Protection of Civilians and Additional Measures to Increase Security in the UN Refugee Camps in War Areas

Of all the reasons that drive refugees to flee their homes, none is as great as fear. It may be fear of direct physical attack, or of a conflict where rape, torture and ethnic cleansing are part of military strategy. In their attempts to escape refugees may dodge bullets in a war zone, be chased by human traffickers or risk their lives crossing stormy Seas on leaky boats. Even if they survive these dangers and make it to another country, they may find that their fears continue to dog them. The conflict they tried to escape may have followed them, and their lives and dignity may still be threatened.

The refugee protection regime was created by the international community to shelter those fleeing direct threats to their lives.

The beginning of the twenty-first century has seen a number of new developments with regard to refugee security. For one, UNHCR has become much more involved in security issues, especially as they affect ongoing operations. For another, the emergence of new security concerns for states, such as terrorism, has led to the ‘securitization’ of practices related to asylum. Lastly, issues of migration, development and relief have become more closely linked to security. Refugees have always been a by-product of war, which is still the most clearly identifiable and direct threat to national security. The new view of human security highlights the interdependent nature of the security threats in refugee situations. It recognizes that long-term state security is ultimately dependent on the security provided to non-state actors such as refugees and that, inversely, refugee protection may be impossible in situations of acute and continuous state insecurity. in recent years there has been more awareness of the interconnectedness of various threats as well as a more concerted effort to address them. Conceiving of security as a shared concern also means conceiving of it as a shared responsibility. Under international law, a state is obliged to ensure the physical protection of all those who reside within its borders—refugees included—and it remains the responsibility of the host state to prevent the militarization of refugee-populated areas Since the early 1990s and the crises in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Rwanda in Particular, security has become a bigger issue in refugee assistance. At the United Nations, this shift is reflected in Security Council resolutions 1208 (1998) and 1296 (2000), which directly address the security and neutrality of refugee camps.19 Among other things, these resolutions establish the legal parameters for authorizing action under the UN Charter, which could involve the deployment of international military forces and monitors to address insecurity in camps. In line with expanded notions of security, the resolutions also aim to link up humanitarian, political and military activities.

Wherever armed elements or combatants might be present, assuring the civilian and humanitarian character of asylum and of the areas hosting refugee populations involves a range of measures. These include disarming and demobilizing armed exiles, preventing the flow of arms between refugees, protecting refugees from attack and

Intimidation, and separating combatants or war criminals from refugees. There are various ways in which the international community has tried to address this challenge, most prominently by developing the so-called ‘ladder of options’. The aim of the ladder of options is to enhance the effectiveness of responses to security threats in refugee situations. In practice its application has been largely restricted to operations which fall broadly under the ‘soft’ end of the ladder. Frequently, due to the absence of states with the capacity or willingness to engage themselves, so-called ‘security packages’ have been implemented by UNHCR in consultation with host governments and some bilateral donors. During the Rwandan refugee crisis in the mid-1990s, UNHCR hired a contingent of Zairean soldiers to support security in the Congolese camps. The move was initially successful; later, however, these troops became embroiled in the conflict as well. In Kosovo, UNHCR issued guidelines for quasi-national security forces, and in the late 1990s more formal arrangements to improve refugee security based on security packages were concluded, first with Tanzania and then with Kenya and Guinea. These experiences paved the way for similar strategies in other countries, among them Ghana, Liberia, Sierra Leone and, most recently, Chad.

The packages increasingly contain specific references to a reduction in sexual and gender-based violence. Another challenge is that of aligning police practices with protection. It has been shown in both Guinea and Tanzania that when security forces are trained to understand refugee law and issues related to sexual and gender-based violence they are better able to provide camp security. Codes of conduct for the police are used to define appropriate behavior and contribute to greater accountability within the force.

In Zambia, which hosts Angolan and Congolese refugees, neighborhood-watch programs have led to a reduction in crime, the identification of armed elements and improvements in aid distribution. In Sierra Leone, the active cooperation of Liberian refugee wardens with the local police has improved camp security. Overall,

refugee security mechanisms function effectively when they complement or supplement the general law-enforcement system of the host country.

UNHCR’s mandate is to uphold the human rights of people who lack national protection. It has remained constant since the organization was established in 1950. Yet the challenges it meets in addressing these basic principles have changed over time, and past experiences have provided lessons for the future. The refugee

protection regime was not established to address the root causes of conflict that create refugees, but the nature of the task of refugee protection will ensure that security issues will always be an integral part of it.

Today, security has multiple and interdependent dimensions. Expanded notions of human security recognize the importance of non-state agents and redefine a range of interventions as relevant to security. The awareness of these dimensions is fundamental to addressing the security concerns involved in refugee assistance. However, it risks evaluating the problems of refugees purely through the lens of security. It is also important to remember that the many dimensions of security cannot always be integrated into one response. Almost all refugee-security strategies underline the need of the host state to full fill its obligation to protect refugees within its borders. If a host state is unwilling or unable to do so, United Nations practice suggests that some type of international response may be an option. Security packages, while ameliorating some threats, often risk trying to do too many things at once. They cannot, ultimately, respond to the problems of militarization of refugee camps or cross-border conflict. These are issues which cannot be resolved solely through humanitarian response, but rather require intervention at the political level.

Protection under threat While the international community has generally responded swiftly and generously to refugee crises over the past half century, in recent years, some worrying trends have begun to emerge. Countries that once generously opened their doors to refugees have been tempted to shut those doors for fear of assuming open-ended responsibilities, of abetting uncontrolled migration and people-smuggling, or of jeopardizing national security. Real and perceived abuses of asylum systems as well as irregular movements, have also made some countries more wary of refugee claimants, and concerned that resources are not being sufficiently focussed on those in greatest need. Refugees have been refused admission to safety or have been expelled from asylum countries. Those who have reached a potential country of asylum have sometimes been

turned away or sent back without being able to apply for asylum.

Current challenges

The problem of population displacements, whether the people concerned are refugees or persons displaced within their own country, presents a big challenge for the international community. Aspects concerning displaced persons will be considered here.

First of all there is the important work being carried out by Mr Francis Deng, Representative of the UN Secretary-General on Internally Displaced Persons. Input on this subject has been provided by the Human Rights Commission, the UN Department of Humanitarian Affairs, UNHCR, the Centre for Human Rights and many non-governmental organizations, some of which have been assigned the task by Mr Deng of investigating certain legal and institutional aspects of the phenomenon of displaced persons. Many States are also joining in. As the subject is of great importance to the ICRC, it is taking an active part in the debate as well, in particular through dialogue with the Representative of the Secretary-General.

Careful consideration by the international community of how to address the growing problem of displaced persons is essential. Present efforts to increase awareness are commendable, valuable as they are in drawing attention to a matter of serious humanitarian concern. Current ideas on the subject are reviewed below.

To begin with, what should be done to improve humanitarian action on behalf of displaced persons? In view of the large numbers and vast needs of these people, greater cooperation between the humanitarian agencies, particularly UN bodies and non-governmental organizations, is of paramount importance. This cooperation must be increased in a spirit of complementarity and must take their respective mandates into account. To be truly neutral and impartial, humanitarian action must moreover be independent of all political and military considerations, for only then is it possible to reach all victims. States must also recognize that humanitarian action has its limits; although indispensable, it is but a temporary remedy for problems that can be solved only by political means, with assistance from the international community when required.

The question then arises as to a possible development of the law. This is a delicate matter, for there are already many legal regulations, and, when new rules are created (e.g. a convention on displaced persons), care must be taken not to undermine the existing law. Another moot point is the advisability of creating rules aimed solely at protecting displaced persons, which could result in discrimination against other victims who also deserve to be protected. The traditional humanitarian law approach, based on needs arising from a given situation (armed conflict), therefore appears preferable to an approach centred on specific categories of people in every situation.

Proposals intended to reaffirm certain essential principles and rules of humanitarian law and human rights law in order to improve protection of displaced persons must on the other hand be encouraged, provided that the existing law is upheld and not weakened (there has been talk of a set of principles, a code of conduct or a declaration). It is true that in situations not covered by international humanitarian law, existing law perhaps does not yet provide optimum protection for the civilian population, and consequently for displaced persons, although the power to waive certain human rights at times of exceptional public danger is limited. It should be noted that population displacements are mentioned in Article 7 of the Turku Declaration.

In general, however, efforts by the international community should be concentrated first and foremost on improved implementation of international humanitarian law by all belligerents. This should help to bring about a considerable reduction in the number of displaced persons and refugees.

Few ongoing situations

A Daily Struggle to Survive: Syrian Refugees in Lebanon

Well into the fourth year of the conflict in Syria, it is clear that Syrian refugees in the neighboring countries will not be able to return home in the near future. In Lebanon, where one in four residents is a Syrian refugee, the demands of providing emergency assistance to refugees while trying to support disadvantaged host communities have become especially complex. Lebanon’s government has not been able to come to agreement on approving a range of support projects for both Syrian refugees and disadvantaged Lebanese nationals. And while this political debate goes on, tensions between hosts and guests continue to rise.

Having recognized the need to assist both of these vulnerable groups, the Lebanese government, donors, and aid agencies must refine their collaboration in a way that will continue and increase assistance, while making the most strategic use of ever-scarcer funding.

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS:

· For 2015, the Lebanese government, the United Nations, and international and national non-governmental organizations (NGOs) should utilize existing staff resources and in-country expertise to formulate a common set of assessments and strategies for addressing the needs of Syrian refugees and Lebanese host communities.

· The United Nations Refugee Agency should continue prioritizing support for emergency humanitarian aid, including rental assistance.

· Donors to the aid response in Lebanon should support income-generating programs that increase the self-sufficiency of vulnerable populations in Lebanon.

· Donors who have pledged to contribute to the Regional Response Plan for Syrian refugees should fulfill their commitments before year’s end.

· INGOs working in Lebanon should develop, using existing case studies and available data, a uniform campaign message to educate the public and the international donor community that emergency humanitarian assistance is still required in Lebanon.

Somalie refugees in Kenya

Somali refugees in Kenya are facing pressure on multiple fronts. Earlier this year, the Kenyan government announced that all urban refugees must report to refugee camps. At the same time, the government launched a security operation aimed at rooting out alleged members of the Al Shabab terrorist organization from Eastleigh, a predominantly Somali neighborhood in Nairobi. Together, these two initiatives opened the door to increased levels of abuse, extortion, and harassment of refugees by the Kenyan police. This comes as the Kenyan government is publicly urging large-scale returns of Somali refugees even though the humanitarian situation inside Somalia is deteriorating severely.

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS:

· The UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) must publicly uphold its urban refugee policy and do more to meet its mandate to protect refugees by increasing international staff for urban refugee protection programming in Kenya.

· Donor governments and philanthropic foundations must strengthen support to Kenyan organizations providing legal aid to urban refugees.

· The Kenyan government must meet its obligations under the Tripartite Agreement to provide protection and assistance to refugees, and should implement the recommendations of the Independent Policing Oversight Authority.

· Donor governments, in particular the United States and the United Kingdom, must support the Kenyan government to ensure that it acts on the recommendations of the Independent Policing Oversight Authority.

· UNHCR and the Kenyan Department of Refugee Affairs must coordinate to ensure that information regarding the repatriation of Somali refugees is communicated accurately and consistently.

· UNHCR must apply lessons learned from its experience supporting the return of internally displaced Somalis as it implements its Somali refugee repatriation programming. Both programs must support more resilient and sustainable livelihoods for returnees, and better link with longer-term development efforts to ensure conditions for return are sustainable.