely humanitarian perspective, the global governance of forced migration needs to be understood as also being closely connected to development. Even when they are denied the right to work, refugees and IDPs have complex economic lives. They find ways to help themselves despite significant constraints. The challenge is to support this capacity through initiatives that promote self-reliance rather than dependency and build upon the capacities of the displaced populations themselves (Betts et al. 2014). Gradually, there has been a shift towards an innovation turn in forced migration governance. In 2012, UNHCR created UNHCR Innovation to support innovation for refugees and by refugees. Put simply, it represents away to increase the wellbeing of refugees and displaced persons while also reducing costs. It recognises that a range of new actors, including business and displaced populations themselves, can be a central part of the provision of assistance and protection. From a global governance perspective, this subverts the traditional binary between governors and governed, highlighting the potential and neglected role of the people themselves within global governance. Download 437.72 Kb. Share with your friends:
|