Because internally displaced persons reside within the borders of their own countries and in most cases under the jurisdiction of their own governments, primary responsibility for them rests with their national authorities. As Roberta Cohen and Francis Deng point out in their study, Masses in Flight, 'Since there is no adequate replacement in sight for the system of state sovereignty, primary responsibility for promoting the security, welfare, and liberty of populations must remain with the state'.[9] Yet, when asked why the United Nations had not been able to do more for internally displaced persons, former High Commissioner for Refugees Sadako Ogata replied: 'The problem is sovereignty'.[10]

Indeed, many countries use sovereignty as a justification for resisting or obstructing international aid efforts. In Myanmar, the government has barred access to the country's internally displaced ethnic minorities, with which it is at war. For many years during the insurgency by the Kurdish PKK group, Turkey barred access to hundreds of thousands of displaced Kurds. In Algeria, no one knows for sure how many internally displaced people there are, or what their needs might be; the government has denied access to them.

Sometimes governments categorize internally displaced persons as 'migrants' or 'terrorists' to avoid responsibility for them, or they fail to develop policies and laws to help the displaced. Getting states to assume their responsibilities can be a challenge for the international community (see Box 7.2). This is particularly so in civil wars, where governments fear that aid to the displaced could strengthen insurgent groups. International efforts to negotiate with insurgents are often obstructed by national governments fearful that such engagement could legitimize the rebels. During the Angolan civil war, the government objected to UN agencies negotiating with the rebel UNITA group. As a result the United Nations had no access to large numbers of displaced persons in insurgent areas. Only in 2002, with a ceasefire, did the widespread starvation and disease plaguing these people come to light.

Nonetheless, over the past 15 years a perceptible shift has occurred in international thinking about the internally displaced. It is now widely recognized that people in need of aid and protection in their own countries have claims on the international community when their governments do not fulfil their responsibilities, or where there is a disintegration of the nation-state. While reaffirming respect for sovereignty, United Nations resolutions have authorized the establishment of relief corridors and cross-border operations to reach people in need. UN Security Council resolutions have demanded access for the delivery of relief in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Darfur (Sudan), northern Iraq, Mozambique, Somalia and Timor Leste, among other places. In exceptional cases the United Nations has authorized the use of force to ensure the delivery of relief and to provide protection.

Today, many governments allow some form of access to their displaced populations. The Government of Sri Lanka has set up welfare centres to provide material assistance to displaced populations in both government-and rebel-held areas. It has also accepted UNHCR's establishment of relief centres on government territory that are open to all groups. Following the 2004 tsunami, the government signed an agreement with the Tamil-separatist leadership to share reconstruction funds for the displaced.

The Turkish government is cooperating with the United Nations and the World Bank in the return and reintegration of its displaced population. In the South Caucasus, the Georgian government encourages international access to its displaced and provides a small allowance for them. Similarly, the Government of Azerbaijan has welcomed international assistance for its large population of internally displaced and considers the phase-down of international aid to have been premature. Many other governments have also welcomed international aid for the internally displaced, among them Colombia, DRC and Uganda. In response to international pressure, the Khartoum government agreed to Operation Lifeline Sudan to allow international aid to reach displaced people under insurgent control in the south.[11]

The former Representative of the Secretary-General on Internally Displaced Persons, Francis Deng, believes that while governments have the primary responsibility to care for their displaced populations, when they are unable to do so they must request and accept outside help. If they refuse, or deliberately obstruct access to the displaced, the international community has a right, even a responsibility, to become involved. International engagement could range from diplomatic dialogue and negotiation of access for relief supplies to political pressure. In exceptional cases, it could lead to sanctions or military action.

While no government has explicitly challenged this concept, states such as China, Egypt, India and Sudan have expressed fears that international humanitarian action could be a pretext for interference by powerful states in the affairs of weaker ones. Nonetheless, the concept of 'a collective responsibility to protect' the displaced when their national authorities are unable or unwilling to do so has gained ground. Indeed, it was most recently upheld in the World Summit document adopted by heads of government in September 2005.[12]

To provide guidance to governments, the Brookings-Bern Project on Internal Displacement has identified the main indicators of national responsibility.[13]

• To begin with, governments are expected to prevent or mitigate displacement. When displacement is unavoidable, they are expected to raise national awareness of the problem, collect data on the numbers, locations and conditions of the displaced and facilitate access to populations at risk, including those under insurgent control.
  
• Governments are expected to adopt laws and policies to protect displaced populations; train their officials, military and police in the rights of the displaced; and designate an institutional focal point for coordination within the government and with local and international partners.
  
• Allocating resources in the national budget for the displaced, or creating special funds from oil and other revenues, is another indicator of national responsibility. So too is finding solutions to the plight of the displaced, for instance by giving them the choice to return voluntarily to their homes or to resettle in another part of the country. The displaced should also be assisted to reintegrate and recover, or receive compensation for, lost property.
  
• Finally, governments are expected to cooperate with international and regional organizations when national capacity is insufficient.

The current Representative of the Secretary-General on the Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons, Walter Kälin, has been using the framework of national responsibility in his dealings with governments. The Commonwealth too has emphasized national responsibility and drawn up 'best practice guidelines' for its member states.[14] But the efforts of donor governments, regional bodies and the United Nations to encourage states to assume their responsibilities need to be strengthened. So too do initiatives to get rebel armed groups to adhere to international standards in their treatment of those under their control.[15]

A special category?

Applying the Guiding Principles

Notes

9. R. Cohen and F. M. Deng, Masses in Flight, p. 275.

10. D. A. Korn, Exodus within Borders, Brookings Institution, 1999, p. 49.

11. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Internal Displacement Unit, No Refuge: The Challenge of Internal Displacement, United Nations, 2003, pp. 68-9.

12. United Nations General Assembly, 2005 World Summit Outcome Resolution A/RES/60/1, 15 September 2005, para. 139.

13. Addressing Internal Displacement: A Framework for National Responsibility, Brookings Institution-University of Bern Project on Internal Displacement, April 2005.

14. Report of the Expert Group Meeting on Internal Displacement in the Commonwealth: Common Themes and Best Practice Guidelines, Commonwealth Secretariat, 12-21 May 2003.

15. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, No Refuge: The Challenge of Internal Displacement, pp. 64-7.