UNGA'90: UNHCR'S REFUGEE POLICY VIS (r)

[uneoo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Subject: UNGA'90: UNHCR'S REFUGEE POLICY VISION (3/3)

/* posted Tue 14 May 6:00am 1995 by DRUNOO@xxxxxxxxxxxx in igc:reg.burma */
/* -------------" UNGA'90: UNHCR's policy vision "--------------- */

LONG-TERM APPROACHES

a) Basic Premises

23. It is evident that the refugee situation has fundamentally altered in
character and that this necessitates changes in the asylum policies of
States. In any reassessment, however, it is important that the factors
particular to the situation of the refugee do not lose thier central
significance.

24. From UNHCR's perspective, what is required is an overall and global
approach which will develop asylum and refugee policy so that humanitarian
and human rights concerns are well integrated and properly balalced in
relation to development, foreign policy and immigration control
considerations. The intensified search for solutions needs to be pragmatic,
imaginative and pursued without undue rigidity, but always within the
humanitarian parameters which the international community has carefully
elaborated over the past four decades. Basic protection principles and
international solidarity must remain the starting point.

25. Any new approach to dealing with the refugee problem will need to
proceed on certain assumptions or premises which, ideally, should achieve a
measure of international agreement. It is submitted that these should
include, firstly, that prevention is preferable to cure. Early warning of
developing situations and their mediation can be a far more effecitve
method to contain problems as long as humanitarian considerations are fully
respected and the option of departure is never foreclosed for those who
require it. A second premise is that a refugee movement is a grave human
rights issue, as well as a matter affecting national interests and
international peace. It is as destructive of the individual as of social
well-being. Another premise must be that refugees and immigrants are not
one and the same. The basis principles of refugee law reflect this
distinction in insisting that the fundamental rights of the refugees be
fully respected and - most critically - that refugees should not be
expelled to situations where their lives or security are in danger. Any
development of policy thinking must be fully consonant with the principles
particular to and essential for the protection of the refugee. A further
premise is that neither the numbers of persons seeking asylum or refuge nor
the non-availability of immediate solutions can, by themselves, be reasons
for denying protection or for according it under very harsh conditions. In
addition, new thinking must not disregard all traditional wisdom about
appropriate solutions. Even while voluntary repatriation assumes its
rightful place as, generally, the pre-eminent solution, there is a need to
reaffirm, in the context of international burden sharing, the importance of
the solutions of local settlement or resettlement.  The continuing
viability of all these solutions must be an additional premise. This said,
however, new thinking must also proceed on the assumption responsibility in
realizing appropriate solutions to today's refugee problems, including
addressing root causes and facilitating return. Logic, equity and the
current international climate towards receiving refugees in third countries
all argue strongly for this position.

b) Conclusions

26. Certain conclusions suggest themselves if the above parameters for
developing new approaches are accepted. These include the following:

i) As a basic part of new strategies, human rights institutions and
organizations should be utilized more actively and effectively by States,
as well as by concerned refugee organizations to seek to address the human
rights concerns in refugee situations. IN this regard, it needs to be kept
in mind that human rights are as much the basis for treatment of
non-citizens as they are of nationals. Violations of human rights are major
cause of refugee exoduses and create complex problems in countries of
asylum. Restoration of acceptable human rights situations in countries of
origin can be the key to successful resolution of long-standing refugee
problems. Strengthened observance of civil and political rights, but
equally of economic, social and cultural rights, is fundamental in dealing
with root causes of refugee flows. In addition, intensified international
co-operation to ensure early warning of developing humanitarian emergencies
and to facilitate their timely mediation should be actively promoted. New
strategies should accordingly address by strengthening of international and
regional early-warning activities, including at the inter-organizational
level.

ii) Future policies should also reflect new and bradly endorsed human
rights positions as regards the abhorrent nature of turture and inhumane or
degrading treatment. In particular, no person should be expelled or
returned by a State to any country where that person might be tortured or
subjected to inhuman or cruel treatment or punishment or to violations of
basic rights amounting to such treatment. This would be consistent not only
with much State practice, but also with a developing body of jurisprudence
on interpreting treaty provisions providing protection against such
practices.

iii) Development assistance agencies in national administrations, as well
as international development institutions, in conceiving and implementing
policies on development aid, should, inter alia, seek thereby to promote
positive human rights situations and target socio-economic difficulties
causing people to leave or hindering their return to their countries of
origin. The traditional view of the refugee problem as one to be seen
mainly in terms of responsibilities of receiving countries is broadening,
wiht a new emphasis on causes, prevention and return. To address the
refugee problem today humanely and effectively, as the High Commissioner
for Refugees made clear in his statement to the 46th Session of the
Commission on Human Rights earlier this year, any new approach by States
and the international community must be based on a full appreciation of the
range of factors impelling people to leave. Persecution and war or man-made
disasters remain fundamental in this regard. However, there are other
factors, alone or in combination, which must be addressed in an appropriate
way and which include absence of minumum living standards or any meaningful
economic prospects and enviranmental destruction.

iv) In framing their new approaches, States must respond to the legitimate
concerns of all affected States. These concerns include the protracted
nature of refugee problems in many developing countries with their own very
troubled economies, their limited ability to provide for the substantial
refugee populations they are hosting without concerted international
assistance, their concerns about the waning international solidarity in
sharing the burden and the political and security difficulties accompanying
influxes. Legitimate concerns also include increased caseloads in receiving
countries, the backlog of claims, some abuse of the system, strained
reception and integration facilities and significant expenses for material
assistance.

v) The manner in which regional bodies or groupings might more actively
contribute to positive resolution of problems in their respective regions
should be explored both by these regional entities and by the international
community generally. Such thinking has in fact already begun. In one recent
effort to analyze the root causes of refugee problems in the particular
region concerned, the regional body developme anumber of positive and
progressive recommendations as to how these might be redressed. Of
particular note in this regard were measures suggested to promote durable
solutions to the existing problems, including amnieties to facilitate
voluntary repatriation and a positive approach to local integration where
appropriate. There was also an emphasis on dialogue to resolve differences,
on accessions to relevant international and regional refugee and human
rights insturments, and on teaching of human rights throughout the
education systems in the States in the region. Other suggestions might have
included a role for regional human rights institutions, both in promotion
and in protection of refugee rights. Such a role might include a monitoring
and/or mediation function where individual situations generating refugees
involve grave human rights abuses. It needs, however, to be noted that,
while such efforts to respond to problems in a regional context through
regional efforts are to be encouraged, this must not lead to denial or any
responsibility for countries outside the region to accept a share of the
burden of solutions. The refugee problem has been accepted by the
international community as a global one in terms of its scope, impact and
the solidarity it demands.

vi) Response strageties employing the three traditional durable solutions
should include measures which would help to broaden their acceptability.
Such measures might include the targeting of development aid allocations to
underpin local integration or, in the country of origin, to facilitate
voluntary repatriation, as well as the identification of resettlement
possibilities in non-traditional resettlement countries.

vii) At the same time, new thinking on solutions should seek to develop the
concept of State responsibility under international law, particularly as it
relates to the responsibilities of countries of origin. The notion of
solution must be understood in this context to include effective and
expeditious measures to address root causes and to ensure, where
appropriate, the possibility of voluntary repatriation of refugees, as well
as the orderly return of non-refugees, in safety and dignity, to their
countries. The international community might also explore the possibilities
for providing safety and security for concerned individuals within the
country of origin, always under necessary guarantees, should alternative to
flight be feasible and fully consistent with protection requirements.

viii) It needs to be realized that one factor exacerbating the refugee
problem for States and UNHCR alike has been increasingly negative public
reaction to arrivals of asylum-seekers and refugees. Governments share with
UNHCR a clear responsibility to lead and educate public opinion and to
encourage positive attitudes by making public information activities an
integral part of new strategies to address refugee problems. In addition,
information strategies should aim at ensuring the wide avilability of
accurate information, including in countries of origin, about policies and
asylum prospects in receiving countries.

ix) Open debate on possible new strategies should precede any final
decisions at the political level. In this regard, every effort should be
made to raise the level of the debate by engaging eminent and broadly
respected authorities from all regions of the world to bring to bear their
expertise and knowledge and discuss all relevant issues in a neutral forum.
Roundtables of high-level experts or the creation of "Comites de Sages" are
possibilities in this regard. Their recommendations might well then pass to
concerned national parliaments or intergovernmental bodies, including the
UNited Nations General Assembly, for endorsement.

x) While the refugee issue must not be seen as one basically of migration
controls, there would nevertheless be value in examining aspects of it also
in the broad, international migration context, with a view to assessing the
appropriateness of legal migration as an alternative channel for departures
for some groups, particularly those who have no compelling reasons for
their departure which are pertinent to refugee status.

xi) As a final point, any new strategies must contain measures to deal
humanely and effectively with rejected asylum-seekers, in accordance with
relevant immigration regulations and applicable international standards and
practices. Proposed measures should be consistent with human rights
requirements and without prejudice to the protection currently offered by
many States to persons who do not fully meet the refugee definition, but
who might, nevertheless, be exposed to serious negative consequences, for
example because of an on-goint situation of internal conflict, should they
have to return immediately to their countries of origin. The measures
proposed for rejected cases should seek to address the assistance and
counselling needs of this group and should be based on a clear apprecaition
of the responsibilities both of States and of concerned international
organizations for these people. In this connection, unorthodox solutions
may be required in the medium term which, inter alia, might place demands
on UNHCR, among other bodies. The High Commissioner could, if so requested
by the Secretary-General or the General Assembly and, in cooperation with
other appropriate agencies, assume responsibilities outside his traditional
mandate, but compatible with his strictly humanitarian competence, to
co-ordinate the safe and dignified return of rejected asylum-seekers.
Clearly, though, such responsibilities would carry with them legal,
political and financial consequences requiring an adequate response.

/* Endreport */