Applying the Convention's 'cessation clauses'

When a radical group of young officers overthrew Ethiopia's ailing Emperor Haile Selassie in 1974, they ushered in nearly two decades of mayhem. Thousands of people were killed during the infamous Red and White Terror campaigns and hundreds of thousands of civilians fled to surrounding East African states.

The discredited military was itself ousted in 1991. The majority of refugees willingly returned home as a new civilian government instituted democratic reform and in 2000, UNHCR applied the so-called 'cessation clauses' of the 1951 Geneva Convention toward several thousand Ethiopians who had left home before 1991.

NO LONGER ELIGIBLE

Effectively, the refugees were told they were no longer eligible for international protection because they could go back freely without fear of facing any type of persecution.

During any crisis, world attention normally focuses on the 'front end' of the problem – the flight of civilians, their attempts to find asylum and the reaction of governments. The cessation clauses, which receive far less attention, were designed to help tidy up the 'loose ends' and find long-term solutions in the aftermath of crises.

As the Convention was being framed, UNHCR's first High Commissioner G.J. van Heuven Goedhart made clear that both approaches were necessary. Protection was obviously vital, but it should last only as long as absolutely necessary. "Refugee status," he said, "should not be granted for one day longer than is absolutely necessary."

TWO AREAS

The cessation clauses were born in 1951. They cover two broad areas. Four clauses relate to major changes in the personal circumstances of a refugee, for instance, if (s)he willingly returns home or obtains a passport or residency in another state.

The second area, 'ceased circumstances' clause is applied following a fundamental change in the circumstances in which a civilian was forced to flee in the first place, an example being if his or her country of origin returns to a state of democracy after a period of war.

In this last category, UNHCR declared cessation for 15 national groups in the last 20 years including the Ethiopians who fled the country before 1991, Chileans following democratic developments in that country and Namibians following independence in their southern African state.

A low-key cessation debate continues about when and how the clauses should be implemented, especially during mass flight or when states provide so-called 'temporary protection' to fleeing civilians rather than full Convention rights.

European and other nations offered hundreds of thousands of civilians who fled the Balkans in the 1990s this kind of temporary shelter. To ensure that governments continue such 'open door' policies in the future, some officials argue that the cessation clauses must be applied swiftly and liberally to encourage them.

Opponents counter that states are already reluctant to extend full Convention rights during 'temporary protection' situations and might take such 'flexibility' as a green light to apply the clauses arbitrarily against individuals.

There are other debates. Could not, for instance, many of an estimated 3.5 million Afghan refugees, who are of the same ethnicity as the ruling Taliban, return safely to peaceful parts of that devastated country after spending years in exile? UNHCR has argued forcefully that "where one type of civil war replaces another as in the case of Afghanistan, cessation cannot be invoked."

Some officials shudder at the consequences of such thinking. "The system has worked well until now and must be used sparingly," one expert said. "We cannot run the risk of opening a Pandora's box and all kinds of nasty surprises jumping out."

Source: Refugees Magazine Issue 123: "The Wall Behind Which Refugees Can Shelter" – The 1951 Geneva Convention 50th Anniversary (July 2001). Download the complete issue (pdf, 1.2Mb) here