The contemporary response to protracted refugee situations stands in stark contrast to the international reaction to some of the major refugee crises during the Cold War. Then, the geopolitical interests of the West led to engagement with these crises and their resolution. This engagement resulted in comprehensive plans of action that drew on the three durable solutions of repatriation, local integration and third-country resettlement. Such an approach was central to resolving the situation of displaced people in Europe long after the Second World War, and of millions of Indochinese and Central American refugees in the 1980s. When dealing with the protracted refugee crises of today it is important to remember that by understanding the particular characteristics of each situation and by considering the needs of all the countries concerned, the international community has successfully resolved numerous refugee situations in the past half-century.

Towards the end of the 1950s, concerned individuals drew attention to the plight of the tens of thousands of people displaced within Europe by the Second World War who were still in need of durable solutions. Calls for action by refugee advocates, NGOs and UNHCR resulted in 1959 being declared 'World Refugee Year' by the United Nations and the initiation of a comprehensive response to those remaining both in camps and outside.[20] Following UNHCR's appeal to governments to provide funds and resettlement quotas, this protracted refugee problem was resolved by the mid-1960s.

The response to the European refugees was motivated by humanitarian concern for the people left behind after successive selection missions had picked those who were young and healthy and met rigid resettlement criteria.²¹ It illustrates the potential of a comprehensive resettlement effort to address the needs of protracted and neglected refugee caseloads. This programme is an often-forgotten precedent for addressing the durable-solutions and protection needs of refugees for whom neither local integration nor repatriation are viable options.

The international response to the Indochinese refugee crisis in Southeast Asia is another important example of a comprehensive solution. It came in response to a public outcry over the dire conditions faced by the thousands of 'boat people' fleeing Viet Nam and refugees from Cambodia and Laos. Following dramatic steps by countries in the region to withhold sanctuary by preventing the entry of the asylum seekers, concerned states gathered at a conference on Indochinese refugees in Geneva in July 1979.[22] Western states agreed to dramatically increase the number of refugees they resettled from the region. In exchange, it was agreed that the boat people would be recognized as refugees prima facie, that illegal departures would be prevented, and that regional processing centres would be established. The result was a formalized quid pro quo: resettlement in Western states in exchange for assurances of first asylum in the region.

The immediate results were positive. But by 1988 the number of asylum seekers began to rise dramatically, drawn by the prospect of resettlement. The new arrivals were a mix of refugees and economic migrants, and it was clear that a satisfactory solution could not be achieved without the co-operation of a wide range of actors. A second conference on Indochinese refugees was convened in June 1989 and concluded by adopting the Comprehensive Plan of Action (CPA) for Indochinese Refugees.

The CPA contained five mechanisms through which the countries of origin, countries of first asylum and resettlement countries cooperated to resolve the refugee crisis in Southeast Asia. These were an Orderly Departure Program to prevent clandestine departures, guaranteed temporary asylum by countries in the region, individual refugee status determination for all new arrivals, resettlement in third countries for those recognized as refugees, and facilitated return for rejected claimants.[23] Notwithstanding a number of criticisms,[24] by and large the CPA achieved its objectives of reducing the number of clandestine departures, managing the flow of migrants and finding extra-regional durable solutions for recognized refugees.

Unlike the CPA, which identified resettlement as the primary durable solution, the International Conference on Central American Refugees (CIREFCA), also convened in 1989, placed the greatest emphasis on return and reintegration.[25] Following peace agreements that ended more than a decade of conflict in El Salvador, Nicaragua and Guatemala, CIREFCA was an integral part of the wider objective of consolidating peace in the region. Through a series of development initiatives for returning refugees, capacity-building projects targeting states and NGOs, and the integration of refugees and returnees into national and regional development strategies, CIREFCA formulated a comprehensive solution appropriate to regional priorities.

These three examples demonstrate how comprehensive solutions could respond to the challenges of protracted refugee situations. While each approach used different combinations of the three durable solutions, all three shared the feature of concerted efforts by a wide range of actors to address particular refugee crises. This lesson is highlighted in UNHCR's Agenda for Protection, which emphasizes the need for 'more coherence in integrating voluntary repatriation, local integration, and resettlement, whenever feasible, into one comprehensive approach.' Furthermore, such an approach must be implemented 'in close cooperation among countries of origin, host States, UNHCR and its humanitarian and development partners, especially NGOs, as well as refugees.'[26]

Political and security implications

Towards a more effective response

Notes

20. Y. Zarjevski, A Future Preserved: International Assistance to Refugees, Pergamon Press for the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Oxford, 1988, pp. 88-90; G. Loescher, The UNHCR and World Politics, pp. 89-91.

21. Statement by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees at Meeting of American Immigration Conference, 28 October 1958, UNHCR Archives HCR/1/7/5/USA/CAN.

22. UNHCR, State of the World's Refugees, 2000, p. 84.

23. See UNHCR, 'International Conference on Indo-Chinese Refugees: Report of the Secretary-General [Annex: Declaration and Comprehensive Plan of Action (CPA)],' 1989.

24. See S. Bari, 'Refugee Status Determination under the Comprehensive Plan of Action (CPA): A Personal Assessment', International Journal of Refugee Law, vol. 4, no. 4, 1992; W. Courtland Robinson, Terms of Refuge: The Indochinese Exodus and the International Response, Zed Books, London, 1998; A. Suhrke, 'Burden Sharing during Refugee Emergencies: The Logic of Collective versus National Action', Journal of Refugee Studies, vol. 11, no. 4, 1998.

25. UNHCR, 'International Conference on Central American Refugees: Report to the Secretary-General', 1989, and UNHCR, 'Comprehensive and Regional Approaches to Refugee Problems', EC/1994/SCP/CRP.3, 3 May 1994.

26. UNHCR, Agenda for Protection, Preamble, Goal 5.