The Preamble to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention recognizes the need for international cooperation in order to achieve durable solutions. It states that 'considering that the grant of asylum may place unduly heavy burdens on certain countries ...a satisfactory solution of a problem . . . cannot therefore be achieved without international cooperation.'[41] However, in contrast to the widely accepted and customary legal norm of non-refoulement, the global refugee regime lacks an established legal framework to make states share the responsibility for long-term solutions. Resettlement and financial contributions to support local integration or repatriation have historically been discretionary acts by governments. Rich countries have avoided responsibility through exclusionary or deterrent policies and their distance from regions of refugee origin.

The political engagement of host states, countries of origin and third states within and beyond the region of origin is required if durable solutions are to be attained in situations of mass influx, or where protracted situations remain unresolved. The success of the Indochinese CPA and the International Conference on Central American Refugees (CIREFCA) highlights that the search for durable solutions is most effective when burdens are shared between North and South. In the case of the Indochinese CPA, states of first asylum in the region were willing to offer interim protection and asylum processing in exchange for a commitment from third states outside the region to resettlement and financial support. That kind of commitment was not forthcoming, however, for initiatives such as the International Conferences on Assistance to Refugees in Africa (ICARA I and II). Indeed, resettlement is available to less than 1 per cent of refugees, and the low level of non-earmarked contributions to UNHCR shows that much needs to be done to enhance burden-sharing in the search for durable solutions.

By placing the search for durable solutions within the context of a multilateral dialogue, UNHCR has sought to answer this through three related concepts: appealing to state-specific interests; fostering linkages across previously discrete areas; and attempting to develop a new, normative framework for responsibility-sharing.[42]

Interests

Historically, in the absence of a guiding normative framework, industrialized states have helped provide durable solutions for refugees in poorer states where doing so has accorded with their own interests. During the Cold War, support for refugees was channelled in accordance with strategic interests. In Africa, for instance, this meant support for guerrilla movements in exile waging proxy wars. The success of the Indochinese CPA and CIREFCA in Central America, for example, are in large part attributable to the involvement of the United States in the conflicts in both regions, impelling it towards engagement and political leadership.[43] Meanwhile, in the post-Cold War context there has been a clear correlation between donor states' earmarking of contributions to UNHCR for in-country protection and their interests in containment and security – or their colonial links with strategic partners.[44] It is clear, therefore, that UNHCR must be politically engaged if it is to influence the policies of governments, thus linking states' interests with the search for durable solutions.

UNHCR has appealed to state-specific interests through the strategic use of resettlement and the flexible funding inherent in targeting development assistance, as in the Zambia Initiative (see Box 6.1). This has allowed states to contribute to the search for durable solutions in accordance with their own existing priorities. The drawback of such an approach is that it may encourage greater selectivity and the corresponding neglect of certain groups or situations. On the other hand, reconciling states' interests with the search for solutions and seeking compatibility between different states' contributions may offer incentives for engagement which would otherwise be absent.

However, it is important to recognize that perceptions of state interest can vary, and that in democracies state policies are to a large extent a reflection of electoral will, media representation and the engagement of civil society. Movements such as Live8, the Oxfam-led Make Poverty History campaign in the United Kingdom and the efforts that culminated in the Ottawa Treaty on Landmines highlight the influence of civil society in the search for durable solutions. Initiatives such as the North-South Civil Society Conference on Refugee Warehousing, organized by the United States Committee for Refugees and Immigrants and other NGOs in 2005, offer the potential to raise the profile of refugees.

Linkages

While the end of the Cold War removed many of the incentives for northern states to engage with the South, globalization and the post-11 September 2001 era offer new reasons for involvement in regions of refugee origin. The recognition of global interconnectedness and the non-viability of disengagement – given cross-border flows – are generating new commitments in the areas of development, migration and security. Where initiatives such as the Peacebuilding Commission envisaged by Secretary-General Kofi Annan or the Millennium Development Goals emerge from such interests, it is crucial that UNHCR's advocacy strategy in New York links them to, for instance, making repatriation more sustainable.[45]

These new trends represent both constraints and opportunities for UNHCR. While the willingness of states to accept resettlement has declined since 11 September 2001, there is an emerging consensus that resolving protracted refugee situations through a commitment to durable solutions could help meet wider strategic concerns. By fostering links between development, security, migration management and the global refugee regime, state interests can play a part in overcoming protracted refugee situations.

The interests of northern states in managed asylum entry and the reduction of onward movement are channelled into strengthening protection in regions of origin and resettlement. UNHCR has also tried to create a link between states' prior commitments to the Millennium Development Goals and the Framework for Durable Solutions. From a host-state perspective, such a linkage is evident in Uganda's identification of refugee self-reliance as a means to encourage new development assistance.[46]

Norms

Multilateral discussions under the Convention Plus initiative aimed at creating agreements in each of the three main strands – the strategic use of resettlement, irregular secondary movements and targeted development assistance. These accords would then have been applied collectively to protracted refugee situations through comprehensive plans of action, such as those developed for Somali and Afghan refugees (see Box 2.5, Box 6.2).[47] However, during discussion it became increasingly apparent that states were unwilling to commit to a binding normative framework on, for example, targeted development assistance.

This begs the question of how a normative framework for sharing responsibility might emerge. UNHCR's Executive Committee Conclusion of 2004 on International Cooperation and Burden and Responsibility Sharing in Mass Influx Situations is a step in that direction. It seems clear that situation-specific approaches to areas such as Afghanistan offer the best means to build inter-state consensus. Channelling state interests into resolving protracted refugee situations might facilitate the emergence of a common understanding of what equitable responsibility-sharing means.

Resettlement

Future directions

Notes

41. The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, Preamble, para. 4.

42. A. Betts, 'International Cooperation between North and South to Enhance Refugee Protection in Regions of Origin', Working Paper No. 25, Refugee Studies Centre, Oxford, 2005, pp. 40-63.

43. A. Suhrke, 'Burden-Sharing during Refugee Emergencies: The Logic of Collective Action versus National Action', Journal of Refugee Studies, vol. 11, no. 4, 1998, pp. 396-415.

44. A. Betts, 'Public Goods Theory and the Provision of Refugee Protection: The role of the Joint-Product Model in Burden-Sharing Theory', Journal of Refugee Studies, vol. 16, no. 3, 2003, pp. 290-1.

45. UNHCR, 'Briefing Note on UNHCR New York for the High-Commissioner-elect', on file with the author, 2005.

46. Betts, 'International Cooperation between North and South', pp. 50-3.

47. UNHCR, 'Making Comprehensive Approaches to Resolving Problems More Systematically', 3rd Convention Plus Forum, FORUM/2004/7, 16/09/04, www.unhcr.org.