Archives

Internally Displaced People (IDPs) are those "people who take flight within the boundaries of their home countries.... These people are forced to seek safety not through asylum in a second state, but before their own governments and within the confines of national borders." The ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka has displaced over one million people, most of whom are fishermen, subsistence farmers, agricultural labourers or unemployed.

Many IDPs are drawn from the most vulnerable sectors of society, including war widows, families that have lost their breadwinners, and children. They live in welfare centers, with family and friends, many of whom do not receive food rations.

The reduction in the number of IDPs is crucial to the rehabilitation of the North and East of Sri Lanka after the cessation of hostilities. However, there has been little discussion among analysts as to determining when displacement ends. Understanding when internal displacement ends is essential for the compilation of reliable statistics, the formulation of government and international programs and policies, and for the propagation of information regarding the benefits and restrictions associated with IDP status.

The end of IDP status has thus far been decided in other countries on an and hoc basis that has, at times, prematurely rescinded IDP status, causing individuals that continue to suffer the ill-effects of internal displacement to be ignored.

In order to assess the end of IDP status, analysts have looked to both the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement and Refugee Law with limited success. Three criteria for the end of IDP status can be deduced. First, one can examine the cause-based criteria of changed circumstances in order to determine the cessation of IDP status.

A person ceases to be an IDP when the circumstances that originally caused him to become an IDP no longer exist. Similar to the UNHCR determination for safe return of refugees, this changed circumstance should be a 'fundamental,' 'stable,' 'durable,' and 'effective' political transformation that has lasted at least one year. Second, solution-based criteria focus attention on either return of the IDP to his home community or relocation to another community.

When either return or relocation occur, international and/or domestic protection becomes unnecessary. Third, needs-based criteria focus on the IDP's specific needs and vulnerabilities. In this case, the IDPs should have a comparable situation to the local population with regards to physical safety, public services and political participation.

While these criteria provide a foundation for assessing the end of IDP status, a number of problems remain. First, the "return" aspect of the end of IDP status is subject to debate.

Whereas Refugee Law can simply define return as resettlement in the home country or resettlement as the achievement of citizenship in another state, the government must assess the safety of return for IDPs on a local rather than national basis. Changed circumstances might exist in a particular village or home area while they do not exist on the national level.

The meaning of return is further complicated by uncertainty as to how to define "return". Must an IDP literally return to his home, to his town, or simply to his area of origin in order to be considered to have returned? Focus on the home is not always viable because often, those homes have been reoccupied or do not exist. Thus, the question arises of how much emphasis should be placed on compensation or restitution of property, which further complicates matters. Is compensation or restitution necessary for IDP status to be considered resolved? If so, do demands for compensation or restitution slow down attempts to resolve the IDP problem?

Second, is the determination that safe and voluntary return is possible a sufficient condition for the cessation of IDP status? Even though the government or an international agency might consider an area safe for return, the IDPs themselves might disagree with this assessment, doubting that the conflict has truly ended.

Thus, it becomes necessary to consult with IDPs is order to ensure that return is voluntary. Suitable conditions must exist that support the durability of return or resettlement. Analysts focusing on return have not resolved the questions of who guarantees safety and determines it to exist and what would be considered an acceptable risk for return. Furthermore socioeconomic factors that reduce the probability of productivity impede the durability of return.

Third, even if return is not possible in the foreseeable future, can IDP status end if the IDP becomes integrated in another area? Should a resettled and reintegrated IDP who would like to return to his place of origin be considered an IDP? Should IDP status be passed down through generations in situations of drawn out conflict or should we assume that the young would prefer to remain in cities rather than return for the countryside even if the area should eventually be deemed safe?

These problems with determining the end of IDP status are fundamental in deciding the breadth of national and international responsibility for IDPs. However, the problem of establishing return as a measure of the end of IDP status is essentially a definitional problem that ought not overshadow the idea that IDP status cannot end without complete and total change of the original situation that caused flight in the first place. Internal Displacement occurs because of indiscriminate attacks on civilians, massacres, torture, and other atrocities linked to civil war.

A fundamental, stable, durable, and effective change in circumstances must occur. This implies that the basic human rights of IDPs are respected, indicating that change can only come through measures that are deeper than simply fulfilling needs brought about by IDP status and return to place of origin.

The human rights and humanitarian law guarantees might remain applicable even after resettlement has occurred and the needs brought about by displacement have been fulfilled. Unlike refugees, the resolution of the IDP problem can only occur through substantive change in the home country.

(This paper was prepared by Lauren Aronson for the Consortium of Humanitarian Agencies).

www.crescat.com

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries |

Produced by Lake House
Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager