State of the World's Refugees
 
The State of the World's Refugees 2006 - Chapter 8 Looking to the future: Need for greater responsibility-sharing

Institutionalizing dialogue

In the last few years, concrete policy initiatives to address the global refugee problem have come either from concerned states or UNHCR. The initiatives coming from states are essentially a response to the concerns of their citizens that they have become a soft touch for 'bogus' asylum seekers.[7] In tandem with growing xenophobia, restrictive administrative and legal measures have sharply reduced the number of asylum applications in many Western states. Such policies have led to the general erosion of the core principles of international refugee law, in particular the principle of non-refoulement. New initiatives proposed include 'extraterritorial processing of refugees' and 'protection in the region of origin'. Broadly based on the Pacific Solution, they seek to limit the number of refugees entering industrialized states by establishing a deterrent asylum regime.

Indeed, developing countries often point to Western-country policies to justify their increasingly restrictive asylum practices. In recent years, these practices have included the more frequent detention of asylum seekers, while encampment and restrictions on freedom of movement have been stepped up. Furthermore, in many developing countries no distinction is made between asylum seekers and refugees on the one hand, and illegal migrants on the other. As a result, the rights of the former are often violated due to the indiscriminate implementation of measures aimed at combating illegal migration.

Concerned about these developments around the world, UNHCR has in recent years launched two important initiatives – the Global Consultations on International Protection and Convention Plus – to address global refugee problems. The Global Consultations represented UNHCR's bid to rise to the new challenges confronting refugee protection and shore up support for the international framework of protection principles. It was also an effort by the organization to enhance protection through new approaches which address the concerns of states and other actors, as well as the inadequate asylum practices of states.[8]

Both the Global Consultations process and the Convention Plus initiative were based on the assumption that the policy responses of states and international organizations would be effective if they arose from dialogue between all the relevant actors.[9] These include developed and developing states, international agencies, the refugee community and NGOs, all of whom play a role in protecting and assisting refugees.

The Convention Plus initiative was informed by the understanding that developed states can take on greater responsibility for the protection of refugees within the ambit of international human rights law. The initiative highlighted the need for developed nations to respond to the concerns of the developing states that host most of the world's refugees. In short, the two initiatives recognized that for a solution to the refugee problem to succeed it must be reached through dialogue between all the stakeholders, in particular developed and developing countries, on the basis of shared interests.[10]

Both the Global Consultations and Convention Plus moved the dialogue on the refugee problem forward. The former led to the reaffirmation of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention by states and also helped clarify core aspects of international refugee law. The process 'encouraged a cooperative spirit in tackling refugee issues' and 'roused an interest in multilateral dialogue to find solutions to an increasingly internationalized set of problems'.[11] It led to the adoption of UNHCR's Agenda for Protection, a comprehensive programme to tackle the various issues besetting refugee protection in today's complex environment.[12]

Among the tangible achievements of the Convention Plus initiative was the adoption of a Multilateral Framework of Understandings on Resettlement in September 2004. It also led to dialogue on a number of elements including resettlement, targeting development assistance and irregular secondary movements to give concrete shape to the principle of international responsibility-sharing. These three elements were brought together in efforts to formulate comprehensive solutions for Afghanistan and Somalia.[13]

To the extent initiatives such as Convention Plus acknowledge growing North-South interconnectedness in areas such as migration, security and development, they take a step forward. But the substantive achievements of Convention Plus in terms of new commitments by states to responsibility-sharing and thus to refugee protection have been very few. This is largely due to the limited timeframe of the initiative and initial scepticism towards it because of its association with the concept of asylum transit processing and protection in regions of origin.[14]

Regional solutions: exclusive or complementary?

Any proposed mechanism for responsibility-sharing must, if it is to yield favourable results, be a dialogic and a global model. Both the dialogic and global dimensions are neglected when a regional solution to refugees is recommended as the model to respond to the global refugee problem. This is the approach of states that propose protection in the regions of origin. From a global perspective the regional solution can be adopted either as a complementary or an exclusive solution. The exclusive approach is often advocated to help reduce the burden of the refugee problem on affluent regions of the world.[15]

The efficiency and culture arguments used to justify an exclusively regional approach are being used without any serious attempt to conceptualize their meaning and implications.[16] Moreover, the idea of refugee-resources exchange (where rich states compensate poor states for hosting refugees) that informs cruder versions of the efficiency argument is ethically problematic; it treats refugees as commodities. It also ignores the possible social, security and environmental costs to developing host countries from such an exchange.

The other premise, that cultural similarities facilitate the hosting of refugees in regions of origin, is also debated. Quite often the assumption of cultural similarities is a myth. For instance, it is often presumed – erroneously – that all Africans share a common culture, language and traditions.[17] Furthermore, geographical proximity cannot be the basis for advocating an exclusively regional approach.

A regional solution is therefore better used as a complement to a global approach. The regional approach can, however, put in place structures that facilitate preventive action, ensure a quick response to the need for humanitarian assistance and help parcel out responsibility for specific refugee groups.

Models for greater responsibility-sharing

Both the Agenda for Protection and UNHCR's Executive Committee conclusion of 2004 on International Cooperation and Burden and Responsibility-Sharing in Mass Influx Situations recognize the need for global responsibility-sharing arrangements to take some of the load off first-asylum countries.[18] But how are these to be worked out in a concrete manner? An approach based on dialogue would require that responsibility-sharing be defined in accordance with criteria that are acceptable from the perspective of all parties involved.[19] A global approach would anticipate that responsibility is shared both in hosting the displaced and providing the funds required to offer them durable solutions. Keeping these views in mind, there are three possible ways to define global norms for responsibility-sharing.

First, agree on situation-specific comprehensive plans of action that respond to particular mass influx situations. This is the kind of agreement that was envisaged in the Convention Plus initiative. It will have a limited objective, and to yield positive results it must be based upon an acceptance of responsibility-sharing as a principle of customary international law.

Second, go beyond specific mass influx situations to adopt general rules of responsibility-sharing. Such a multilateral framework will take a more holistic approach and bring within its sights all practices that are not in line with the spirit of international responsibility-sharing, such as the restrictive asylum policies of some states. For this option to be effective, restrictive asylum practices have to be moderated so as to allow persons in need of international protection to have access to it.

Third, arrive at a multilateral framework that formulates rules that not only automatically come into play in situations of mass influx but also apply to protracted refugee situations. Such a framework will define the obligations of states more clearly and make the response of the international community more predictable by removing the element of discretion from the scheme of things. This can only be achieved by: the recognition of the need for effective and equitable responsibility-sharing in situations where developing countries are hosting large numbers of refugees; the provision of greater relief and reconstruction aid to post-conflict societies; and a common understanding based on shared interests.

All three models would define the criteria and modalities for burden-sharing and the role of states involved. They would focus on providing effective protection within the framework of international human rights and refugee law. They should not, however, lay down any particular formula for sharing the burden of asylum; rather, states would be expected to respond appropriately in light of the global refugee situation and the specific refugee flow.

Financial aspects

An important aspect of effective responsibility-sharing is financial burden-sharing, whereby the financial cost to countries hosting great numbers of the displaced is shared. Unfortunately, the provision of humanitarian assistance does not necessarily permit appropriate relief to be provided to states in need. In some cases, the political interests of states override humanitarian concerns based on needs. As a result, a number of critical refugee crises remain under-funded while other less urgent situations are allocated a surplus of funds.[20]

Furthermore, prompted by foreign policy and domestic political considerations, major donor states have increasingly channelled much of their humanitarian aid through large NGOs.[21] This has led to the 'bilateralization' of humanitarian assistance. Donors also have begun to earmark much funding so as to gain visibility and political influence.[22] In the process they have overlooked the comparative advantages and legitimacy of UN agencies.[23] These developments have led to a certain degree of incoherence contributing to the inability to get relief to those who need it.

Responding to criticism, in June 2003 concerned states launched the Good Humanitarian Donorship initiative to enhance the effectiveness and accountability of their actions.[24] Donor states agreed to certain principles and good practice, as well as to allocate funding in proportion to needs, to support development, UN leadership and coordination. They also agreed to explore ways to reduce the earmarking of humanitarian aid.

Key concerns

UNHCR: challenges ahead

Notes

7. For a discussion of the response of Western states see M. Gibney, The Ethics and Politics of Asylum: Liberal Democracy and the Response to Refugees, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004.

8. E. Feller, 'Preface' in E. Feller, V. Turk and F. Nicholson (eds), Refugee Protection in International Law: UNHCR's Global Consultations on International Protection, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003, p. xvii.

9. B.S. Chimni, 'Reforming the International Refugee Regime: A Dialogic Model', Journal of Refugee Studies vol. 14, no. 2, 2001, pp. 151-68.

10. UNHCR, 'Progress Report: Convention Plus', High Commissioner's Forum /2004/5, 16 September 2004, footnote 5.

11. E. Feller, 'Preface' in E. Feller et al. (eds), Refugee Protection in International Law, p. xviii.

12. Ibid.

13. A. Betts, 'Convention Plus: Continuity or Change in North-South Responsibility Sharing', paper prepared for 'New Asylum Paradigm?' workshop, COMPAS, 14 June 2005, p. 7.

14. Ibid., pp. 1, 5, 12.

15. G. Noll, 'Securitizing Sovereignty? States, Refugees and the Regionalization of International Law', in E. Newman and J. van Selm (eds), Refugees and Forced Displacement: International Security, Human Vulnerability, and the State, UN University Press, Tokyo, 2003, p. 292.

16. A. Betts, 'What Does "Efficiency" Mean in the Context of the Global Refugee Regime?', Working Paper No.9 (2005), Centre on Migration, Policy and Society, University of Oxford, Oxford.

17. A. Appiah, In My Father's House, Harvard University Press, Harvard, 1992, p. 26.

18. UNHCR, Executive Committee Conclusion on International Cooperation and Burden and Responsibility Sharing in Mass Influx Situations, No. 100 (LV) -2004, 8 October 2004; UNHCR, Standing Committee, 33rd Meeting, International Cooperation and Burden and Responsibility Sharing in Mass Influx Situations, EC/55/SC/CRP.14, 7 June 2005, para. 1.

19. J. Habermas, 'Struggles for Recognition in the Democratic Constitutional State' in A. Gutman (ed), Multiculturalism, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 1994, p. 142.

20. For example, in 1999 European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO) funding for former Yugoslavia and Kosovo 'was four times the funding for all 70 African, Caribbean and Pacific countries'. Inter-Agency Standing Committee, Global Humanitarian Assistance 2000, United Nations, pp. 64-5.

21. The largest bilateral donors work together through the OECD's official Development Assistance Committee (DAC): they include the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, Japan, Norway, Italy, France and Switzerland.

22. G. Everts, Guide for UNHCR Field Offices on Donor Relations and Resource Mobilisation, UNHCR, 2003, p. 28; I. Smillie and L. Minear, The Quality of Money: Donor Behavior in Humanitarian Financing; An Independent Study, Feinstein International Famine Center, Tufts University, Boston, 2003.

23. R. Kent et al., Changes in Humanitarian Financing: Implications for the United Nations, Inter-Agency Standing Committee, United Nations, 2003.

24. The International Meeting on Good Humanitarian Donorship was held in Stockholm, 16-17 June 2003; conclusions are available at http://www.reliefweb.int.