Migration IDP Relations
Why is migration a problem in international relations?
Introduction
The topic of migration covers the movement of groups of people from one geographic location to another. These groups are categorised in several ways depending on a number of factors. For instance, those who move from one country to another to seek better employment opportunities are referred to as “economic migrants” while those who cross international borders to escape persecution are classified as “refugees”. In this essay I intend to concentrate on one specific category of migrant – Internally Displaced People (IDP) as this is an area of increasing concern in the observance of international humanitarian law (IHL). The reasons for their displacement often lie in armed conflict or deliberate ethnic cleansing involving blatant violation of human rights law. In their forced displacement IDP are frequently subjected to extreme depredation prejudicial to their very survival.
In this essay I will define what is meant by IDP and discuss why they represent a particular problem in international relations. I will explore why as a group they are particularly vulnerable and, finally, I will look at the response of the international community to IDP and give an example.
What are IDP?
In the United Nations Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, IDP are defined as
“…persons or groups of persons who have been forced or obliged to flee or to leave their homes or places of habitual residence, in particular as a result of or in order to avoid the effects of armed conflict, situations of generalised violence, violations of human rights or natural or human-made disasters, and who have not crossed an internationally recognised State border."
In other words, significant groups of citizens forcibly turned away from their homes and livelihoods as a result of either internal conflict, e.g. civil war, natural disaster, economic disaster or specific government policy e.g. ethnic cleansing.
Why are IDP a problem?
The definition of IDP highlights two elements: the involuntary character of movement which deprives the IDP of the protection afforded by such as livelihoods and community networks and, because the movement takes place within national borders, IDP the denial of the special rights afforded to refugees. The circumstances in which people become IDP are typically the same as those that force people to become refugees and the net effect on their well being is comparable. They lose the shelter and security of their homes, their family and social networks and the economic security of their jobs. The loss of this security makes them especially susceptible to human rights abuse. Like all people they benefit from the legal protection afforded by international human rights law but, because they do not cross international borders, they do not benefit from the specialised protection of international refugee law. The protection that refugees get from international law is delivered by the international community and, specifically, by a number of UN and non-governmental organisations, but IDP have to rely on their domestic government to enforce their human rights – the very government that forced them into jeopardy in the first place!
“The need for international standards for the protection of internally displaced persons (IDPs) became apparent in the 1990s when the number of people uprooted within their own countries by armed conflict, ethnic strife and human rights abuses began to soar. When IDP statistics began in 1982, only 1.2 million people were internally displaced in 11 countries. By 1995, there were an estimated 20-25 million IDPs in more than 40 countries, almost twice the number of refugees.”
Why are they particularly vulnerable?
IDP tend to suffer the same threats and dangers as refugees in general. It is to be expected that the place they end up in will be less environmentally desirable than their original home. They may find themselves displaced to areas where they encounter significant hostility from local inhabitants who may well be from a different ethnic group and even speaking a different language. They are likely to be deprived of the minimum comforts of a domestic infrastructure – water supply, food, shelter and sanitation, leading to a rapid decline in general health and a heightened susceptibility to epidemics of disease.
“The death toll among IDPs – especially among children, the elderly and pregnant women – frequently reaches alarming proportions”.
Children are likely to be deprived of education. In the process of displacement many will have lost important possessions including vital documentation without which they may lose any social benefit or legal recognition.
Who helps IDPs?
“Given the magnitude of the problem of internal displacement, it is generally recognized that a comprehensive response is beyond the capacity of any single organization to provide.”
The primary responsibility for the protection of IDP lies with their national government. This responsibility was finally confirmed at the 2005 UN World Summit. Paragraph 138 of the Outcome Document from this summit states
“Each individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. This responsibility entails the prevention of such crimes, including their incitement, through appropriate and necessary means.”
The passing of Resolution 60/1 by the UN represents a significant forward step in the recognition of the obligations of nation states with respect to IDP but, in reality, many nation states ignore these obligations.
In 2006 the majority of new instances of internal population displacement were the direct result of domestic governmental policy enforced by regular troops or through government supported militia (as in Columbia which now has the world’s second largest population of IDP at 3.8 million).
Over the course of 2006 the number of IDP considered at
“high risk of falling victim to physical violence”
reached 15.6 million worldwide, an increase of 1.5 million over the 2005 figures. Of these 5.7 million could not rely on their own governments for protection against human rights abuse. It is estimated that at least 18 governments were involved in deliberately displacing sectors of their own citizens contrary to international law.
Despite an increase in international awareness of the IDP problem (largely through the expansion of the internet and satellite television) the international community as a whole has not been particularly successful in either preventing the kind of crises that give rise to instances of internal displacement or in creating durable solutions to the problem.
In terms of international politics the UN Security Council has added a number of countries with a recognised IDP problem to its agenda. In a resolution adopted in April 2006 it called
“upon all parties concerned to ensure that all peace processes, peace agreements and post-conflict recovery and reconstruction planning have regard for the special needs of women and children and include specific measures for the protection of civilians including ….. the creation of conditions conducive to the voluntary, safe, dignified and sustainable return of refugees and internally displaced persons, …recall[ed] the prohibition of the forcible displacement of civilians in situations of armed conflict under circumstances that are in violation of parties’ obligations under international humanitarian law;….. reaffirm[ed]the need to maintain the security and civilian character of refugee and internally displaced person camps, stresse[d] the primary responsibility of States in this regard, and encourage[d] the Secretary-General where necessary and in the context of existing peacekeeping operations and their respective mandates, to take all feasible measures to ensure security in and around such camps and of their inhabitants;[and] reaffirm[ed] its practice of ensuring that the mandates of United Nations peacekeeping, political and peace-building missions include, where appropriate and on a case-by-case basis, provisions regarding …. the creation of conditions conducive to the voluntary, safe, dignified and sustainable return of refugees and internally displaced persons.”
In the light of Resolution 1674 and in response to the need for the international community to provide an adequate response to the IDP crises around the world, the UN have begun implementing a new approach to humanitarian assistance. This approach, known as the cluster approach, is a key component of a wider UN humanitarian reform process. It involves designating lead agencies for clusters or sectors, mandated with coordinating the humanitarian initiatives and resources of the various international, national and non-governmental agencies. The UNHCR was given lead-agency responsibility for the protection, camp management and emergency shelter clusters – those most relevant to IDP. The introduction of this approach has raised the IDP profile on the international political and humanitarian agenda. Additionally, at the direction of the UN Secretary-General, and in recognition of the fact that there are now more than 25 million IDP compared with 10 million refugees, the UNHCR was instructed to
“reposition itself to provide protection and assistance for displaced people in need, regardless of whether they have crossed an international border.”
However, it has to be recognised that the UNHCR, subject as it is to the control of the Security Council, will always be politically constrained in the approach and level of involvement it can bring to many of the most critical IDP situations. It may well be that the best placed agencies to assist in these sensitive locations are some of the many NGOs e.g. the International Red Cross and Red Crescent.
An example
In May 2005 the Zimbabwean government launched a campaign of forcible evictions and demolitions in high density urban areas. This campaign, called Operation Murambatsvina (officially Operation Restore Order, but in the Shona language means “clear the filth”) was described by the government as part of a long-term plan to rid the cities of the numerous illegal businesses that had sprung as a result of the deteriorating economic and political situation. However, most observers believe that it was part of the government’s efforts to disperse the enclaves of urban poor to the rural areas in attempt to prevent mass uprisings. A month after the commencement of this operation the UN sent a Special Envoy to report on the matter. In her report she estimated 700,000 people (6% of the total population) lost their homes, livelihood or both as a result of the evictions.
Although, following the report, many senior UN officials, including the Secretary-General, have spoken out about the IDP situation in Zimbabwe very little has been done to address the crisis. Observers have noted that the forcible evictions under Operation Murambatsvina continue to this day, the UN have made no attempt to re-assess the magnitude of the problem. Under the auspices of UNHCHR, plans have been made to extend the scope of humanitarian operations within Zimbabwe and, resulting from a direct plea from the Secretary-General to President Mugabwe, the Zimbabwean government agreed to accept humanitarian aid after initially rejecting it. However, there appears to have been little attempt at a political level to ensure that the Zimbabwean government honours its international obligations towards the protection of its citizens and the prospects for the resolution of this particular IDP problem remain bleak.
Conclusion
IDP are typically, if not invariably, the outcome of major abuse of human rights. In most cases their needs and the circumstances of their plight are identical to those of refugees yet the international response to the numerous IDP crises is insignificant compared to the attention afforded to refugees. Because they do not cross their national borders the international community seems content to leave the resolution of the IDP problem to the displaced’s own national governments. This imbalance in attention is reflected within the study of international relations. While there is an extensive body of work on migration in general and on refugees in particular, there seems to have been comparatively little research on the specific issue of IDP.
While efforts continue at the international level to deliver ever more effective humanitarian response to IDP crises there is an imperative need for the international community to develop solutions to the political problems that are the root of most conflicts that give rise to displacement. By raising the profile of IDP issues in the academic study of international relations influence can be brought upon those in power to address these pandemic instances of breaches of fundamental human rights.
Bibliography
International Committee of the Red Cross (January 2007) Internally Displaced People, Geneva, ICRC, p3.
International Displacement Monitoring Centre (April 2007) Global Overview of Trends and Developments in 2006, p12.
United Nations (1998) E/CN.4/1998/53/Add.2 Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, Annex para 2.
United Nations (20th September 2005) A/RES/60/1 2005 World Summit Outcome Document, para.138
United Nations (9th November 2006) Delivering as One – Report of the Secretary-General’s High-level Panel, para.22.
United Nations Resolution (28th April 2006) S/RES/1674 (2006), paras.11-16.
Other Sources
Human Rights Watch (December 2005) Zimbabwe: Evicted and Forsaken Internally displaced persons in the aftermath of Operation Murambatsvina Section 3, [available online] http://hrw.org/reports/2005/zim1205/index.htm (accessed 3rd December 2007)
International Displacement Monitoring Centre Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement available from http://www.internal-displacement.org/8025708F004D404D/(httpPages)/168DF53B7A5D0A8C802570F800518B64?OpenDocument [accessed 2nd December 2007]
United Nations, Kajumulo Tibaijuka, Anna (July 22, 2005) Report of the Fact-Finding Missions to Zimbabwe to Assess the Scope and Impact of Operation Murambatsvina [available online], http://www.unhabitat.org/documents/ZimbabweReport.pdf (accessed 3rd December 2007).
We provide a professional essay writing service that thousands of our customers use as an effective way of improving their grades, improving their research and saving them lots of time.
