The needs of refugee women: a human-rights perspective

While the issue of giving women their human rights has been firmly placed on the agendas of international conferences, the plight of refugee women has gone largely unrecognized. Refugee women face rape, sexual abuse, sexual extortion, and physical insecurity. Such violations precipitate their flight, characterize their attempts to gain refugee status, and continue during their tenure in refugee camps, where they are excluded from positions of authority. Because the definition of refugees in the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees omits sex as a grounds for determining refugee status or as a grounds on which it prohibits discrimination based on sex, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees decided in 1985 that such claims must fall under the classification of membership of a particular group. Unfortunately, agreement with this is discretionary for states. It has been argued that states which protect aliens from discrimination based on sex must afford the same privilege to refugees, but, again, such behavior is subject to debate. Concerns about the human rights of refugee women should be strengthened by being addressed in the existing framework of human rights conventions in international law, such as the Commission on the Status of Women and the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). One recent advance in this area was the establishment of the Yugoslav and Rwanda War Crimes Tribunals which will investigate the sexual abuse of women during the armed conflicts. The issue of violence against women in every situation must remain on CEDAW's agenda. In addition, the Fourth World Conference on Women provides a welcome opportunity to place these issues in the forefront of global efforts to protect women.     

Rights Spaces: An Exploration of Feminist Approaches to Refugee Law

The exigent needs of refugee women necessitate feminist attempts to use legal mechanisms, however imperfect, to their benefit. However, the temptation to overestimate the importance of feminist gains in this realm must be avoided due to current constraints within the international refugee regime. Most forcibly displaced persons never reach the borders of western countries to claim asylum. Moreover, western 'refugee-receiving' countries are effectively closing their borders to migration claimed on strictly humanitarian grounds. Therefore, while feminists have successfully claimed a place for refugee women within protective rights mechanisms, they have been granted only a small portion of what is already extremely finite territory. Given this troubling state of affairs, I suggest that although proven avenues within refugee law must not be abandoned, the time is right for the sustained exploration of new and creative modes of engagement within refugee rights discourse. In this vein, the second half of the paper draws extensively upon the work of feminist legal theorist Jennifer Nedelsky to suggestively consider some possible alternatives for feminist theory and praxis.     

A Tale of Two Solitudes: Comparing Conflict and Development-induced Internal Displacement and Involuntary Resettlement

Development projects and war regularly lead to the internal displacement and involuntary resettlement of tens of millions of people each year. Though most “internally displaced people” settle spontaneously, a significant proportion is involuntarily resettled into planned “camps” and “settlements”. This article is primarily concerned with a relatively understudied category of forced migration studies: resettlement. It contends that until very recently, the theory, policy, and practice of resettlement for people internally displaced by development and war have been treated as intellectually and practically exclusive. Decision makers and scholars working on the subject are frequently beholden to narrow disciplinary and bureaucratic interests and are unable or unwilling to look across institutional boundaries. As a result, policies and programmes intended to resettle populations have been clustered into two discrete (and disparate) narratives. Each of these draw from distinct normative moorings, government and non‐governmental interpretations of “success” and “failure” and a division of labour closely tailored to the disciplines and expertise of those in the development and humanitarian communities. Though arising from separate traditions and conceived exclusively by donors, policy makers, and scholars, this article contends that they actually share many common features. Drawing on a vast and rapidly growing literature, this article seeks to frame the key debates on development and war‐induced internal displacement and resettlement. It begins with an overview of definitional issues — including “internal displacement” and “resettlement”— two concepts that are regularly contested and misunderstood. The article observes that the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement have, to some extent, clarified the rights of development and conflict‐induced internally displaced people, as well as the responsibilities of states. It notes that in practice, however, resettlement of both types of populations is treated separately. The article then turns to a number of seminal theoretical contributions to the study of development and conflict‐induced internal displacement and involuntary resettlement (DIDR and CIDR, respectively). The article highlights their separate evolution in theory and practice over time. It closes with a brief treatment of some of the common features of DIDR and CIDR, including their political economy, their institutional and bureaucratic logic, and similar patterns of impoverishment risks.     

Business and human rights governance and democratic legitimacy: the UN “Protect,Respect and Remedy” Framework and the Guiding Principles

Global Corporate Social Responsibility schemes have assumed an authoritative role in today's diversifying global business and human rights governance regime, yet scholarship has paid scant attention to their democratic credentials. This article analyzes the democratic legitimacy of the UN “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework and the corresponding Guiding Principles, as developed by the former UN Special Representative for Business and Human Rights, Professor Ruggie. Applying De Búrca's democracy striving approach, the article provides insights into how the design and actual performance of the six year mandate of the Special Representative meet the democratic ideal of equality, participation and accountability. The findings hold that, to guarantee the continuant striving for the fullest and equal participation of all stakeholders, further steps are warranted to ensure that individuals from the Global South can equally and meaningfully partake in the implementation process of the Guiding Principles and contest their authority if deeming them to fail to meet the normative expectations of the people.     

Immigration Detention under the Global Compacts in the Light of Refugee and Human Rights Law Standards

The article explores how immigration detention is addressed in the Global Compact on Refugees (GCR) and Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM) and investigates the potential implications of the compacts on the existing legal framework regulating the use of immigration detention. While Objective 13 of the GCM largely reflects detention‐related standards under international human rights law, the GCR makes only scarce references to detention in §60. Overall, the compacts risk inhibiting gradual endorsement of the norm of non‐detention of children. On the other hand, they rightly restate the priority for alternatives to detention for adults. States should implement the provisions of the compacts in line with their obligations under international human rights and refugee law. The compacts cannot be used as a pretext to lower domestic detention‐related standards or to diminish the validity of the existing framework governing immigration detention.     

International law and human rights: trends concerning international migrants and refugees

Not with standing human rights linkages, migrants and refugees are often on the periphery of effective international protection. State sovereignty and self-regarding notions of community are used to deny or dilute substantive and procedural guarantees. Recently, even non- discrimination as a fundamental principle has been questioned, as has the system of refugee protection. This article located both migrants and refugees squarely within the human rights context, contrasting both inalienable rights with the demands of sovereignty, and juxtaposing the 2 in a context of existing and developing international standards. Migration and refugee flows will go on, and the developed world, in particular, must address the consequences - legal, humanitarian, socioeconomic, and cultural. Racism and institutional denials of basic rights daily challenge the common interest. This article shows how the law must evolve, responding coherently to contemporary problems, if the structure of rights and freedoms is to be maintained.     

Report on the Workshop on Practical Protection in Humanitarian Crises

With a global crisis of approximately 15 million refugees and an estimated 20 to 25 million internally displaced persons (IDPs) in need of protection, the current protection regime is under increased scrutiny. "Practical Protection" is a fairly new concept. Those pursuing it aim to expand understanding and responsibilities for protection beyond those institutions with a specific protection mandate. "The Workshop on Practical Protection in Humanitarian Crises" was organized to bring the practical protection concept to representatives from a wide range of international agencies, governmental agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), who discussed its implications for their work in humanitarian crises.
Organizations with specific protection mandates, primarily the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC), work to protect uprooted groups through legal tools and recognized principles, often in the context of assistance programmes that provide shelter, food, water, medical care, education and other forms of humanitarian assistance. They work in collaboration with NGOs and other international organizations that focus primarily on assisting forced migrants. These latter agencies have traditionally avoided overt involvement in protection activities. When UNHCR and ICRC are not present or are over-extended, gaps in the protection regime emerge. The gap is particularly evident with regard to internally displaced and other war-affected populations, but it is present in most refugee situations as well.     

Connecting Tenure Security with Durable Solutions to Internal Displacement: From Restitution of Property Rights to the Right to Adequate Housing

The end of displacement is a main goal of international peacebuilding strategies, with increasing financial and human resources committed to it. Nevertheless, protracted internal displacement remains unabated, necessitating a review of the responses provided thus far. Durable solutions to internal displacement require a safe, permanent and secure place to settle, which puts security of tenure at the centre of any sustainable option. This article emphasizes the limited understanding of the factors that contribute to secure tenure as one of the main flaws in a predominantly legal approach to the right to restitution and the right to adequate housing in responses to internal displacement. It calls for the design of contextualized and inclusive strategies to align the de jure, de facto and perception dimensions of tenure security to support the sustainable settlement of internally displaced persons as well as the construction of peace.     

Best Practice Options: Yugoslavia

Several Cooperative Efforts to Manage Emigration (CEME) members visited the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) in early June 2001 to examine the new Government's approach to migration issues. We found that both the Federal Government and the Serb Republic are faced with three principal issues related to immigration and refugees that require substantial cooperation with North American and European countries that are donors of international aid, as well as recipients of Yugoslav migrants and third country nationals transiting the FRY.
First, they are faced with migration issues that the international community considers priorities, including demilitarizing border management; combating human smuggling and trafficking; and drafting and implementing an aliens law, which includes asylum policies and procedures consistent with international standards.
Second, they need to plan for the return or integration of 350,000 refugees from Croatia and Bosnia, and another 150,000 internally displaced Yugoslavs from Kosovo, primarily by offering dual citizenship in the FRY, and Croatia and Bosnia so refugees can integrate in the FRY, but retain rights and privileges according to Croatians or Bosnians.
Third, it is important to build bridges to Yugoslavs abroad in order to attract remittances and the return of the professionals needed to rebuild the FRY.     

Not Bound but Committed: Operationalizing the Global Compact on Refugees

The Global Compact on Refugees is not legally binding, but it gives rise to commitments by the international community as a whole. It is also rooted in international refugee law, international human rights law and international humanitarian law. This article addresses how the GCR cannot give rise to binding obligations in international law, yet provide for enhanced protection and assistance to refugees and hosting communities, and establish commitments for a fairer and more predictable sharing of burdens and responsibilities. It does this by reference to other non‐legally binding international documents and rules of law. Additionally, the use of indicators to measure states’ and other international actors’ performance in operationalizing the GCR provides a framework to measure commitments; coupled with greater humanitarian and development co‐operation, commitments can be better facilitated even if the GCR is not legally binding. Finally, the sharing of burdens and responsibilities is also fulfilled by the emphasis on solutions.     

Protecting and Benchmarking Migrants’ Rights: An Analysis of the Global Compact for Safe,Orderly and Regular Migration

The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration (GCM) was to be “guided by human rights law and standards” in recognition of the rights of international migrants, who are currently protected by an overlapping patchwork of treaties and international law. The GCM contains many laudable commitments that, if implemented, will ensure that states more consistently respect, protect, and fulfil the rights of all migrants and also that states incorporate data on migration into a more cohesive governance regime that does more to promote cooperation on the issue of international migration. However, many concerns remain. Using a legal analysis and cross‐national policy data, we find that the GCM neither fully articulates existing law nor makes use of international consensus to expand the rights of migrants. In its first section, this article provides a concise analysis of the GCM's compliance with a set of core principles of existing international human rights law regarding migrants. In the second section, we apply a novel instrument to create an objective, cross‐national accounting of the laws protecting migrants’ rights in various national legal frameworks. Focusing on a sample of five diverse destination and sending countries, the results suggest we are close to an international consensus on the protection of a core set of migrants’ rights. This analysis should help prioritize the work necessary to implement the GCM.     

Internally Displaced Persons in Pursuit for Access to Justice: Ukraine

The article focuses on Eastern European region and, specifically, access to justice for the internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Ukraine, who currently form ninth largest group of such forced migrants in the world. It explains the roots and causes of the Ukrainian internal displacement; institutional and legal framework, Ukrainian IDPs operate in; their internal structure, needs and vulnerabilities. Examining access to justice, its dimensions and key components in universal and regional context, it then applies this framework to Ukrainian IDPs’ situation. Facing challenges starting from legal recognition of their IDP status to discrimination in social‐economic sphere, having a limited right to vote and no legal responsibility for violation of their specific rights and freedoms, Ukrainian IDPs have no other recourse but to pursue justice in the national courts. However, justice as result is not often achievable due to a barrier, which arguably, as a matter of policy, has been overlooked.     

Gendered Aspects of Conflict,Displacement and Peace Process in Turkey

The peace process in Turkey, since its inception, has not paid any attention to internal displacement or its gendered aspects. This study analyses how displaced women remember the gendered aspects of displacement and perceive reconciliation and peace. The analysis, based on interviews with 42 internally displaced women, shows that changing domestic and international contexts have substantive impact on how displaced women remember their stories and the meaning they attach to their ethnic identities. Consequently, it suggests that if the peace process is re‐initiated, leaders need to take into consideration that each component of reconciliation (justice, peace, trust towards the state, intergroup relations and truth‐telling) has different difficulties to be overcome when the gendered aspect of displacement is taken into account and consider return not only as a realistic demand but also as a political wish.     

The protection of migrant workers and international labour standards

International labor standards take the form of Conventions and Recommendations that embody the agreements reached by a 2/3 majority of the representatives of Governments, Employers, and Workers of International Labour Office (ILO) member states. Originally designed to guard against the danger that 1 country or other would keep down wages and working conditions to gain competitive advantage and thereby undermine advances elsewhere, international labor standards have also been inspired by humanitarian concerns--the visible plight of workers and the physical dangers of industrialization and by the notion of social justice, which embraces wellbeing and dignity, security, and equality as well as a measure of participation in economic and social matters. ILO standards apply to workers generally and therefore also to migrant workers, irrespective of the fact that the general standards are complemented by standards especially for migrant workers. The social security protection of migrant workers has been dealt with in ILO instruments primarily from the angle of equality of treatment but also from that of the maintenance of acquired rights and rights in course of acquisition, including the payment of benefits to entitled persons resident abroad. The ILO Conventions on migrant workers and the Recommendations which supplement them deal with practically all aspects of the work and life of non-nationals such as recruitment matters, information to be made available, contract conditions, medical examination and attention, customs, exemption for personal effects, assistance in settling into their new environment, vocational training, promotion at work, job security and alternative employment, liberty of movement, participation in the cultural life of the state as well as maintenance of their own culture, transfer of earnings and savings, family reunification and visits, appeal against unjustified termination of employment or expulsion, and return assistance. ILO's supervisory mechanism consists basically of a dialogue between the ILO and the Government that is responsible for a law, regulation, or practice alleged to be in contravention of principles it voluntarily accepted. The control machinery is often set in motion by workers' organizations. The UN General Assembly is currently elaborating a new instrument designed to cover both regular and irregular migrant workers and their families.     

The law of migrants

While it is acknowledged that international migration law is attracting increased interest, this law merely describes the conditions of admission, sojourn, employment, and exit of migrants, thus amounting in many respects to a restatement of the law of aliens considered in a different perspective. This article concentrates on the humanitarian aspects of migration law, in an attempt to determine the possibility of joint promotion and dissemination of human rights, international humanitarian law, refugee law, law of migrants, and relief law. Refugees are protected by a series of international legal instruments, both universal and regional, which are complemented, if need be, by resolutions of the competent bodies. 2 reasons why the law of migrants deserves to be highlighted and developed are: 1) we have seen that the characteristic aspects of migration are either ignored or only partially taken into account by existing law, and 2) it is important that individuals should be protected in every circumstance. There exists a relatively narrow basis for joint action; since this must be built on points of convergence, a preliminary step consists of identifying this common denominator. The forms which joint action may take can be less structured and reflected in the individual practice of each organization The sine qua non of successful joint action is an awareness of the enterprise's ultimate goal: to assure in every circumstance better protection for human beings, whatever their legal status may be.     

Humanitarianism with a Sovereign Face: UNHCR in the Global Undertow

This article examines the global forces that are responsible for the transformation of the meaning and practice of UNHCR's humanitarianism, and asks whether a transformation that enables the organization to become more deeply involved in the internal affairs of states is welcome or worrisome. I open by reviewing the changing relationship between multilateralism, sovereignty, and humanitarianism, and link that conceptual discussion to the international refugee regime. I then argue that the combination of state pressures and the normative principle of popular sovereignty enabled a more political and pragmatic UNHCR to widen its activities under the humanitarian banner and to become more deeply involved in the circumstances in the refugee‐producing country. This expanding humanitarian umbrella, I suggest, might be a stealth agent for a policy of containment and a threat to refugee rights. This possibility is suggested by recent debates over the category of internally displaced peoples; the decided preference for repatriation; and UNHCR's involvement in reintegration activities. These developments generate the worrisome possibility that a more pragmatic UNHCR is potentially (though unwittingly) implicated in a system of containment. I conclude by reflecting on UNHCR's role in global politics and the dangers of a sovereignty‐led humanitarianism.     

Human Rights of Migrants: Challenges of the New Decade

This review summarizes main trends, issues, debates, actors and initiatives regarding recognition and extension of protection of the human rights of migrants. Its premise is that the rule of law and universal notions of human rights are essential foundations for democratic society and social peace. Evidence demonstrates that violations of migrants' human rights are so widespread and commonplace that they are a defining feature of international migration today. About 150 million persons live outside their countries; in many States, legal application of human rights norms to non‐citizens is inadequate or seriously deficient, especially regarding irregular migrants. Extensive hostility against, abuse of and violence towards migrants and other non‐nationals has become much more visible worldwide in recent years. Research, documentation and analysis of the character and extent of problems and of effective remedies remain minimal. Resistance to recognition of migrants' rights is bound up in exploitation of migrants in marginal, low status, inadequately regulated or illegal sectors of economic activity. Unauthorized migrants are often treated as a reserve of flexible labour, outside the protection of labour safety, health, minimum wage and other standards, and easily deportable. Evidence on globalization points to worsening migration pressures in many parts of the world. Processes integral to globalization have intensified disruptive effects of modernization and capitalist development, contributing to economic insecurity and displacement for many. Extension of principles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights culminated in the 1990 International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. With little attention, progress in ratifications was very slow until two years ago. A global campaign revived attention; entry into force is likely in 2001. Comparative analysis notes that ILO migrant worker Conventions have generally achieved objectives but States have resisted adoption of any standards on treatment of non‐nationals. A counter‐offensive against human rights as universal, indivisible and inalienable underlies resistance to extension of human rights protection to migrants. A parallel trend is deliberate association of migration and migrants with criminality. Trafficking has emerged as a global theme contextualizing migration in a framework of combatting organized crime and criminality, subordinating human rights protections to control and anti‐crime measures. Intergovernmental cooperation on migration “management” is expanding rapidly, with functioning regional intergovernmental consultative processes in all regions, generally focused on strengthening inter‐state cooperation in controlling and preventing irregular migration through improved border controls, information sharing, return agreements and other measures. Efforts to defend human rights of migrants and combat xenophobia remain fragmented, limited in impact and starved of resources. Nonetheless, NGOs in all regions provide orientation, services and assistance to migrants, public education and advocating respect for migrants rights and dignity. Several international initiatives now highlight migrant protection concerns, notably the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights of Migrants, the Global Campaign promoting the 1990 UN Convention, UN General Assembly proclamation of International Migrants Day, the 2001 World Conference Against Racism and Xenophobia, anti‐discrimination activity by ILO, and training by IOM. Suggestions to governments emphasize the need to define comprehensive, coordinated migration policy and practice based on economic, social and development concerns rather than reactive control measures to ensure beneficial migration, social harmony, and dignified treatment of nationals and non‐nationals. NGOs, businesses, trade unions, and religious groups are urged to advocate respect for international standards, professionalize services and capacities, take leadership in opposing xenophobic behaviour, and join international initiatives. Need for increased attention to migrants rights initiatives and inter‐agency cooperation by international organizations is also noted.     

Democratizing the Refugee Regime Complex

This article considers how civil society organizations (CSOs) may be understood in relation to the global refugee regime complex. It describes how several leading scholars have conceptualized refugee/internally displaced person (IDP) governance and explores how the neoliberal cognitive frame is impeding the possibility of democratic agency among IDPs/refugees. It argues that CSOs can play essential roles in encouraging democratization of the refugee regime complex by working to reshape their prevailing frame or orientation. Civil society organizations can also work to foster critical reflexivity among the parties that govern refugees and within that population as well. As an example of one such effort, the article employs Fraser’s (Scales of justice: reimagining political space in a globalizing world. Columbia University Press, New York, 2010) democratization framework in a brief case analysis of the Sarvodaya Shramadana Deshodaya initiative in Sri Lanka that has sought to enable IDPs in that nation to embrace critical reflexivity to reimagine themselves as governing agents who can redefine state and international organization-based definitions of refugee protection. Overall, the analysis suggests that civil society organizations can act successfully and intentionally to open democratic spaces in which refugees/IDPs may find possibilities to exercise their innate agential possibility.     

Gender and governance of global value chains: Promoting the rights of women workers

Private governance channelled through social compliance programmes and gender initiatives of multinational companies have had limited impact in tackling gender discrimination in global value chains (GVCs). The United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) provide a public–private governance framework to address human rights globally, including gender equality. This article considers whether the UNGPs can provide a more effective governance framework for addressing women workers’ rights in GVCs. It argues that interlayered forms of governance (involving public, private and social actors) are critical in addressing gender discrimination in GVCs and advancing a gendered approach to human rights due diligence.