8-11 Flashcards
(28 cards)
International law depends on a wide range of different methods for implementing and enforcing
state obligations, including:
Unit 9: Enforcement of
IHL
- diplomatic negotiation and pressure;
● monitoring and reporting processes;
● arbitration and mediation;
● complaints mechanisms;
● litigation in courts and tribunals;
● embargoes, sanctions and other countermeasures;
● as a last resort, the threat or use of military force.
The Geneva Convention and the Additional Protocol requires state parties to adopt a number of measures in order to assure compliance with these
treaties.
There are three important measures have to be taken by states parties:
Instruction to and training of the armed forces:
the rules of IHL have to be
taught. It should be ensured that personals in the armed forces are aware of the rules of IHL and will take appropriate measures to ensure the implementation.
Domestic legislation on implementation: Many provision of the Geneva
Convention and their Additional Protocol requires each state party to enact laws and issue regulations to guarantee full implementation of its internal
obligation.
Prosecution of person who has committed grave humanitarian breach:
Any state party under whose authority they find themselves must prosecute such persons. That state may, however, extradite the suspect to another state
party that is willing to prosecute.
The military manuals of various states adds up to the duty and ensure further enforcement of IHL.
IHL implementation obligations: All states have an obligation to implement IHL
International Fact-Finding Commission
Art. 90 of Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions establishes a permanent international fact-finding commission to investigate serious violations of international humanitarian law (IHL).
Key Points:
- Purpose: To investigate grave breaches and violations of IHL during armed conflicts.
- Importance: The commission ensures IHL is applied and enforced during conflicts. By recognizing its competence, states contribute to better implementation and compliance with IHL.
Enquiry Procedure under the Geneva Conventions:
- Articles 52, 53, 132, and 149 provide the process for investigating IHL violations:
- If a party requests an enquiry, it should be decided by the parties involved.
- If the procedure is not agreed upon, an umpire will be chosen to decide how to proceed.
- Once a violation is confirmed, the parties must promptly end and address it.
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR)
The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) was established by the United Nations Security Council to prosecute those responsible for genocide and serious violations of international humanitarian law in Rwanda and neighboring states between January and December 1994.
Key Points:
- Established in 1995: The ICTR indicted 93 individuals for violations committed during the 1994 Rwandan Genocide.
- Firsts:
- It was the first international tribunal to deliver verdicts on genocide.
- It interpreted the definition of genocide from the 1948 Geneva Convention.
- It was the first to define rape in international law and recognize it as a method of committing genocide.
- The “Media case” was significant as it held media members responsible for inciting genocide through broadcasts.
- End of Trials: The last trial judgment was delivered on 20 December 2012 in the Ngirabatware case. After this, the Tribunal’s remaining work was handled by the Appeals Chamber.
Nuremberg Tribunal
The Nuremberg Tribunal was a series of trials held after World War II to prosecute Nazi leaders for crimes committed during the war.
Key Points:
- Formation: The International Military Tribunal (IMT) was established by the Allied powers (US, UK, France, and the Soviet Union) to try Nazi leaders for crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
- Prosecutor: Robert H. Jackson, a US Supreme Court Justice, was appointed as the chief prosecutor.
- London Charter: The Tribunal’s procedures were set by the London Charter in August 1945.
- Location: The trials were held in Nuremberg, Germany, symbolizing the fall of Nazi Germany.
- Indictment: In October 1945, 24 Nazi officials and organizations were indicted for crimes including murder, extermination, enslavement, and persecution on racial, political, or religious grounds.
- Verdict (October 1, 1946): 19 defendants were convicted, 12 were sentenced to death, and 3 were acquitted.
- Subsequent Trials (1946-1949): Additional trials were held for 177 Nazi leaders, including physicians, judges, military officials, and diplomats. Of these, 24 were sentenced to death, 20 to life imprisonment, and others received prison sentences.
Tokyo Tribunal
The Tokyo Tribunal was held by 11 Allied countries to prosecute Japanese leaders for their role in starting and waging World War II.
Key Points:
- Formation: The International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE) was established by 11 countries, including the US, UK, China, and the Soviet Union, in January 1946.
- Location: The trials were held in the former Japanese Ministry of War building in Tokyo.
- Charges: The defendants faced charges in three categories:
- Class A: Crimes against peace (leading the war).
- Class B and C: War crimes and crimes against humanity.
- Crimes against Peace: Unlike Nuremberg, prosecution required evidence of crimes against peace, meaning only those involved in starting or waging war could be tried.
- Prosecution: The case lasted 192 days, with testimonies from many American POWs.
- Defense: Defendants argued Japan’s actions were in self-defense and that the crimes were not yet established as international law.
- Verdicts: Six defendants were sentenced to death by hanging. Other convictions were made for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
- Executions: The convicted were executed on December 23, 1948 at Sugamo Prison.
- Additional Trials: Separate trials were held by individual countries, convicting over 5,500 lower-ranking war criminals across Asia, with China holding 13 tribunals resulting in 504 convictions.
India’s stance on Additional Protocol II (AP II)
India’s stance on Additional Protocol II (AP II) during negotiations and its decision not to become a party to it is based on specific views and concerns regarding internal armed conflicts and international involvement.
Key Points:
- Support for AP I: India supported major aspects of Additional Protocol I (AP I), such as expanding the definition of international armed conflict to include national liberation movements and modifying combatant status. India viewed these changes as significant for international humanitarian law.
- Objection to the International Fact-Finding Commission: India opposed the creation of the International Fact-Finding Commission (Article 90), arguing that there was no need for such a body.
- Opposition to AP II: India did not support Additional Protocol II because it considered internal armed conflicts as domestic law and order issues, falling under national jurisdiction. India felt that Common Article 3 in the Geneva Conventions already addressed issues related to national liberation movements and that there was no need for a separate protocol on internal conflicts.
- Position During Negotiations: India did not oppose AP II during negotiations but chose not to become a party to it.
- Changed Stance: Over time, India shifted its position on internal conflicts and became a party to treaties that apply to them, including:
- Protocol II (amended in 1996) on mines and booby-traps.
- Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), amended in 2001.
- Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child regarding children’s involvement in armed conflicts.
Article 1, 1951 Convention on Refugees:
A refugee is someone who is unable or unwilling to return to
his country of origin owing to well-founded fear of persecution for the following reasons:
- Race
- Religion
- Nationality
- Membership of a particular social group or
- Political opinion.
The definition under 1951 Convention only applies to European refugees in the aftermath of World
War II. Therefore, this definition has the geographical limitation and time limitation, which were
removed by the 1967 Additional Protocol to the Convention.
Further, regional instrument of refugee extended the scope of refugee definition to mitigate subsequent refugee problem.
key terms related to migration and asylum:
Key Points:
- Asylum Seeker: An individual who is seeking international protection in a country, but whose claim has not yet been decided. Not all asylum seekers are recognized as refugees, but every refugee starts as an asylum seeker.
- Asylum: Protection granted by a country to individuals fleeing persecution or serious danger from another country. This includes the right to stay, protection from being sent back (non-refoulement), and humane treatment.
- Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs): Individuals forced to flee their homes due to armed conflict, violence, human rights violations, or disasters, but who have not crossed an international border.
- Migrants: People who leave their country for economic reasons or to improve their living conditions. They are not eligible for refugee status and do not receive international protection.
- Immigrants: People who move to another country with the intention of establishing permanent residency.
- Stateless Persons: Individuals who are not recognized as nationals by any country and whose nationality cannot be established.
Refugee Protection under the League of Nations
Refugee Protection under the League of Nations
The foundation of international refugee law began under the League of Nations after the Russian Revolution (1917), which caused a major refugee crisis involving 1.5 million people.
- In 1921, Fridtjof Nansen was appointed as the High Commissioner for Russian Refugees.
- In 1922, the League introduced Nansen Certificates, international travel documents for stateless refugees like Russians and Armenians.
Definition and Protection
- Refugees were defined using a category/group-based approach, covering people:
- Outside their country of origin
- Without its protection
- Who had not acquired another nationality
- This definition initially applied to Russian and Armenian refugees and was later extended to Turkish, Assyrian, and Assyro-Chaldean refugees.
1933 Refugee Convention
- The Convention Relating to the International Status of Refugees (1933) formalized obligations toward refugees and served as a model for the 1951 Refugee Convention.
- It recognized the principle of non-refoulement (no forced return to danger).
- It addressed refugee rights regarding:
- Identity certificates
- Labor and legal rights
- Social welfare, education, and taxation
- Creation of refugee committees
German Refugees
- In response to refugees fleeing Nazi Germany, the League adopted:
- A Provisional Arrangement (1936)
- A Convention (1938), extended by a Protocol in 1939 to cover Austrian refugees
- These agreements also granted identity documents and followed the 1933 Convention model.
Refugee Protection under the United Nations
Refugee Protection under the United Nations
- In 1944, the UN Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA) was created to provide temporary refugee protection during and after World War II.
- These short-term, crisis-based measures were insufficient for long-term refugee needs.
International Refugee Organization (IRO)
- Established in 1946 as a temporary UN agency, the IRO focused on resettling European refugees displaced by WWII.
- It operated until 1952, after which it was replaced.
UNHCR – Permanent Protection Body
- On 1 January 1951, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) was established by the UN General Assembly.
- It became the permanent global agency responsible for refugee protection and long-term solutions.
1951 Refugee Convention,
Refugee Protection under the 1951 Convention
- The 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees is the core international treaty for refugee protection.
- It builds on earlier treaties and derives from Article 14 of the UDHR, which recognizes the right to seek asylum from persecution.
Key Features of the Convention
- It is both status-based (defines who is a refugee) and rights-based (provides legal rights).
- Reinforced by key international law principles, especially:
- Non-discrimination
- Non-penalization
- Non-refoulement (no forced return to danger)
Definition of a Refugee
- A person with a well-founded fear of persecution based on:
- Race
- Religion
- Nationality
- Political opinion
- Membership of a particular social group
- Courts consider both:
- The applicant’s subjective fear
- The objective situation in their country
- Persecution is not defined but interpreted as threats to life or freedom on the above grounds (UNHCR Handbook, Article 33).
Interpretation of Grounds
- Race: Includes ethnic groups and minorities (interpreted with help from the 1965 Racial Discrimination Convention).
- Religion: Includes rights protected under UDHR and ICCPR; violations can indicate persecution.
- Nationality: Includes national, ethnic, or linguistic minorities, and those affected by boundary conflicts.
- Political opinion: Includes actual or imputed views; expression is not necessary if fear is based on persecution of others with similar views.
- Social group: Broadly interpreted to include identifiable groups with shared traits (mutable or immutable), such as women, LGBTQ+ persons, etc.
Protection of Rights of Refugees
Protection of Rights of Refugees
The rights of refugees are grounded in fundamental principles of international law, particularly:
- Non-refoulement
- Right of asylum
- Non-discrimination
1. Principle of Non-Refoulement
- Core safeguard in refugee protection.
- Prohibits returning a refugee to a country where they may face:
- Persecution
- Torture
- Threats to life or freedom
Legal Sources:
- Article 33(1) of the 1951 Refugee Convention:
> “No Contracting State shall expel or return a refugee… to the frontiers of territories where their life or freedom would be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.”
- Article 7 of ICCPR: Interpreted to prohibit return to risk of torture or ill-treatment.
- Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture (CAT): Explicitly forbids return to countries where there’s a risk of torture or inhuman treatment.
✅ This principle is considered jus cogens—a non-derogable norm of customary international law.
2. Exceptions to Non-Refoulement
A state may return a refugee only in exceptional circumstances:
-
National Security Threat:
- If there are reasonable grounds to believe the refugee poses a threat to the security of the host country.
-
Public Order / Serious Crime:
- If the refugee has been convicted of a particularly serious crime and poses a danger to the community.
RIGHT OF ASYLUM
The right of asylum denotes a right to protection by the state in which a
person has been admitted and recognized as refugee.
The concept of asylum in terms of modern application remains mostly vague and undefined.
Article 14 of UDHR expressly mentioned a right to seek and enjoy asylum from persecution.
The UN Declaration on Territorial Asylum, 1967, reiterates the right
contained in the UDHR and makes recommendation that states base their asylum practices on the principles expressed in the Declaration.
PRINCIPLE OF NON-DISCRIMINATION
PRINCIPLE OF NON-DISCRIMINATION
As per 1951 Refugee Convention, the Contracting states shall apply the
provisions of convention to refugees without discrimination as to race,
religion,
or country of origin.
UDHR also recognizes the principle of non-discrimination
Article 3 of the convention specifically states non-discrimination principle.
Refugee Protection in India
Here’s a clear and simplified summary of Refugee Protection in India, preserving key legal points and structured for easier understanding:
Refugee Protection in India
1. India’s Legal Position
- ❌ Not a party to:
- 1951 Refugee Convention
- 1967 Protocol
- ❌ No specific domestic refugee law
Yet, ✅ India has a long tradition of hosting refugees on humanitarian grounds.
2. Key Legal Frameworks Applicable
(a) Foreigners Act, 1946
- Governs all foreign nationals, including refugees.
- ❗Does not distinguish refugees from other foreigners.
- Allows detection, detention, and deportation under broad government discretion.
(b) Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920
- Section 5: Permits removal of illegal foreigners.
- Acts through Article 258(1) of the Constitution.
(c) Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939
- Foreigners with visas >180 days must register within 14 days of arrival.
(d) Citizenship Act, 1955
- Covers grant, renunciation, and termination of Indian citizenship.
(e) Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 (CAA)
- Eases citizenship for non-Muslim minorities (Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, Christian) from:
- Pakistan
- Afghanistan
- Bangladesh
- ❗Excludes Muslim refugees such as Rohingya.
3. Constitutional Protection
- Article 21 (Right to Life): Applies to all persons, including foreigners.
- Supreme Court in NHRC v. State of Arunachal Pradesh (1996):
- Recognized Chakma refugees’ right to equality and life.
- Reinforced non-refoulement in Indian constitutional context.
4. Principle of Non-Refoulement
- Implied under Article 21.
- India is seen as following it in practice, despite no legal obligation due to non-signatory status.
Role of Judiciary in refugee protection in India:
Role of Judiciary in Refugee Protection in India
Despite the absence of a dedicated refugee law, the Indian judiciary has played an important role by relying on international human rights principles and constitutional guarantees, particularly Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty).
1. Reliance on International Law
- Indian courts have used international human rights instruments (like UDHR, ICCPR) even without formal incorporation into domestic law.
- Judiciary has acknowledged principles such as non-refoulement (no forced return to danger) as part of constitutional rights in some rulings.
2. Key Judicial Decisions
(a) Ktaer Abbas Habib Al Qutaifi v. Union of India (Gujarat HC)
- ✅ Held that non-refoulement is part of Article 21 of the Constitution.
- ❗ With limitation: only applies as long as refugee’s presence is not a threat to national security or public order.
(b) Malavika Karlekar v. Union of India
- SC granted stay on deportation of Burmese refugees from Andaman Islands.
- Reason: Their refugee status determination by UNHCR was pending.
(c) P. Nedumaran case (Madras HC)
- Held: Sri Lankan Tamil refugees could not be forcibly repatriated.
- Repatriation must be voluntary, not forced.
(d) Gurunathan case (Madras HC)
- Reinforced the same: forcible return violates right to life and dignity.
- Court emphasized the need for voluntary consent before any repatriation.
3. Constitutional Interpretation
- Though the Supreme Court has not definitively ruled on whether the right to refugee status determination is enforceable under the Constitution:
- High Courts have read the principle of non-refoulement into Article 21.
- Judiciary remains a crucial protector of refugee rights through progressive interpretation of existing constitutional provisions.
Chakma Tribe Case Study:
Chakma Tribe Case Study – Refugee Protection in India
Background
- The Chakmas and Hajongs were originally from the Chittagong Hill Tracts in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh).
- Displacement occurred due to:
- Construction of the Kaptai Hydroelectric Dam on the Karnaphuli River.
- Religious persecution of the Buddhist Chakmas and Hindu Hajongs.
- They entered India during the early 1960s, settling in the Lushai Hills (now Mizoram) and later in Arunachal Pradesh.
Conflict in Arunachal Pradesh
- In the mid-1990s, local opposition intensified in Arunachal Pradesh.
- The All Arunachal Pradesh Students’ Union (AAPSU) issued quit notices and threats to the Chakmas.
- Allegations of state complicity and failure to protect refugees surfaced.
NHRC Intervention
- On 9 September 1994, the People’s Union for Civil Liberties alerted the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC).
- On 15 October 1994, the Committee for Citizenship Rights of the Chakmas (CCRC) filed a complaint with the NHRC regarding threats to the Chakmas’ lives.
Supreme Court Writ Petition
- The NHRC approached the Supreme Court with a writ petition to safeguard the Chakmas’ fundamental rights, particularly under Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty).
Key Supreme Court Ruling
- The Court held:
- The State of Arunachal Pradesh must protect the life and liberty of all Chakmas.
- Any attempts to forcibly evict them by organized groups like AAPSU must be repelled, using paramilitary forces if necessary.
- Chakmas shall not be evicted from their homes except in accordance with the law.
- The threats, ultimatums, and quit notices must be dealt with legally.
Significance
- The judgment reinforced that:
- Even non-citizens are protected under Article 21.
- The principle of non-refoulement and humane treatment of refugees are implicit in constitutional jurisprudence.
- The judiciary and NHRC played a crucial role in protecting refugee rights in the absence of dedicated refugee legislation.
Here is a concise and structured summary of the Role of NHRC and in Refugee Protection in India:
Role of National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)
Legal Foundation
- Established under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
- Along with State Human Rights Commissions and Human Rights Courts, it plays a vital role in protecting human rights, including those of refugees.
Powers and Functions
- Powers similar to a civil court:
- Can suo moto inquire into human rights violations.
- May intervene in judicial proceedings to prevent abuse.
- Authorized to study international treaties and issue recommendations or reports.
Key Contributions
- In 2000, under Justice Bhagwati, NHRC proposed a model refugee law.
- Recommended reforms to the outdated Foreigners Act, 1946, which lacks refugee protections aligned with:
- The 1949 Geneva Convention,
- 1951 Refugee Convention, and
- 1967 Protocol.
UNHCR in Refugee Protection in India
Role of UNHCR in India
India’s Relationship with UNHCR
- India became a member of the UNHCR Executive Committee in 1994.
- Obliged to uphold international refugee protection principles, although India is not a party to the 1951 Convention.
Functions of UNHCR in India
- Operates through its New Delhi branch office.
- Key responsibilities include:
- Refugee status determination (RSD).
- Issuing UNHCR identity certificates.
- Monitoring refugee conditions and detention.
- Providing legal and medical aid, especially for vulnerable groups like women and children.
- Negotiating resettlement or third-country solutions.
- Coordinating with the Ministry of Home Affairs, which gives de facto recognition to UNHCR status certificates.
Limitations
- UNHCR determinations have no formal legal status under Indian law.
- However, the Indian government often acknowledges and respects its role in practice.
Significance
- NHRC and UNHCR fill the legal vacuum in India’s refugee framework.
- They offer institutional protection, legal aid, and humanitarian support in the absence of dedicated refugee legislation.
- Their actions reflect India’s de facto commitment to international refugee norms.
The Rohingya Crisis and India’s Stance on Asylum Seekers
The Rohingya Crisis and India’s Stance on Asylum Seekers
Background
- The Rohingya, a Muslim minority from Rakhine State, Myanmar, have faced decades of ethnic persecution and violence.
- This has led to a regional refugee crisis, with mass migrations to countries including India, Bangladesh, Malaysia, and Thailand.
- The crisis has gained significant international humanitarian attention.
Rohingya Refugees in India
- As per a 2019 Council on Foreign Relations report:
- ~18,000 Rohingya are officially registered with UNHCR.
- Indian estimates place the number closer to 40,000.
- Rohingyas are not legally recognised as refugees in India.
India’s Legal and Policy Stance
- India is not a signatory to:
- The 1951 Refugee Convention, or
- The 1967 Protocol.
- Refugees are governed under:
- Foreigners Act, 1946, and
- Passport Act, 1967, both of which:
- Allow classification of Rohingyas as illegal migrants.
- Lead to detentions and prosecutions (e.g., under Section 14(a)(b) of the Foreigners Act).
Judicial and Political Responses
- In Indian Union Muslim League v. Union of India (2019):
- India acknowledged ethnic persecution in Myanmar.
- However, national security was cited to justify detention and deportation.
- In Priyali Sur v. UOI, the Government argued:
- Rohingyas have Article 21 rights (Right to Life).
- But not the right to reside or settle in India.
- However, indefinite incarceration and poor conditions violate Article 21’s right to dignity.
Conditions and Concerns
- As of September 2024, UNHCR reported:
- 676 Rohingya refugees detained in India.
- 608 without active court cases or sentences.
- Nearly 50% of detainees are women and children.
- Rohingya refugees face:
- Indefinite detention,
- Inhumane conditions,
- Discriminatory labelling (e.g., “terrorists,” “termites”).
Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019
- Grants accelerated citizenship to persecuted non-Muslim minorities from:
- Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan.
- Excludes Muslims, thereby:
- Omitting Rohingyas.
- Reinforcing discriminatory policies.
- Deepening the vulnerability and statelessness of the Rohingya community in India.
Conclusion
- India’s security-centric approach and lack of legal recognition of refugees:
- Contrasts with its humanitarian obligations.
- Exposes Rohingyas to violations of fundamental rights, especially under Article 21.
Mohammad Salimullah v. Union of India
Mohammad Salimullah v. Union of India
Background
- The case was filed by Rohingya refugees registered with UNHCR.
- Petitioners approached the Supreme Court of India seeking:
- Release of Rohingya refugees detained in Jammu.
- A stay on their deportation to Myanmar, citing threat to life and liberty.
Petitioners’ Arguments
- Invoked Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, which apply to non-citizens as well.
- Cited the principle of non-refoulement, arguing it:
- Is a part of customary international law (jus cogens).
- Is recognized under various international treaties:
- ICCPR
- CRC
- UDHR
- CAT
- International Criminal Court (ICC) Statute
- Argued that non-refoulement is binding on India despite not being a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention.
Respondent’s Arguments (Union Government)
- Referred to Foreigners Act, 1946, which:
- Defines refugees as foreigners (Section 2(a)).
- Grants broad powers under Section 3 to regulate, restrict or deport foreigners.
- Emphasized:
- India is not bound by the 1951 Refugee Convention.
- Influx of refugees poses national security threats.
- Deportation is a sovereign function of the Government.
Supreme Court’s Observations
- International Court of Justice (ICJ) decisions are not binding unless incorporated into Indian law.
- As per Article 51(c) of the Constitution:
- International treaties can inspire Indian law, but only if they don’t conflict with municipal (domestic) law.
- Relied on Article 19(1)(e) (Right to reside and settle in India), which applies only to citizens, not to foreigners.
Judgment
- The Supreme Court did not grant interim relief.
- Allowed deportation of Rohingya refugees in accordance with prescribed procedure.
- Did not apply Article 21 directly to uphold non-refoulement.
- Deviated from earlier precedents, such as:
- Chakma case, where the Court had ruled no one should be deprived of life/liberty without due process.
- Other decisions where courts restrained deportation due to risk to life in the country of origin.
Key Criticism
- The judgment contradicts earlier jurisprudence linking refugee protection with Article 21.
- By focusing on Article 19(1)(e) (citizen-only), the Court undermined broader refugee protections previously extended under Article 21 (right to life with dignity).
- The ruling potentially weakens India’s commitment to humanitarian obligations under customary international law.
Conclusion
- The judgment marks a shift from a human-rights-centric approach to a sovereignty and security-based stance.
- Raises significant legal and ethical concerns regarding the treatment and protection of refugees in India.
DURABLE SOLUTION FOR REFUGEES
-
Voluntary repatriation
*Successful voluntary repatriation requires a stable political situation in the
country of origin to ensure that returnees will be able to find safety and
reintegrate. When reintegration is not sustainable, people sometimes decide
to leave again. This phenomenon is called “back-flows”.
Even if refugees want to go home and conditions have changed sufficiently to allow refugees to return, the situation can be extremely difficult. For example, if a war has taken place, destroyed infrastructures and services often
need to be rebuilt.
Resettlement
Resettlement is the transfer of refugees from an asylum country to another
State that has agreed to admit them and ultimately grant them permanent
residence. UNHCR officers identify refugees at risk and submit their
applications but the final decision to accept a refugee for resettlement is taken by governments.
refugees can also access “Complementary
Pathways”
