Threats to the physical security of refugees are a growing problem.[1] They emanate from armed criminals, aberrant military and police forces, non-state armed actors, local populations and elements within the refugee community, and can lead to the killing of refugees and the abuse of women and children. A number of measures are being taken to address the problem. These include establishing refugee camps at a distance from volatile borders, separating combatants from civilian elements, providing safe access to food and water and training local police and refugee leaders on security issues. Some of these measures call for assistance from UN peacekeepers and collaboration with other agencies. For instance, UNHCR has teamed up with other UN organizations in a group called Coordinating Action on Small Arms to help reduce threats to the physical security of refugee populations.

As enshrined in international humanitarian law, the physical security of refugees remains primarily the responsibility of the host state, whereas the security of internally displaced people must be ensured by their own state. When the state fails to provide adequate protection, be it due to lack of capacity or unwillingness, the international community should intervene. But such intervention is often constrained by sensitivities over the sovereignty of the state concerned and the political agendas of other states. Consequently, interventions are usually too late, poorly funded and restricted by limited mandates. These problems have been illustrated during the Darfur crisis. More effective responses can only come about when there is the political will backed up by sufficient resources.

Another key on-going concern is the asylum-migration nexus. Asylum seekers and refugees have increasingly been resorting to illegal means of entry into states. In turning to smugglers to get them to their destinations, some of them fall victim to people traffickers. While illegal migration is a problem that no state can afford to ignore, policies to combat it should distinguish between illegal migrants seeking better economic conditions and individuals in need of international protection. Such a distinction exists in principle but in practice it is blurred. In many states asylum seekers and refugees endure the same treatment as illegal migrants, and in the process their right to international protection is often violated. This tendency has been fuelled by political agendas appealing to xenophobic sentiments.

Efforts to combat smuggling and trafficking in recent years include the adoption of treaties, notably the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (2000), its Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, as well as its Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land.[2] The two protocols call upon states to take a range of measures to combat the smuggling of migrants and trafficking in persons, in particular women and children. For example, the protocol against migrant-smuggling requires member states to make it a criminal offence under national laws, adopt special measures to crack down on migrant-smuggling by sea, and boost international cooperation to seek out and prosecute smugglers and traffickers.

In an attempt to protect asylum seekers and refugees, the protocols maintain that the rights, responsibilities and obligations of states and individuals contained in the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, and other instruments of international humanitarian law and international human rights law, must be upheld. In so doing, the protocols reinforce states' obligations to respect the principle of non-refoulement and refrain from imposing penalties on asylum seekers for illegal entry, as mentioned in Article 31 of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention. While this represents a step forward, more has to be done at the national level to identify those in need of international protection.

Recent years have witnessed renewed efforts to reach durable solutions. Still, the majority of today's refugees remain in situations of protracted displacement. The three classic durable solutions are voluntary repatriation, local integration in the country of first asylum and resettlement in a third country. But the history of durable solutions shows that a particular durable solution becomes the dominant solution in particular times.[3] Resettlement in third countries was the durable solution for much of the Cold War period; today it is voluntary repatriation.

While it is still recognized that resettlement is a vital instrument of international solidarity and responsibility-sharing, some states today are increasing the quotas of people they accept for resettlement, as a substitute for allowing spontaneous arrivals to apply for asylum.[4] The durable solution of resettlement needs to be strengthened. It is therefore encouraging to see the 'internationalization of resettlement', with new countries such as Argentina, Benin, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, Iceland and Ireland agreeing to annual resettlement quotas, however small. In this respect, the adoption of the Multilateral Framework of Understandings on Resettlement by a range of resettlement and host states is helpful as it codifies standard principles and practices. The framework could be actively supported through the creation of a Refugee Resettlement Fund.[5]

Efforts to achieve the durable solution of return in security and dignity have underlined the importance of development assistance. Such assistance formed an element of Convention Plus in tandem with international support for the implementation of the 4Rs (Repatriation, Reintegration, Rehabilitation and Reconstruction) in the country of origin.[6] Another purpose of targeting development assistance is to promote local integration. While the idea is to encourage self-reliance among refugees, it can also become a means by which third states reduce the pressure for asylum and resettlement in their territories.

The targeting of development assistance for durable solutions is not a new concept. However, the success of initiatives launched over the past five years remains to be seen. The evaluations of the Uganda Self-Reliance Strategy and the Zambia Initiative for local integration will be important in assessing the potential of the continued targeting of development assistance for durable solutions. In the case of protracted refugee situations, the focus on development assistance for durable solutions should not overlook the importance of addressing and resolving political problems.

Introduction

Need for greater responsibility-sharing

Notes

1. See the special issue of Refugees on 'How Secure Do You Feel?' 2005, vol. 2, no. 139.

2. The first two agreements entered into force in 2003 and the last in 2004. For the list of signatories and precise dates of entry into force see http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/
crime_cicp_signatures. html.

3. B.S. Chimni, 'From Resettlement to Repatriation: Towards a Critical History of Durable Solutions', UNHCR Research Papers No. 2, 1999.

4. UNHCR, 'Multilateral Framework of Understandings on Resettlement', High Commissioner's Forum Forum/2004/6, 16 September 2004.

5. Ibid., p. 4.

6. UNHCR, 'Progress Report: Convention Plus', 16 September 2004, pp. 4-5.