Английская Википедия:Internally displaced person

Материал из Онлайн справочника
Перейти к навигацииПерейти к поиску

Шаблон:Short description Шаблон:Infobox ethnic group An internally displaced person (IDP) is someone who is forced to leave their home but who remains within their country's borders.[1] They are often referred to as refugees, although they do not fall within the legal definitions of a refugee.[2]

Файл:Kibativillagers.jpg
Villagers fleeing gunfire in a camp for internally displaced persons during the 2008 Nord-Kivu war
Файл:Робоча поїздка Президента України на Запоріжжя 12.jpg
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy with internally displaced people during the Russian invasion of Ukraine
Файл:Lange-MigrantMother02.jpg
Okie mother and children, internally displaced by the Dust Bowl in the United States in the 1930s.

In 2022, it was estimated there were 70.5 million IDPs worldwide.[3] The first year for which global statistics on IDPs are available was in 1989. Шаблон:As of the countries with the largest IDP populations were Ukraine (8 million),[4][5][6][7] Syria (7.6 million), Ethiopia (5.5 million),[8] the Democratic Republic of the Congo (5.2 million), Colombia (4.9 million),[9] Yemen (4.3 million),[10] Afghanistan (3.8 million),[11] Iraq (3.6 million), Sudan (2.2 million), South Sudan (1.9 million), Pakistan (1.4 million), Nigeria (1.2 million) and Somalia (1.1 million).[12] More than 85% of Palestinians in Gaza (1.9 million) were internally displaced as of January 2024.[13]

The United Nations and the UNHCR support monitoring and analysis of worldwide IDPs through the Geneva-based Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre.[1][14]

Definition

Whereas 'refugee' has an authoritative definition under the 1951 Refugee Convention, there is no universal legal definition of internally displaced persons (IDP); only a regional treaty for African countries (see Kampala Convention). However, a United Nations report, Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement uses the definition of:

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 generalized violence, violations of human rights or natural or human-made disasters, and who have not crossed an internationally recognized State border.[15]

While the above stresses two important elements of internal displacement (coercion and the domestic/internal movement), rather than a strict definition the Guiding Principles offer "a descriptive identification of the category of persons whose needs are the concern of the Guiding Principles".[16] In this way, the document "intentionally steers toward flexibility rather than legal precision"[17] as the words "in particular" indicate that the list of reasons for displacement is not exhaustive. However, as Erin Mooney has pointed out, "global statistics on internal displacement generally count only IDPs uprooted by conflict and human rights violations. Moreover, a recent study has recommended that the IDP concept should be defined even more narrowly, to be limited to persons displaced by violence."[18] This outlook has become outdated, however, as natural disasters and slow-onset climate degradation have become the primary driving force behind internal displacement in recent years, although conflict remains the primary reason for pre-existing IDPs overall. [19] Climate displaced IDPs are therefore being given more attention overall through being recorded in statistics. Thus, despite the non-exhaustive reasons for internal displacement, many consider IDPs as those who would be defined as refugees if they were to cross an international border, hence, the term refugees in all but the name is often applied to IDPs.

IDP populations

It is very difficult to get accurate figures for internally displaced persons because populations are not constant. IDPs may be returning home while others are fleeing, and others may periodically return to IDP camps to take advantage of humanitarian aid. While the case of IDPs in large camps such as those in Darfur, western Sudan, are relatively well-reported, it is very difficult to assess those IDPs who flee to larger towns and cities. It is necessary for many instances to supplement official figures with additional information obtained from operational humanitarian organizations on the ground. Thus, the 24.5 million figure must be treated as an estimate.[20] Additionally, most official figures only include those displaced by conflict or natural disasters. Development-induced IDPs often are not included in assessments. It has been estimated that between 70 and 80% of all IDPs are women and children.[21]

50% of internally displaced people and refugees were thought to be in urban areas in 2010, many of them in protracted displacement with little likelihood of ever returning home. A 2013 study found that these protracted urban displacements had not been given due weight by international aid and governance as historically they had focused on rural cam displacement responses.[22] The study argues that this protracted urban displacement needs a fundamental change in the approach to those who are displaced and their host societies. They note that re-framing responses to urban displacement will also involve human rights and development actors and local and national governments. They call for a change in the narrative around the issue is needed to reflect ingenuity and fortitude displayed by displaced populations, the opportunities for self-sufficiency and safety represented by urban areas, and that the displaced can make a contribution to their host societies.[22] An updated country by country breakdown can be found online.[23]

Latest IDP population

The following table is a list of countries and territories by the number of Internally Displaced People (IDPs). According to Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC), the internal displacement figures refer to the number of forced movements of people within the borders of their country recorded during the year, and may include individuals who have been displaced more than once. The total number of IDPs is a snapshot of all the people living in internal displacements at the end of the year, and is the sum of the number of conflict IDPs and disaster IDPs. Шаблон:Table alignment

Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) (2022)[3]
Country / Territory Conflict Internal Displacement Conflict IDPs Disaster Internal Displacement Disaster IDPs Total IDPs
Шаблон:Flag 32,000 3,444,000 220,000 2,482,000 5,926,000
Шаблон:Flag 320
Шаблон:Flag 2,000 1,500 1,500
Шаблон:Flag 59 26 26
Шаблон:Flag 1,800
Шаблон:Flag 730
Шаблон:Flag 7,600 8,400 8,400
Шаблон:Flag 17,000 9,900 9,900
Шаблон:Flag 659,000 190 659,000
Шаблон:Flag 560 427,000 1,524,000 8,600 435,600
Шаблон:Flag 100
Шаблон:Flag 5,100 820 820
Шаблон:Flag 1,200 1,200 6,900 6,900 8,100
Шаблон:Flag 3,000 650 650
Шаблон:Flag 91,000 78 58 91,058
Шаблон:Flag 5,600 5,600 708,000 44,000 49,600
Шаблон:Flag 900 14 14
Шаблон:Flag 438,000 1,882,000 2,400 1,882,000
Шаблон:Flag 600 8,500 13,000 67,000 75,500
Шаблон:Flag 28,000 3,900 3,900
Шаблон:Flag 139,000 987,000 66,000 23,000 1,010,000
Шаблон:Flag 15,000 280 280
Шаблон:Flag 290,000 516,000 77,000 516,000
Шаблон:Flag 80,000 300,000 158,000 300,000
Шаблон:Flag 1,500 1,500 1,500
Шаблон:Flag 3,632,000 146,000 146,000
Шаблон:Flag 339,000 4,766,000 281,000 41,000 4,807,000
Шаблон:Flag 27,000 42,000 201,000 228,000
Шаблон:Flag 7
Шаблон:Flag 1,600
Шаблон:Flag 302,000 2,500 302,000
Шаблон:Flag 100 38 38
Шаблон:Flag 90,000
Шаблон:Flag 246,000 54 246,000
Шаблон:Flag 4,004,000 5,686,000 423,000 283,000 5,969,000
Шаблон:Flag 20
Шаблон:Flag 6,100
Шаблон:Flag 54,000 7,900 7,900
Шаблон:Flag 6,400 2,200 2,200
Шаблон:Flag 73,000 52,000 4,600 52,000
Шаблон:Flag 360 360 360
Шаблон:Flag 2,032,000 3,852,000 873,000 717,000 4,569,000
Шаблон:Flag 4,800 400 400
Шаблон:Flag 8
Шаблон:Flag 45,000 44 44
Шаблон:Flag 17
Шаблон:Flag 7,800 5,600 7,000 5,600
Шаблон:Flag 308,000 430 31,000 339,000
Шаблон:Flag 630
Шаблон:Flag 2,700 5,900 5,900
Шаблон:Flag 710 60 60
Шаблон:Flag 140
Шаблон:Flag 5 242,000 74,000 7,900 249,900
Шаблон:Flag 340
Шаблон:Flag 120
Шаблон:Flag 106,000 171,000 15,000 24,000 195,000
Шаблон:Flag 260 247,000 46,000 3,900 250,900
Шаблон:Flag 330
Шаблон:Flag 56
Шаблон:Flag 1,000 631,000 2,507,000 32,000 663,000
Шаблон:Flag 7,100 72,000 308,000 68,000 140,000
Шаблон:Flag 42,000 390 390
Шаблон:Flag 32,000 1,169,000 51,000 69,000 1,238,000
Шаблон:Flag 26
Шаблон:Flag 1,100
Шаблон:Flag 4,100 300 300
Шаблон:Flag 51,000 45,000 6,000
Шаблон:Flag 120 120 4,000 14 134
Шаблон:Flag 15,000 30,000 318,000 373,000 403,000
Шаблон:Flag 16,000 120 16,000
Шаблон:Flag 14
Шаблон:Flag 166,000 4,000 1,700 4 4,004
Шаблон:Flag 560 560 560
Шаблон:Flag 27
Шаблон:Flag 35
Шаблон:Flag 360 135,000 135,000
Шаблон:Flag 2,800 291,000 68,000 70,800
Шаблон:Flag 297,000
Шаблон:Flag 156,000 680 680
Шаблон:Flag 370
Шаблон:Flag 154,000 380,000 24,000 32,000 412,000
Шаблон:Flag 28 28 28
Шаблон:Flag 23,000 23,000 23,000
Шаблон:Flag 140
Шаблон:Flag 8 8
Шаблон:Flag 9,200 386,000 11,000 3,600 389,600
Шаблон:Flag 75 75 75
Шаблон:Flag 9,500
Шаблон:Flag 283,000 1,030,000 113,000 127,000 1,157,000
Шаблон:Flag 1,006,000 1,498,000 13,000 3,000 1,501,000
Шаблон:Flag 93,000 58,000 58,000
Шаблон:Flag 150 170 150
Шаблон:Flag 2,800 150 150
Шаблон:Flag 77 16,000 11 88
Шаблон:Flag 101,000 372,000 248,000 5,100 377,100
Шаблон:Flag 148,000 3,646,000 2,437,000 854,000 4,500,000
Шаблон:Flag 200
Шаблон:Flag 110 110
Шаблон:Flag 170
Шаблон:Flag 45
Шаблон:Flag 680 21,000 8,168,000 1,025,000 1,046,000
Шаблон:Flag 1,800 12,000 250 12,000
Шаблон:Flag 460
Шаблон:Flag 64,000 94,000 9,600 190 94,190
Шаблон:Flag 73,000 24,000 29,000 102,000
Шаблон:Flag 123,000 102,000 5,453,000 533,000 635,000
Шаблон:Flag 4,500 3 3
Шаблон:Flag 49,000 58 58
Шаблон:Flag 160
Шаблон:Flag 7,100 7,500 2,700 28 7,528
Шаблон:Flag 7,800 3,600 3,600
Шаблон:Flag 14
Шаблон:Flag 240
Шаблон:Flag 8,400 12,000 460 8,860
Шаблон:Flag 195,000 1 195,000
Шаблон:Flag 3,000 800 3,000
Шаблон:Flag 500
Шаблон:Flag 1,000 11 11 1,011
Шаблон:Flag 621,000 3,864,000 1,152,000 3,864,000
Шаблон:Flag 62,000 220 220
Шаблон:Flag 30,000 5,100 5,100
Шаблон:Flag 337,000 1,475,000 596,000 665,000 2,140,000
Шаблон:Flag 31,000 10 10
Шаблон:Flag 12,000 11,000 23 12,023
Шаблон:Flag 560
Шаблон:Flag 3 3 3
Шаблон:Flag 314,000 3,553,000 105,000 227,000 3,780,000
Шаблон:Flag 1,500
Шаблон:Flag 66 4 4
Шаблон:Flag 171,000 6,865,000 21,000 6,865,000
Шаблон:Flag 1,700
Шаблон:Flag 260 18 18
Шаблон:Flag 4,200 2,200 2,200
Шаблон:Flag 41,000 22,000 680 41,680
Шаблон:Flag 2,300 2,300 16,000 4,700 7,000
Шаблон:Flag 2,400 260 260
Шаблон:Flag 40 7 7
Шаблон:Flag 2,000
Шаблон:Flag 1,099,000 6,900 52 1,099,052
Шаблон:Flag 160
Шаблон:Flag 2,000 4,800 34,000 38,000 42,800
Шаблон:Flag 16,870,000 5,914,000 1 5,914,000
Шаблон:Flag 1,900 80 80
Шаблон:Flag 675,000 543,000 543,000
Шаблон:Flag 800
Шаблон:Flag 170
Шаблон:Flag 390
Шаблон:Flag 13,000 9,900 9,900
Шаблон:Flag 353,000 2,200 2,200
Шаблон:Flag 276,000 4,523,000 171,000 4,523,000
Шаблон:Flag 3,600 3,600 3,600
Шаблон:Flag 1,300
Total 28,270,385 61,476,565 32,541,165 8,978,169 70,454,734

Historical IDP populations

UNHCR registered IDPs and people in IDP-like situations by country/territory between 2007 and 2014[24]
Country/territory 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Afghanistan 129,300 153,700 230,700 297,100 351,900 447,500 486,300 631,300
Azerbaijan 686,600 686,600 603,300 586,000 592,900 599,200 600,300 609,000
Bosnia and Herzegovina 135,500 131,000 124,500 113,600 113,400 113,000 103,400 84,500
Burundi 13,900 100,000 100,000 100,000 157,200 78,800 78,900 78,900
CAR 147,000 197,000 197,000 197,000 192,500 106,200 51,700 894,400
Chad 112,700 178,900 166,700 170,500 231,000 124,000 90,000 19,800
Colombia 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,304,000 3,672,100 3,888,300 3,943,500 5,368,100
Congo 3,500
Côte d'Ivoire 709,200 709,000 686,000 519,100 517,100 126,700 45,000 24,000
Croatia 4,000 2,900 2,500 2,300 2,100
DRC 1,075,300 1,317,900 1,460,100 2,050,700 1,721,400 1,709,300 2,669,100 2,963,800
Georgia 246,000 271,300 329,800 352,600 360,000 274,000 279,800 257,600
Iraq 1,834,400 2,481,000 2,647,300 1,552,000 1,343,600 1,332,400 1,131,800 954,100
Kenya 250,000 404,000 399,000 300,000 300,000
Kyrgyzstan 80,000 163,900
Lebanon 200,000 70,000
Libya 93,600 59,400 53,600
Mali 227,900 254,800
Montenegro 16,200 16,200
Myanmar 58,500 67,300 67,300 62,000 239,200 339,200 430,400 372,000
Nepal 100,000 50,000
Nigeria 360,000
Pakistan 155,800 155,800 1,894,600 952,000 452,900 758,000 747,500
Philippines 139,500 159,500 1,200 117,400
Russia 158,900 263,700 91,500 79,900 75,400
Serbia 227,600 226,400 225,900 224,900 228,400 228,200 227,800 227,500
Somalia 400,000 1,000,000 1,277,200 1,392,300 1,463,800 1,356,800 1,133,000 1,133,000
South Sudan 223,700 209,700 345,700 331,100
Sri Lanka 469,000 459,600 504,800 434,900 273,800 138,400 93,500 42,200
Sudan 1,325,200 1,225,000 1,201,000 1,079,100 1,602,200 2,033,100 1,873,300 1,873,300
Syria 2,016,500 6,520,800
East Timor 155,200 62,600 15,900
Uganda 1,814,900 1,236,000 853,000 428,600 125,600
Yemen 77,000 100,000 250,000 193,700 347,300 385,300 306,600
Zimbabwe 54,300 57,900 60,100
Country/territory 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Файл:Vernissage de l’exposition photo de la MONUSCO organisée du 22 mai au 6 juin dans le cadre du 70e anniversaire de l’ONU. (17973659876).jpg
Official opening of MONUSCO's photo exhibition organized in the framework of the 70th anniversary of the United Nations. In the photo are the Head of MONUSCO, Martin Kobler (1st left), Lambert Mende (middle), and the Director of MONUSCO Public Information Division, Charles Antoine Bambara, commenting on a picture showing an internally displaced person.
Файл:Kosovo-metohija-koreni-duse004.jpg
Serbian and other non-Albanian refugees during Kosovo War. Serbia is home to highest number of refugees and IDPs in Europe.[25][26][27]

Protection and assistance

The problem of protecting and assisting IDPs is not a new issue. In international law it is the responsibility of the government concerned to provide assistance and protection for the IDPs in their country. However, as many of the displaced are a result of civil conflict and violence or where the authority of the central state is in doubt, there is no local authority willing to provide assistance and protection.[28] It has been estimated that some 5 million IDPs in 11 countries are "without any significant humanitarian assistance from their governments."[21] Under these circumstances rehabilitation policies on humanitarian grounds should be aimed at reducing inequality of opportunity among these vulnerable groups by integrating them into local social services and allowing them access to jobs, education, and healthcare opportunities; otherwise new conflicts might break out.[29]

Unlike the case of refugees, there is no international humanitarian institution which has the overall responsibility of protecting and assisting the refugees as well as the internally displaced. A number of organizations have stepped into the breach in specific circumstances.

UNHCR

The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) was mandated by General Assembly Resolution 428 (V) of 14 December 1950 to "lead and coordinate international action for the worldwide protection of refugees and the resolution of refugee problems.... guided by the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol."[30] The UNHCR has traditionally argued that it does not have an exclusive mandate for IDPs[31] even though at least since 1972 it had relief and rehabilitation programs for those displaced within a country. Until the mid-2000s, it conditioned involvement to cases where there is a specific request by the UN Secretary-General and with the consent of the State concerned it has been willing to respond by assisting IDPs in a given instance.[32] In 2005 it was helping some 5.6 million IDPs (out of over 25 million), but only about 1.1 million in Africa.[33][34]

In 2005, the UNHCR signed an agreement with other humanitarian agencies. "Under this agreement, UNHCR will assume the lead responsibility for protection, emergency shelter and camp management for internally displaced people."[35] In 2019, UNHCR issued an updated IDP policy that reaffirms its commitment to engaging decisively and predictably in situations of internal displacement.[36]

ICRC

The International Committee of the Red Cross has a mandate of ensuring the application of international humanitarian law as it affects civilians in the midst of armed conflict. They have traditionally not distinguished between civilians who are internally displaced and those who remain in their homes. In a 2006 policy statement, the ICRC stated:

The ICRC's overall objective is to alleviate the suffering of people who are caught up in armed conflict and other situations of violence. To that end, the organization strives to provide effective and efficient assistance and protection for such persons, be they displaced or not, while taking into consideration the action of other humanitarian organizations. On the basis of its long experience in different parts of the world, the ICRC has defined an operational approach towards the civilian population as a whole that is designed to meet the most urgent humanitarian needs of both displaced persons and local and host communities.[37]

However, its Director of Operations has earlier recognized that IDPs "deprived of shelter and their habitual sources of food, water, medicine and money, they have different, and often more urgent, material needs."[38]

Collaborative approach

The previous system set up internationally to address the needs of IDPs was referred to as the collaborative approach as the responsibility for protecting and assisting IDPs was shared among the UN agencies, i.e. UNHCR, Unicef, WFP, UNDP, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the International Organization for Migration (IOM), the ICRC and international NGOs. Coordination is the responsibility of the UN Emergency Relief Coordinator and the Humanitarian Coordinator in the country concerned.[39] They are assisted by the Inter-Agency Displacement Division, which was created in 2004 and is housed in the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).[40]

The original collaborative approach has come under increasing criticism. Roberta Cohen reports:

Nearly every UN and independent evaluation has found the collaborative approach deficient when it comes to IDPs. To begin with, there is no real focus of responsibility in the field for assisting and protecting... There is also no predictability of action, as the different agencies are free to pick and choose the situations in which they wish to become involved on the basis of their respective mandates, resources, and interests. In every new emergency, no one knows for sure which agency or combination thereof will become involved.[41]

In 2005 there was an attempt to fix the problem by giving sectoral responsibilities to different humanitarian agencies, most notably with the UNHCR taking on the responsibility for the protection and the management of camps and emergency shelters.[41] The Forced Migration Review stated that the "abnegation of responsibility is possible because there is no formal responsibility apportioned to agencies under the Collaborative Response, and thus no accountability when agencies renege on their promises."[42]

Similarly, research on refugees has suggested a cross-sector collaboration as a key means to assist displaced people.[43]

Cluster approach

Шаблон:Unreferenced section The cluster approach designates individual agencies as 'sector leaders' to coordinate operations in specific areas to try to plug those newly identified gaps. The cluster approach was conceived amid concerns about coordination and capacity that arose from the weak operational response to the crisis in Darfur in 2004 and 2005, and the critical findings of the Humanitarian Response Review (HRR) commissioned by the then ERC, Jan Egeland. Egeland called for strengthening the leadership of the sectors, and introduced the concept of "clusters" at different levels (headquarters, regional, country and operational)'.

The cluster approach operates on the global and local levels. At the global level, the approach is meant to build up capacity in eleven key 'gap' areas by developing better surge capacity, ensuring consistent access to appropriately trained technical expertise and enhanced material stockpiles, and securing the increased engagement of all relevant humanitarian partners. At the field level, the cluster approach strengthens the coordination and response capacity by mobilizing clusters of humanitarian agencies (UN/Red Cross-Red Crescent/IOs/NGOs) to respond in particular sectors or areas of activity, each cluster having a clearly designated and accountable lead, as agreed by the HC and the Country Team. Designated lead agencies at the global level both participate directly in operations, but also coordinate with and oversee other organizations within their specific spheres, reporting the results up through a designated chain of command to the ERC at the summit. However, lead agencies are responsible as "providers of last resort", which represents the commitment of cluster leads to do their utmost to ensure an adequate and appropriate response in their respective areas of responsibility. The cluster approach was part of a package of reforms accepted by the IASC in December 2005 and subsequently applied in eight chronic humanitarian crises and six sudden-onset emergencies. However, the reform was originally rolled out and evaluated in four countries: DRC, Liberia, Somalia and Uganda.

The clusters were originally concentrated in nine areas:

  1. Logistics (WFP)
  2. Emergency Telecommunications Cluster (WFP)
  3. Camp Coordination and Camp Management (UNHCR for conflict-generated IDPs and IOM for natural disaster-generated IDPs)
  4. Shelter (IFRC for natural disasters; UNHCR for conflict situations)
  5. Health (WHO)
  6. Nutrition (UNICEF)
  7. Water, sanitation, and hygiene promotion (UNICEF)
  8. Early recovery (UNDP); and
  9. Protection (UNHCR for conflict-generated IDPs, UNHCR, UNICEF, and OHCHR for natural disaster-generated IDPs).

IASC Principles deemed it unnecessary to apply the cluster approach to four sectors where no significant gaps were detected: a) food, led by WFP; b) refugees, led by UNHCR; c) education, led by UNICEF; and d) agriculture, led by FAO.

The original nine clusters were later expanded to include agriculture and education.

International law

Unlike the case of refugees, there is no international universal treaty which applies specifically to IDPs. Only a regional treaty for African countries has been established (see Kampala Convention). Some other countries have advocated re-thinking the definitions and protections for refugees to apply to IDPs, but so far no solid actions have come to fruition.[44][45] Recognizing the gap, the UN Secretary-General, Boutros-Ghali appointed Francis Deng in 1992 as his representative for internally displaced persons. Besides acting as an advocate for IDPs, Deng set out in 1994, at the request of the UN General Assembly to examine and bring together existing international laws which relate to the protection of IDPs.[46] The result of this work was the document, Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement.[15]

The Guiding Principles lay out the responsibilities of states before displacement – that is, to prevent displacement – during and after displacement. They have been endorsed by the UN General Assembly, the African Commission on Human and People's Rights (ACHPR) and by the signatories to the 2006 Pact on Security, Stability and Development in the Great Lakes Region, which include Sudan, DRC and Uganda.

The Guiding Principles, however, are non-binding. As Bahame Tom Nyanduga, Special Rapporteur on Refugees, IDPs and Asylum Seekers in Africa for the ACHPR has stated, "the absence of a binding international legal regime on internal displacement is a grave lacuna in international law."[47]

In September 2004 the Secretary-General of the UN showed the continuing concern of his office by appointing Walter Kälin as his Representative on the Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons. Part of his mandate includes the promoting of the Guiding Principles.[48]

Right of return

In so-called "post-conflict" situations, there has traditionally been an emphasis in the international community to seek to return to the pre-war status quo.[49] However, opinions are gradually changing, because violent conflict destroys political, economic and social structures and new structures develop as a result, quite often irreversibly.[49] Furthermore, returning to the pre-war status-quo may actually be undesirable if pre-war structures led to the conflict in the first place, or prevented its early resolution. IDPs' and refugees' right of return can represent one of the most complex aspects of this issue.[49]

Normally, pressure is applied by the international community and humanitarian organization to ensure displaced people are able to return to their areas of origin and the same property.[49] The UN Principles for Housing and Property Restitution for Refugees and IDPs, otherwise known as the Pinheiro Principles, provides guidance on the management of the technical and legal aspects of housing, land and property (HLP) restitution.[49] Restitution rights are of key importance to IDPs and refugees around the world, and important to try preventing aggressors benefiting from conflict.[49] However, without a clear understanding of each local context, full restitution rights can be unworkable and fail to protect the people it is designed to protect for the following reasons, refugees and IDPs:[49]

  • may never have had property (e.g. in Afghanistan);
  • cannot access what property they have (Colombia, Guatemala, South Africa and Sudan);
  • ownership is unclear as families have expanded or split and division of the land becomes an issue;
  • death of the owner may leave dependents without a clear claim to the land;
  • people settled on the land know it is not theirs but have nowhere else to go (as in Colombia, Rwanda and Timor-Leste); and
  • have competing claims with others, including the state and its foreign or local business partners (as in Aceh, Angola, Colombia, Liberia and Sudan)

Researchers at the Overseas Development Institute stress the need for humanitarian organization to develop greater expertise in these issues, using experts who have knowledge in both humanitarian and land and property issues and so provide better advice to state actors seeking to resolve these issues.[49] The ODI calls on humanitarian agencies to develop an awareness of sustainable reintegration as part of their emphasis on returning IDPs and refugees home.[49] Legal advice needs to be provided to all parties involved even if a framework is created in which to resolve these issues.[49]

See also

Notes

Шаблон:Reflist

References

  • The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Refugees by Numbers.
  • Ilaria Bottigliero, "Displaced Persons Caught between War and Peace in Asia", 2 ISIL Yearbook of International Humanitarian and Refugee Law (2002), pp. 117–133.
  • Шаблон:Cite book

External links

Шаблон:Wikibooks Шаблон:Commons category

  1. 1,0 1,1 Шаблон:Cite web
  2. Шаблон:Cite web
  3. 3,0 3,1 Шаблон:Cite web
  4. Шаблон:Cite web
  5. Шаблон:Cite web
  6. Шаблон:Cite web
  7. Шаблон:Cite web
  8. Шаблон:Cite news
  9. Шаблон:Cite news
  10. Шаблон:Cite news
  11. Шаблон:Cite news
  12. Шаблон:Cite web
  13. Шаблон:Cite news
  14. IDMC at the UNHCR website Шаблон:Webarchive: "At the request of the United Nations, the Geneva-based IDMC runs an online database providing comprehensive information and analysis on internal displacement in some 50 countries."
  15. 15,0 15,1 Шаблон:Cite book
  16. KALIN, G. "Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement. Annotations." The American Society of International Law & The Brookings Institution Project on Internal Displacement. Studies in Transnational Legal Policy, No. 32, 2000.
  17. VINCENT, M, "IDPs: rights and status", Forced Migration Review, August 2000, p. 30.
  18. MOONEY, E. "The Concept of Internal Displacement and the Case for Internally Displaced Persons as a Category of Concern." Refugee Survey Quarterly. (24) 3, 2005, p. 12.
  19. IMDC (2022) "Global Report on Internal Displacement 2022." Geneva: Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, Norwegian Refugee Council. P. 12
  20. Шаблон:Cite bookp. 13
  21. 21,0 21,1 Шаблон:Cite bookp. 6
  22. 22,0 22,1 Шаблон:Cite web
  23. Шаблон:Cite web
  24. Шаблон:Cite web
  25. Шаблон:Cite web
  26. Шаблон:Cite web
  27. Шаблон:Cite book
  28. Шаблон:Cite bookp. 264
  29. Шаблон:Cite book
  30. Шаблон:Cite web
  31. Шаблон:Cite web
  32. Шаблон:Cite bookp. 266
  33. Roberta Cohen in Шаблон:Cite bookp. 15
  34. Шаблон:Cite journal p. 106
  35. Шаблон:Cite web
  36. Шаблон:Cite web
  37. Шаблон:Cite web
  38. Шаблон:Cite news
  39. Шаблон:Cite book
  40. Шаблон:Cite web
  41. 41,0 41,1 Шаблон:Cite journalp. 105
  42. DAVIES, A. and MURRAY, M.W., "Implementation of the Collaborative Response in Liberia", Forced Migration Review. IDP Supplement. October 2005, p. 17.
  43. Шаблон:Cite journal
  44. Шаблон:Cite journal
  45. Шаблон:Cite book
  46. Roberta Cohen in Шаблон:Cite bookp. 20
  47. Шаблон:Cite journal
  48. Шаблон:Cite web
  49. 49,0 49,1 49,2 49,3 49,4 49,5 49,6 49,7 49,8 49,9 Шаблон:Cite web