Chapter 23 Review Questions Answer Key

Refugees and International Development Policy and Practice

While the 1951 Refugee Convention contains the most universal definition of a refugee, governments in many regions of the Global South came to see it as reflecting a Eurocentric understanding of a refugee being an individual who faced persecution as opposed to groups of people fleeing conflict and generalized violence. Largely in response, many states in Asia have not signed the 1951 convention, while states in Africa and Latin America developed their own refugee definitions, which supplement the 1951 convention definition. [p. 415]

The 1969 Organisation of African Unity (OAU) Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa includes the 1951 convention definition, plus an additional provision that agrees that, “the term “refugee” shall also apply to every person who, owing to external aggression, occupation, foreign domination or events seriously disturbing public order in either part or the whole of [their] country of origin or nationality, is compelled to leave [their] place of habitual residence in order to seek refuge in another place outside [their] country of origin or nationality.” Likewise, Latin American states agreed through the 1984 Cartegena Declaration on Refugees that, “it is necessary to consider enlarging the concept of a refugee, bearing in mind, as far as appropriate and in the light of the situation prevailing in the region, the precedent of the OAU Convention (article 1, paragraph 2) and the doctrine employed in the reports of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Hence the definition or concept of a refugee to be recommended for use in the region is one which, in addition to containing the elements of the 1951 Convention . . . includes among refugees persons who have fled their country because their lives, safety or freedom have been threatened by generalized violence, foreign aggression, internal conflicts, massive violation of human rights or other circumstances which have seriously disturbed public order.” [p. 415]

While there have been concerns about the spread of the virus among densely populated refugee camps and urban areas, of greater concern has been the impact of state responses on the well-being of refugees. Restrictions on access to national health systems have put refugees at greater risk than host communities. The shut-down of national economies has disproportionately affected refugees across the Global South who were previously self-reliant but are now excluded from state support. From East Africa and the Middle East to Latin America and South Asia, refugees previously reliant on the informal economy no longer have access to the means to survive but are excluded from national response strategies. [p. 411]

While self-reliance may reduce vulnerability during exile and help contribute to durable solutions, it is not a substitute. If refugees are to be integrated into development policy and practice in a way that is respectful of the principles of the global refugee protection regime, responses for refugees should have solutions as their ultimate aim. In this way, it is important to fully consider recent concerns that the linking of humanitarian and development approaches serves the interests of states in the Global North, not the interests of refugees. More generally, it is important to bring the interests, capacities, and agency of refugees more fully into the discussion of where, why, and how refugees can be included in discussions of international development policy and practice. [pp. 424-5]

Bringing the needs of refugees into development policy and practice can play a transformative role in addressing protracted displacement, mitigating the impact of prolonged displacement for the displaced and host communities and may contribute to future solutions. Such initiatives, however, are not a substitute for a solution. When establishing UNHCR in 1950, the United Nations General Assembly emphasized the need for UNHCR to assist states to seek “permanent solutions” for refugees, either through their voluntary repatriation or “their assimilation within new national communities.” In this way, a durable solution for a refugee is achieved when they enjoy permanent and meaningful legal status, either upon return to their country of origin, by gaining citizenship in their host country, or through resettlement to another country. [p. 424]

In fact, efforts to link humanitarian and development approaches and integrate refugees into international development policy and practice raise both opportunities and challenges for the core mandate of the global refugee regime to ensure protection for refugees and find a solution to their plight. Some ask if humanitarian and development approaches are compatible—given that the rights-based focus of humanitarian action and refugee protection may come into conflict with the more political implications of development activities—and ask how the principles of humanitarian action can be safeguarded when brought into conversation with more powerful development actors. Likewise, while the ultimate objective of the refugee regime is to find solutions for refugees, questions have been raised about the extent to which solutions remain at the core of new approaches or if they are intended instead to contain refugees in the Global South and reduce demands on humanitarian assistance budgets. [p. 424]

When delegates gathered in Geneva for the Global Refugee Forum in December 2019, they gathered with the intention to mobilize support for the Global Compact on Refugees through tangible pledges. Never before had development actors played such a prominent role in a global meeting on refugee issues. The presence of the World Bank, other multilateral development banks, along with regional, national, and local development actors signalled for many the realization of a new approach to refugees—an approach premised on the importance of linking humanitarian and development responses. For some, it was back to the future and a moment when the refugee regime rediscovered its long-forgotten engagement with development policy and practice. But for others, it was a moment to express caution. While the engagement of development actors in refugee responses provided new resources for refugee-hosting states in the Global South, concerns were raised that these new responses were motivated by the desire of donor states in the Global North to continue their policies of containing refugees in their regions of origin. At the same time, it is noted that the linking of humanitarian and development approaches risked condemning refugees to occupying a peripheral place in the global economy and denied them the agency and autonomy envisioned when the refugee regime was established in the 1950s. [p. 424]

One example of where support from the World Bank has resulted in a new approach is in Jordan, which hosts nearly 1 million refugees from Syria. Through the Jordan Compact, the government of Jordan has received support from the World Bank to develop Special Economic Zones, focusing on the manufacturing of consumer goods. Refugees can apply for permits to work in these special economic zones, while goods produced in these zones can be imported into the European Union on preferential terms. Some see the Jordan Compact as potentially a new blueprint for how refugees can be supported to be self-reliant. Others raise concerns that such an approach leads to the commodification of refugees and can ultimately constrain the rights of refugees by relegating them to low-paid sectors of the economy. [p. 423]

Soon after the New York Declaration, the World Bank announced a new US$2 billion initiative for refugees and host communities. Through a new “sub-window” for refugees and host communities in the World Bank’s International Development Association (IDA) fund, announced in 2017, the World Bank is now able to provide support to low- and middle-income countries hosting large refugee populations. According to the World Bank announcement, “this funding recognizes the significant challenge that these countries face in pursuing their own development goals while accommodating refugees, often in areas where local communities themselves lack basic services and resources.” Specifically, the funds are available to states that host significant refugee populations and “enact policy change and address the social and economic dimensions of refugee situations.” Funds are provided on “more favorable terms for medium-term investments that benefit both refugees and host communities.” Funds from this initiative are in the form of grants for some low-income countries and through a mix of grants and loans for other low-income and middle-income countries. [p. 423]

More recently, there has been increased attention on the phenomenon of international climate displacement. People who have experienced international climate displacement have crossed an international border and seek protection because of the consequences of climate change, either slow onset (desertification and rising sea levels) or rapid onset (storm surges and forest fires). Although they are not recognized as refugees, the rights of those displaced by climate change have been the source of great debate in recent years. A significant development in this debate came in early 2020 when the UN Human Rights Committee ruled that individuals who flee to another country because of an immediate threat to their life resulting from climate change cannot be forcibly returned to their country of origin. Given that some estimates claim that as many as 200 million people may be displaced by climate change by 2050, this ruling will likely have a significant impact on the global response to displacement. [p. 414]

In April 2016, the UN secretary-general (UNSG) issued a report entitled “In Safety and Dignity,” which made ambitious calls for more robust international cooperation for refugees and migrants. The report noted that humanitarian needs had reached an all-time high but that “funding is insufficient to meet ballooning needs.” In response to the gap between needs and resources, the report argues that “the increased engagement of development actors is sorely needed” (UNSG 2016, 2). The report reminds UN member states of their commitments through the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development to “leave no-one behind” and proceeds to outline an ambitious new relationship between humanitarian and development actors within the UN system. The report calls on refugee-hosting states to allow refugees greater freedom of movement and economic rights. In exchange, the report calls for a greater involvement of development actors, including UNDP, FAO, UNICEF, and the World Bank, to work with humanitarian agencies to respond to the needs of refugees and the communities that host them. Ultimately, the report calls for refugees to be incorporated into “national development strategies and national adaptation plans of action, as well as United Nations Development Assistance Frameworks” (UNSG 2016, 67). Moreover, the report calls for the “economic and social costs of hosting large numbers of refugees” to be “factored into financial lending schemes, including to middle-income countries, and development funding opportunities must be opened and private sector investment stimulated for countries hosting significant numbers of refugees” (UNSG 2016, 79). Ultimately, the report calls for a new approach that empowers refugees to be self-reliant and capable of contributing to the “development of local economies” (UNSG 2016, 80). [pp. 421-2]

Following the UN secretary-general’s report, intense negotiations began in New York on a new agreement on how to respond to the needs of refugees and the states that host them. Over the span of just three months, refugee hosting states in the Global South and donor states in the Global North were able to come to an agreement on a non-binding commitment to revitalize responses to the needs of the world’s refugees through the deeper linking of humanitarian and development responses (Ferris and Donato 2019). The agreement was unanimously endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly on 19 September 2016 in the form of the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants (UNGA 2016). Through the New York Declaration, member states of the United Nations committed to a new approach to respond to the needs of refugees and host communities, primarily by reinforcing the connections between humanitarian and development approaches. While this is a non-binding commitment by states, it potentially represents a new milestone in the policy framework for responding to refugees. [p. 422]