Returning Which Home?

Conflict-induced displacement, which might be the result of an armed conflict, a civil war or an internal uprising against a regime, may last years and even sometimes more than a decade. Displacement is an arduous process itself but what comes after? When the armed conflict is over and the warring parties get what they have been pursuing for, do all the sufferings of the displaced communities end simultaneously? Do displaced persons need to go back to their original places of residence for their displacement to finish? Or even a better question would be “when does the displacement end?” Does it end when people go back home? What if there is no home to go back?

Having been discussed for long years, the displacement and its categories are now defined in official or semi-official documents. In the matter of returns, though, while “UNHCR has guidelines in determining when it is safe for refugees to return home” (Cohen & Deng 1998, Pg.35), there is no general consensus on when internal displacement actually ends. According to Guiding Principles, internal displacement finishes in two conditions: first, when people return their homes and second, when they re-settle in another place.  

It is very common that when IDPs return home “they sometimes find that during their absence they have been deprived of their property” (Phuong 2006, Pg.40). Their houses might now be occupied by other displaced families or there might not even be a house after heavy artilleries or intentional burning. It is the responsibility of the governments to provide shelter in such situations according to the Guiding Principles. Governments must accept the assistance of, and work in coordination with civil society groups, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and international aid agencies to ensure peoples’ safe return. In this regard, the return process of Bosnia and Herzegovina after the bloody civil war has been successful by the agency of “international involvement which may have reflected Western guilt at the lack of political will to address the conflict in the early 1990s” (Phuong 2006, Pg.205).

Some people may prefer to keep living in urban areas or they may prefer to stay wherever they have been living during their displacement. According to surveys conducted by the government of Sudan in 1992, “80 per cent of the displaced in Khartoum wanted to stay there, while only 12 per cent of the southerners wanted to return to the place of their birth” (Vincent & Sorensen 2001, Pg.85). Hereof, Guiding Principles suggest that return or re-settlement must be on a voluntary basis. Besides, returning does not always offer the best option as how it is “in Azerbaijan, where displaced populations may risk becoming hostages of politics if they insist that return to Nagorno Karabakh is their only option” (Cohen & Deng 1998, Pg.286).

At this point, we can emphasize that the reasons of scantiness in return after internal displacement must be investigated deeply by the governments and the necessary measures should be taken to remove those reasons. For this, an important role goes to the civil society organizations, NGOs and international aid agencies because the governments are generally inclined to deny and ignore most of those reasons. Obstacles in front of the return must be frequently indicated by these organizations.

But, what are those barriers that make displaced people stay where they are, instead of going back to their original living areas? There is a variety of them but the most important of which is the lack of security. People may rightly believe that whatever the reason scared them away still continues. They will not go back to their original places until their safety is guaranteed. Right here, humanitarian agencies need to get involved and monitor the whole process of return. In Tajikistan, for example, “UNHCR closely monitored conditions in areas of return and worked with local authorities to increase physical security for the displaced, reconstruct houses, and help returnees reclaim their homes” (Cohen & Deng 1998, Pg.166).

Land mines constitute a big part of the security concerns unfortunately. They are not only used at the state borders but also used as a way of fight during the conflicts by the security forces or the insurgent groups. “Countries that are party to the Ottawa Convention are obliged to destroy their stockpiles of anti-personnel landmines within four years after the convention enters into force and to clear the deployed landmines within ten years after that date” (Kurban, Celik, Unalan and Aker 2007, Pg.88).

In addition to the security concerns, problems with properties, poverty, unsatisfactory infrastructure, lack of social security, lack of healthcare services and the far distances to schools can be given as other barriers for the people who wish to return. In Iraq, for instance, “one of the principal barriers to return was the secondary occupation of houses, often by families that had been displaced themselves” (Birkeland 2009). This matter only itself needs specific attention. Returnees must be provided with legal assistance regarding their property claims. This whole process must be done afflicting neither the returnees nor the occupiers. In most of the cases, displaced people lose considerable amount of their properties. In such situations, their loss must be compensated with a fair deal.

Displacement commonly occurs from the rural areas to the direction of urban areas. So, younger generation and women are mostly the ones who do not wish to return. Young people who go to school, work or who find themselves a place in the urban life want to stay. For them, what going back means is being deprived of education, employment or other entertaining parts of urban life. Again, for women, urban life represents easiness in the house works, escaping from their traditional life styles in which the men are the sole decision makers, and also opportunities of working. On the other hand, men struggle with the new form of life where other members of the family act freer from the householders’ will. They cannot easily find jobs while women get more chances of employment. If they have properties back in their original places, they wish to go back and take over them.

It should not be forgotten that returning does not end displacement by itself. Problems of infrastructure, such as the need for clean water, electricity, telephone lines or proper roads, may or may not be the result of conflicts that took place for long years, will eventually make returnees yearn for the easiness of the urban life. Additionally, governments and other interest groups have to consider the necessity of education for especially young generations and provide convenience of access to schools. Health services must be organized building or restoring hospitals and centres proportional to the number of residents including the returnees. Considering that protracted conflicts most probably ruined all these systems, governments must apply for or permit the assistance of NGOs and civil society groups.

To be able to guide governments and set examples for future instances, international agencies must analyse successful return processes. In Peru, for instance, “following the 20-year long civil war between state forces and the Maoist Shining Path along with the Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement (“MRTA”), it is believed that out of a total of 600,000 IDPs, 540,000 have returned and the return process has been largely successful. The most important reason behind this success is the formation of a national coordination group where IDPs were represented” (Kurban, Celik, Unalan and Aker 2007, Pg.55). Moreover, further lessons can be learned watching patterns of different types of returns. For example, “in most cases victims of natural disasters are able to return home sooner than other categories of displaced people. Data gathered from four South Asian countries suggested that 80 per cent of those displaced by natural disasters had been displaced for one year or less, while 57 per cent of those displaced by armed conflict and 66 per cent of those displaced by development project construction and land acquisition had been displaced for more than five years” (McDowell & Morrell 2010, Pg.161).

As a conclusion, it can be said that all the protection and assistance must carry on until the end of displacement. But, same question again, when does the displacement end? Returning home is not enough and is not always the only option. In most of the cases, people get integrated into their new locations. They might be happier there and moving them one more time to their original places by force might engender irreparable traumatic incidents. Sometimes displaced people might wish to live neither in their previous nor new places but they might wish to live in a third place for mostly security reasons. It is very important to learn the intentions of internally displaced persons. They must be included in the process of deciding about their future. In all kind of decisions, voluntariness must be the core point. Monitoring all the return and resettlement process is very important and for this, cooperation among actors such as government officials, civil society groups, NGOs and international humanitarian agencies is vital.                       

REFERENCES

Chatty D. and Finlayson B. (2010) “Dispossession and Displacement: Forced Migration in the Middle East and North Africa” Oxford University Press

Cohen Roberta & Deng Francis M. (1998) “Masses in Flight” The Brookings Institution

Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement (1998)

Kurban D., Yükseker D., Çelik A.B., Ünalan T., Aker A.T. (2007) “Coming to Terms with Forced Migration:Post-Displacement Restitution of Citizenship Rights in Turkey (TESEV Publications)

McDowell Christopher & Morrell Gareth (2010) “Displacement Beyond Conflict” Berghahn Books

Nina M. Birkeland (September 2009) “Internal displacement: global trends in conflict-induced displacement” International Review of the Red Cross,

Phuong Catherine (2006) “The International Protection of Internally Displaced Persons” Cambridge University Press

Vincent Marc & Sorensen Birgitte R. (2001) “Caught Between Borders” Pluto Press 

Dying on a Full Stomach

One of the interviews affecting me most relating the issue of displacement is the wish of a non-Serb from Banja Luka during the Yugoslavian civil war when he complained about the genre of the international assistance: “We do not need food, we are not starving to death. We are being persecuted and we prefer to be hungry for a week than not to sleep every night, in fear of being beaten, raped, or killed” (Cohen & Deng 1998, Pg.255). It is true that when issue is internal displacement and international aid to IDPs, the first thing comes to mind is not how to protect them but how to feed or shelter them. There are different reasons of this general attitude: First of all, international law gives the main responsibility of protection to the related states. “The Guiding Principles acknowledge that in crisis, conflict and emergency situations, Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) have technically not lost the protection of their state and the primary responsibility for their protection remains with the state” (McDowell & Morrell 2010, Pg.62). Second, it is easier for international agencies to assist IDPs with food and shelter than protect their lives. One reality, however, is forgotten that without protection, assistance will eventually become impossible. When there is fear of life inside a state, how can one consider delivering humanitarian assistance to its people with no fear? How can you guarantee that those who threaten the lives of the civilian people will easily let you assist them with aid?    

Third, sovereignty as an inhibitive element and states’ comprehension of international aid as intervention to their domestic affairs or at least their trying to create a general perception as such is another important obstacle in front of the provision of international protection. Even those states that have ratified the Geneva Conventions and Protocols may prevent international agencies to work in their territories. For instance, “International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has not been allowed to assist internally displaced populations in Guatemala and Turkey even though conflicts in those countries have produced substantial numbers of internally displaced persons” (Cohen & Deng 1998, Pg.132). And, fourth, although many organizations ranging from United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to Medecin Sans Frontieres (MSF) or the World Health Organisation (WHO) extended their mandates including internally displaced persons into their interest groups, most of them focus on humanitarian aid such as delivering food or shelter while ignoring physical safety of the people. Among those organizations, ICRC is the most important one when it comes to the protection of civilian communities. Its actions, however, depend on the cooperation will of the states.

When the protection is pushed into the background vis-à-vis assistance, innocent people are allowed to ‘die on a full stomach’ as how it is described in the book of Cohen and Deng. It should not be forgotten that if the protection is ensured, the secure flow of the assistance of food, water, shelter and etc. will be guaranteed. Unfortunate events that occurred in Kibeho, Rwanda and in Srebrenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1995 prove the importance of protection beside assistance. In both examples, unarmed internally displaced persons who were gathered in so called safe areas by the UN bodies were massacred by armed opposition groups.       

International law indirectly and partially provides protection to the internally displaced. IDPs are protected indirectly because they take the advantage of civilian protection during the conflicts and there is no mentioning of the concept of internal displacement in the law. They are partially protected because the law does not cover all the aspects and phases of displacement, especially the process of return. Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions refers to a non-international armed conflict and prohibits each party from all kinds of violence. Protocol I, on the other hand, can be used by IDPs during the instances of international conflicts. Protocol II Article 13 states that “1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against the dangers arising from military operations. 2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be, the object of attack.”    

Although existing international law is, for many people, adequate for the protection of internally displaced persons, that is not really the case. Firstly, there are no specific definitions of the internal displacement or IDPs in the current law. Secondly, it does not formally bind the states that have not ratified related agreements and treaties. Thirdly, while the humanitarian law cannot be applicable to some small sized non-international conflicts, the human rights law mostly does not bind insurgent groups but only states. Despite all the deficiencies of the law considering IDPs, international organizations can still take the advantage of selected parts if protection is searched. Moreover, what I believe is that when the human life is in danger, all the human-made rules and concepts can be ignored including the concept of sovereignty. The idea of ‘what is happening in one state does not consider other states’ is illogical, outdated and incompatible with today’s perception of human rights.         

Protection is a prolonged process that should start from even before the displacement and continue until the end of safe return or satisfied settlement. The ideal protection is the preventive one. “It is preferable to act before people feel compelled to leave their homes, rather than intervening ex post when displacement has already taken place. Effective preventive protection requires an early and active involvement in a potential crisis, including efficient early-warning systems” (Phuong 2006, Pg.122). For this, as a matter of course, a strong cooperation among the related state, civil society, NGOs, international aid agencies and internally displaced persons themselves is indispensable. 

            Sometimes, only the presence of NGOs, watch groups or international communities can provide protection. If presence, however, turns into silence against brutal actions of security forces or insurgent groups, instead of deterring, it validates the violence. “As UNHCR’s special envoy to the former Yugoslavia has explained: ‘To be silent could be a form of partiality in favour of the criminals. If by neutrality, one means to help all victims without discrimination … that is correct. But if neutrality means not to take sides, not even in favour of the victims, that would be a wrong interpretation: we chose to be on the side of the victims’.” (Cohen & Deng 1998, Pg.269) 

            If the protection is not provided by the official authorities such as the governments or the international agencies, then the opposition armed groups make use of the situation by offering security to unarmed civilians. In return of this favour though, they may recruit men, sometimes children, abuse women, demand food and drink for their troops and use civilians as their shields. Moreover, these populations may be reduced to “accept its (opposition groups’) de facto political, social and military control and to obey the newly imposed rules of social conduct” (Vincent & Sorensen 2001, Pg.210).

            Protection strategies must cover not only displaced people but also other civilians such as those who host displaced populations. These host communities can be family members of the displaced people or complete strangers who would like to open their houses to people in need and ready to share their food with them. This voluntary support, however, sometimes brings dangers to hosting people, “for example, in situations of armed conflict, helping IDPs may carry the risk of being perceived to be sympathising with one of the parties to the conflict” (IDMC, July 2010). The African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa (or Kampala Convention) attach more importance to this issue than any other official document. In the article 9 with the title of “Obligations of States Parties Relating to Protection and Assistance during Internal Displacement” under the substrate 2-b, Convention asks states to “extend … assistance to local and host communities.

            Protection of displaced people should not come to a halt upon return. Displacements generally take long years and when people return to their original places they may encounter different threats. Among those, maybe the most hazardous ones are the life-threatening land mines, “in Mozambique alone, mines killed more than 10,000 displaced persons over the course of the return and resettlement program” (Cohen & Deng 1998, Pg.289). Mines are not only used by insurgent groups but also used by state security forces as part of their struggle against armed oppositions. “According to official data (provided by Turkish Parliament), initially used ‘to prevent illegal border crossings,’ later on, landmines started to be used, ‘as part of the fight against terror and only for security reasons” (Kurban, Celik, Unalan and Aker 2007, Pg.88). These mines, however, put the lives of IDPs in risk upon their return.

As a conclusion, I can say that instead of preferring one to the other, protection and assistance of IDPs must be integrated. Sovereignty does not only give states some rights inside recognised borders but also gives them responsibilities like protecting their own citizens. If they are not able or not willing to provide protection to their own citizens, if they are a party of violence against unarmed innocent civilians then states cannot claim rights upon those people. In such cases, international community must step in via humanitarian agencies, NGOs or international organizations. Providing food and shelter while ignoring the necessity of protection of the displaced populations and legitimizing this action by sovereign rights of related states, international community connive in IDPs’ dying on a full stomach.     

REFERENCES

Cohen R. & Deng F.M. (1998) “Masses in Flight” The Brookings Institution

African Union Convention for The Protection And Assistance Of Internally Displaced Persons In Africa (Kampala Convention) (2009)

Geneva Convention (1949) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War

IDMC (July 2010) Making the Kampala Convention Work for IDPs

Kurban D., Yükseker D., Çelik A.B., Ünalan T., Aker A.T. (2007) “Coming to Terms with Forced Migration: Post-Displacement Restitution of Citizenship Rights in Turkey (TESEV Publications)

McDowell C. and Morrell G. (2010) “Displacement Beyond Conflict: Challenges for the 21st Century” Berghahn Books

Phuong C. (2006) “The International Protection of Internally Displaced Persons” Cambridge University Press

Vincent M. & Sorensen B.R. (2001) “Caught Between Borders” Pluto Press

What Are the Troubles In Front of the Assistance to IDPs?

   Although internally displaced persons experience similar circumstances as refugees or other displaced people during the period of escape, what they encounter afterwards is different than other people due to their unique positions of being trapped inside of their states’ borders. In this post, I have summarized the main troubles that block the assistance to and also the protection of IDPs. Clauses given below are not the only difficulties but the main ones. What I believe is that secondary problems are also created by these primary ones.  

http://www.wunrn.com

 1.     The lack of an agency which works specifically for the rights of internally displaced persons and which assigns responsibilities and shows rapid reactions during internal conflicts leaves IDPs alone vis-à-vis tyrant governments and/or insurgent groups.
2.  Sovereignty:  instead of people-oriented approaches state-oriented ones dominate the international system.
3. Interfering interests of the variety of actors: Global super states, regional powers, multinational corporations, neighbour states or host regimes mostly ignore the wretched situation of internally displaced for the sake of their own benefits.
4.  Lack of an international agreement that protects the rights of the internally displaced in full. Current international law covers IDPs, however, indirectly. The term of ‘internally displaced persons’ does not exist in any international agreement. Guiding Principles are not legally binding while the regional binding agreements such as the Kampala Convention cover only states that ratified them in that region.
5.     Protection of physical safety often takes second place to the provision of food, medical care, and shelter. Although the fundamental need of the internally displaced is protection, international aid commonly focuses on the food and shelter supply because of the hardships of the former. 
6. When the response strategies are discussed, IDPs and their opinions are excluded from the relief techniques. Whereas, it shouldn’t be forgotten that the best solutions are only reached including the people directly affected by the problems.
7.  For international organizations, delivering the necessary aid to internally displaced persons, who are mostly stuck in the middle of active armed struggles, is not as easy as reaching refugees who could pass the borders of relatively secure neighbouring countries.
8.  Monitoring the prospective internal displacements is inadequate just as the unsatisfactory rapid reactions to the first movements mostly originating from the problems given above.
9. Although in most of the cases of internal displacement people flee from the oppression of their own governments, international law gives the sole responsibility of IDPs’ protection to these regimes.

International Assistance to Internally Displaced Persons

There is no international organization; that carefully observes pre-displacement situations such as upcoming internal conflicts which would eventually cause internal displacement; that regularly monitors the status of internally displaced persons and their living conditions; or that supervises their returning process. No agency has the definite mandate of addressing the special needs of IDPs. UN agencies or NGOs assist IDPs as much as the extent of their mandates. This, of course, depends on the willingness of the related state because current international law grants states with the right of making the decision on the assistance of internally displaced persons. Governments can either choose to support their IDPs by themselves or ask for international assistance. If they, however, deny the existence of the internal displacement or whatever brings it about in the country then things get complicated. States are not obliged to accept international assistance which is a result of the legitimacy granted them by the concept of sovereignty.

 Under these conditions, internally displaced persons are, frequently, left to the mercy of their own regimes which, in the main, are the prime causes of their displacement (see Davies and Glanville 2010 Pg.102) These regimes may see the presence of international organizations as a threat to their sovereignty and/or a threat to their covered-up actions against civilian population or, they might worry that the assistance would be benefitted by their opponents. Not only regimes but also the insurgent groups may be disturbed from these organizations and try to hinder their activities.

At this point, we can summarize the position of the internally displaced in relation to agency issue as: they do not have any international organization working only and specifically for their rights; when other organizations attempt to assist them as much as their mandate allows, they mostly face the resistance of governments playing the card of sovereignty; even if these organizations, somehow, overcome or bypass reluctant governments, they might still encounter insurgent groups. Having already struggled with economic hardships or lack of qualified staff, these organizations also have to cope with the challenges of civil wars. All these problems, badly affect the speed and the quality of international assistance and, internally displaced persons get even more isolated in their own countries.

Despite of the sombre atmosphere described above, many organizations continue assisting the internally displaced. Seven organizations are prominent in this assistance: The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the United Nations Children Fund (UNICEF), the World Food Programme (WFP), the International Organization for Migration (IOM), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and, the World Health Organization (WHO).

Among these, UNHCR is the most significant assistant to the internally displaced.

http://www.unhcr.org/4adf12516.html

 Although the organization states in its website that its “original mandate does not specifically cover IDPs”, in 2011, the organization “was helping about 15.5 million of the IDPs in 26 countries” (http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49c3646c146.html accessed on 17 December 2013) which was a lot more than half of the conflict-induced IDPs in the world in that year.

UNHCR has become the leading organization “in efforts to ensure the protection of conflict-related IDPs, the provision of emergency shelter to such populations, as well as the coordination and management of IDP camps” (UNHCR 2007). This role – considered under the concept of ‘cluster approach’ – is based on cooperation among different international organizations assisting the internally displaced in varied parts and under diverse conditions of their displacement. UNHCR’s leading role under this cluster approach appears to include “those at risk of displacement and those affected by displacement, such as communities hosting IDPs” (M. Christopher & M. Gareth 2010 Pg.19) although the organization does not assume this role related to disaster-induced IDPs but is ready to assist involved clusters (UNHCR 2007).

https://clusters.humanitarianresponse.info/about-clusters/what-is-the-cluster-approach

Cluster approach and UNHCR’s leading role has been a longstanding suggestion by the scholars working on internal displacement. It is hard to interpret the pros and cons of this relatively young modality. It deserves patience. And, it should not be forgotten that the success of this system depends not only the performances of the international organizations but also the standpoints of the states.      

As a non-UN, independent humanitarian organization, International Committee of the Red Cross is another fundamental agency for the internally displaced particularly when it comes to the protection of them. If the displacement has taken place in a country that already ratified “the 1949 Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol II of 1977, the international Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is the one organization with a formal right to assist and protect, but only if displacement occurs in the context of a large scale internal conflict” (D.Weissbrodt and M.Rumsey 2011, Pg.19).

http://www.icrc.org/eng/what-we-do/cooperating-national-societies/overview-cooperation-national-societies.htm

Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions that bounds every state today gives ICRC the right of humanitarian initiative “in the case of armed conflict not of an international character” (Common Article 3). Moreover “in the event of internal disturbances and tensions and in any other situation that warrants humanitarian action, the ICRC also enjoys a right of initiative, which is recognized in the Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement” (ICRC 2010).

Among protection activities of the ICRC, that first considers, however, that “problems resulting from internal displacement are first and foremost the responsibility of national authorities” (ICRC 2000), there are “in-depth dialogue with all parties to a conflict and/or other agents of violence, whether States or other armed groups, with a view to inducing them to fulfil their obligations and ease the plight of the victims under their control”, “monitor their situation, to check that their rights are being respected and to report its observations to the authorities concerned, in order to prevent or put an end to possible violations of the law” (ICRC 2000). Moreover, ICRC reminds the parties their obligations under international humanitarian law, providing technical or training support to the authorities, stimulates authorities to take necessary measures to ensure safe return, and also provides services and material aid (ICRC 2000).

UNICEF is also deeply involved with the internally displaced most of which consists of children and women. Great dangers that internally displaced children mostly face such as forced recruitment into fighting armed forces, sexual exploitation which is quite common during displacement, violence or diseases makes UNICEF an indispensable party to the condition of internal displacement. Maybe not protection but UNICEF can provide healthcare, sanitation, education, clean water or nutrition to IDPs.

World Health Organization has been a very active actor at providing health care to the internally displaced. At the request of the governments or the UN and under the entrusting of its constitution, it builds health facilities and provides health services to IDPs. “In Rwanda, WHO joined international efforts to aid refugees, internally displaced persons and the local population. Its emergency work has also benefited internally displaced populations in the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and Iraq” (R.Cohen and F.Deng 1998, Pg.140).

Apart from these organizations, the World Food Programme is the greatest food provider to the internally displaced while IOM, as another non-UN international organization, provides transportation, evacuation or temporary shelter to internally displaced persons. UNDP is helping mostly during the phase of return and resettlement of the internally displaced and “it has undertaken reintegration programs in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Central America, Mozambique, and the Horn of Africa” ((R.Cohen and F.Deng 1998, Pg.135).

As a conclusion, it is explicit that there is no special organization which can be indicated easily as the agency specifically working for the rights of the internally displaced. In the current system, protection and assistance of IDPs are provided with cooperation among international organizations working under the framework of cluster approach. UNHCR is the leading agency in this system but the assistance of other organizations is also vital. All the agencies aid internally displaced persons in the extent of their mandates. While UNICEF, for instance, help internally displaced children and women, WFP provides food to the displaced people.

This system, however, may create coordination deficiencies. Although UNHCR is assumed the leading role, since IDPs is not its primary concern, it might be slow at discovering possible internal displacement roots and, this can be followed by late reactions to the next phases of the situations. Would another organization react faster and in a more proper way? UNHCR is familiar to the situation of IDPs for its 64 years of experience with refugees. At the end, IDPs live in refugee-like situations, deprived of their homes, lands and sometimes families. Their foremost need, however, is protection and UNHCR mostly provides assistance. ICRC, on the other hand, can inherently focus on protection matters better relying on the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols and, can operate more functional in both sides of the borders comparing to UNHCR. Nevertheless, ICRC’s capacity of reaction is limited to the related state’s comprehension of the circumstances.           

There is increasing need of protection for the internally displaced. Once protection is ensured, as a matter of fact, assistance will easily reach to them anyway. Abovementioned coordination is rather significant towards a solution and needs to be implemented in discipline but it seems not enough. An organization which would monitor the tensions that might create IDPs and show fast reactions in every phase of displacement is still a major need.

REFERENCES

Christopher M. & Gareth M. (2010) “Displacement Beyond Conflict” Berghahn Books

Cohen R. & Deng F.M. (1998) “Masses in Flight” The Brookings Institution

Davies S. & Glanville L. (2010) “Protecting the Displaced” Martinus Nijhoff

Geneva Convention (1949) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War

ICRC (2000) Internally displaced persons: The mandate and role of the International Committee of the Red Cross 30-06-2000 Article, International Review of the Red Cross, No. 838

ICRC (2010) The ICRC's mandate and mission 29-10-2010 Overview

UNHCR (2007) “Policy Framework and Implementation Strategy: UNHCR's role in support of an enhanced inter-agency response to the protection of internally displaced persons”

Weissbrodt D. & Rumsey M. (2011) “Vulnerable and Marginalised Groups and Human Rights” Edward Elgar Publishing Limited

Legal Protection of the Internally Displaced

While searching solutions for important matters, it is significant to inquire the legal extent of the issue. There is no legally binding international agreement covering specifically the protection and the needs of IDPs. The only document related to the rights of internally displaced is the Guiding Principles which was released in 1998. Guiding Principles were prepared by Mr. Francis Deng, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on IDPs, following the civil wars and conflicts of 1990s that brought about large quantities of IDPs. The reasons why a non-binding document was chosen instead of a binding one can be summarized as, first, the urgent need of a document about the IDPs and their needs by international actors (especially the NGOs) and, second, the strong concerns related to the states’ rejection to a legally binding agreement.

Guiding Principles relied upon existing international humanitarian and human rights law suggesting that the needs of the internally displaced are actually covered by international agreements. I searched international law and tried to pull out the articles related to IDPs. While doing this a book ‘Masses in Flight’ (1998), written by the architecture of the Guiding Principles Francis Deng and a leading expert on internal displacement Roberta Cohen, shed light on my works. In their book Deng and Cohen indicate that “… existing international law does not contain guarantees that explicitly mention internally displaced persons. It is often difficult for governments, international organisations, NGOs, and the internally displaced themselves to determine clearly which guarantees are applicable in a specific situation” (Deng & Cohen, 1998 pg.74). Internally displaced persons might not be explicitly mentioned in the international law, they, however, share the general rights that are related to everybody else.  

            While mostly protecting them, international law has some deficiencies concerning IDPs. Firstly, only states are accounted for the human rights law. Secondly, some significant agreements have not been ratified by some states which, in appearance, mean that they cannot be held accountable in their actions embracing those agreements. Thirdly, humanitarian law is not applicable during short armed conflicts and situations of tensions, and human rights law is limited in such cases. Apart from these deficiencies, refugee law does not cover internally displaced persons because when defined in the Article I of Refugee Convention, refugee is specifically characterized as “being outside the country of his former habitual residence”. While sharing the identical situations, what separates refugees and IDPs by definition is the action of crossing a border.

            For this paper I reviewed following international agreements:

Under the International Human Rights Law

1-      Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948)

2-      Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1979)

3-      Convention On The Rights Of Persons With Disabilities (2006)

4-      Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989)

5-      International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (2010)

6-      International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1969)

7-      International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966)

8-      Convention and Protocol Relating the Status of Refugees (1951-1967)

9-      Convention Against Torture And Other Cruel, Inhuman Or Degrading Treatment Or Punishment (1987)

10-  Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)

Under the International Humanitarian Law

1-      Geneva Convention Relative To The Protection Of Civilian Persons In Time Of War (1949)

2-      Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol 1) (1979)

3-      Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II) (1978)

PROTECTION OF IDPS

Protection of IDPs during internal (non-international) conflicts can be provided via common Article 3 of the four Geneva Conventions. This article, “in the case of armed conflict not of an international character”, prohibits each party from all kinds of violence to life and person, taking of hostages, outrages upon personal dignity, the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment. Moreover, Protocol II Article 13 states that “1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against the dangers arising from military operations. 2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.” This article also points out that unless the civilians directly participate in hostilities, they should enjoy the protection. Again, Protocol II Article 14 prohibits “starvation of civilians as a method of combat” while Article 4 prohibits violence, collective punishments, taking of hostages, acts of terrorism, outrages upon personal dignity, slavery, pillage and threats to commit of the foregoing acts against non-hostile civilians including IDPs. In addition, Article 17 forbids forced movements of civilians.

In the part II of the Fourth Geneva Convention which consists of “general protection of populations against certain consequences of war”, Article 13 cover the whole population including IDPs and following articles gives the fighting parties responsibilities of establishing hospital and safety zones (Article 14); establishing neutralized zones (Article 15); providing particular protection to the wounded and sick (Article 16).      

Internal conflicts are covered mostly by the common Article 3 and Protocol II, while Protocol I would be the main source of consult for the protection of IDPs during the international conflicts. Article 51 of Protocol I states that “1.The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations… 2.The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited… 4.Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited… 6.Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited. 7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives.” Article 54 prohibits “starvation of civilians as a method of warfare”, Article 59 and 60 prohibits parties from attacking non-defended localities and demilitarized zones. Protection of women with Article 76 and children with Article 77-78 also ensured during interstate conflicts.

FREE MOVEMENT AND THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE THEIR RESIDENCES

Free movement and free to choose their residence can be the main requirements of the internally displaced. Article 13.1 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 12.1 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are the most suitable ones to this concern. They basically guarantee the right of movement of people and the right to choose their residences. Article 17 of the CCPR also points that “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence…” While for the cases of international conflicts, Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits “individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons”, Article 17 of Protocol II specifies that “the displacement of the civilian population shall not be ordered for reasons related to the conflict unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand” for the cases of internal conflicts. Furthermore, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights also emphasized the importance of the issue stating in the Article 9 that “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile”.

FOOD AND SHELTER

After protection of their lives, the fundamental need of the IDPs is food and shelter. As it was pointed out above, Article 54 of Protocol I prohibits “starvation of a civilian population as a method of warfare. Article 55 of the Fourth Geneva Convention gives the responsibility to the occupying power for “ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population”. In addition, Article 27 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child asks state parties to “recognize the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development”.

OTHER RELATED INTERNATIONAL LAW

In addition to the abovementioned rights and responsibilities, following articles also concerns internally displaced persons and the warring parties. In the case of the family unity Article 16(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and also Article 23(1) of the CCPR point identically that “the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State”. Being one of the foremost problems created by forced displacement, education right of the internally displaced child is protected by Articles 28 and 29 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Different than this, as we have witnessed in multiple occasions in Syria recently, humanitarian assistance to the internally displaced gains even more importance during armed conflicts since one of the warring parties, mostly states, may hamper humanitarian aids for the concerns of blocking assistance to the other party. Deng and Cohen outlines this issue by indicating that “ICRC is empowered by the statues of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement with a right of initiative to offer its services to assist the victims of such situations, including displaced persons, but a government is not obliged to accept ICRC’s offer of services and thus may legitimately deny ICRC access to the county” (Deng & Cohen, 1998 pg.115). They, however, also state that “if the Security Council so orders, there is a clear obligation of states to permit humanitarian assistance and protection to their civilian and internally displaced population if they, themselves, are unable or unwilling to provide such aid” (Deng & Cohen, 1998 pg.120).

CONCLUSION

As a conclusion to the legal rights of internally displaced persons, one can say that the current international law secures their rights, however, indirectly. There are still important gaps in the humanitarian and human rights law considering the rights of IDPs. Existing law was mostly generated before the end of the cold war and taking the example of the past conflicts that were in international nature. Today’s conflicts are, however, taking place inside of the states among different armed groups or among the regime and insurgent forces as we can observe in countries with the highest amounts of internally displaced such as Syria, Sudan, DRC, or Colombia. Absence of a specific law regarding the internally displaced, furthermore, might, one way or another, encourage warring parties to build up their strategies exploiting the situation of IDPs. Regional binding instruments such as the Kampala Convention of Africa will hopefully set examples and lead states to create an internationally binding agreement related to internally displaced persons.