Search

Begin New Search Topic Protection Political Geography Global Focus

41. THE UN’S DEFINING CHALLENGE: PEACEKEEPING AND PROTECTION OF CIVILIANS

Author:
Hanne Fjelde, Lisa Hultman, and Desirée Nilsson
Publication Date:
10-2018
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Political Violence @ A Glance
Abstract:
According to former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, protecting civilians from atrocity crimes is “a defining purpose of the United Nations in the twenty-first century”. It might also be one of the UN’s greatest challenges. Protection of civilians has become a core task of peacekeeping operations: more than 95 percent of all peacekeepers deployed globally are mandated to protect civilians. At the same time, media headlines often highlight UN failures to respond to violence in a timely manner (for example, here and here), leaving civilians without protection. Looking beyond individual cases, is the UN really unable to perform one of its core tasks and live up to its “defining purpose”? In a recently published article in International Organization, we shed some light on these issues. Using fine-grained geographical data at the sub-national level, we empirically examine both where peacekeepers are deployed and whether they are able to effectively reduce violence against civilians. In short, we find three things: 1) the UN does deploy to locations where civilians are at risk, most clearly so in areas where rebels perpetrate violence; 2) the UN is effective in protecting civilians from rebel violence, but struggles to protect civilians from government violence, and 3) peacekeeping presence does not just push violence to adjacent locations.
Topic:
United Nations, Peacekeeping, Civilians, and Protection
Political Geography:
Global Focus

42. Special humanitarian intakes: Enhancing protection through targeted refugee resettlement

Author:
Tamara Wood and Claire Higgins
Publication Date:
12-2018
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Andrew & Renata Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law at UNSW Sydney
Abstract:
Between 2015 and 2017, Australia provided 12,000 resettlement places for refugees fleeing conflict in Syria and Iraq. This special humanitarian intake was an ad hoc, one-off response to international and domestic pressure on the Australian government and reflects similar pledges made by other States to admit Syrian refugees. While Australia’s Syria–Iraq special intake provided invaluable protection for refugees fleeing one of the world’s major humanitarian crises, it raises a number of questions regarding fairness, transparency and efficiency in its implementation. In the context of growing numbers of displaced people worldwide, the Syrian crisis will not be the last situation involving widespread displacement and requiring international cooperation to ensure the protection of refugees. Indeed, the current predicament of large numbers of refugees in places such as Kenya, Bangladesh and the Central Mediterranean also requires stronger responses and support from the international community. This Policy Brief critically analyses special humanitarian intakes from an international and comparative perspective. It examines the normative frameworks applicable to special humanitarian intakes, both in Australia and elsewhere, including international refugee and human rights law, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) global resettlement program, and Australian domestic law. It considers how the Syria–Iraq special intake compares to other similar, one-off arrangements for the relocation and/or resettlement of refugees, such as the Comprehensive Plan of Action for Indo-Chinese refugees in the 1970s and 1980s, the humanitarian evacuation of Kosovar refugees in 1999, and the use of individual emergency and urgent resettlement quotas by States such as Sweden and Canada.
Topic:
Refugees, Displacement, Resettlement, Humanitarian Response, and Protection
Political Geography:
Global Focus

43. Creating safe zones and safe corridors in conflict situations: Providing protection at home or preventing the search for asylum?

Author:
Geoff Gilbert and Anna Magdalena Rüsch
Publication Date:
06-2017
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Andrew & Renata Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law at UNSW Sydney
Abstract:
The conflict in Syria has prompted renewed calls for so-called ‘safe zones’ and ‘safe corridors’ to prevent people from needing to seek protection abroad as refugees, and to encourage refugees to return home. Given the inherent dangers that arise from trying to leave a conflict zone and travelling onwards to seek asylum, the idea of creating safe zones within States has been put forward as a positive humanitarian alternative. Yet, there are a number of legal and practical preconditions that must be met for safety to be guaranteed. The reality of conflict today means that in all but the most extreme circumstances – where flight is impossible – safe zones cannot be a substitute for asylum in another country. They may be the best response to people trapped in a conflict zone, but that is all. They do not provide true ‘protection’ as envisaged by international refugee law. Furthermore, the law is underdeveloped and the practice is too erratic and random for safe zones to be a proper response to a humanitarian crisis. If States in the global north want to spare refugees the dangers of irregular flight, they should establish proper pathways to safety through humanitarian and migration channels, and push for peace in those areas of the world where conflict is rife.1 Safe corridors could provide that route out – as well as operating to allow those trapped in conflict zones to carry on with their lives by safely accessing work, education, markets and health care, to the extent possible. This policy brief begins by asking some fundamental questions about safe zones and safe corridors, and sketching the complexity of the international legal frameworks that apply. It then briefly examines the history of the law and practice of safe zones and safe corridors, before analysing the preconditions to their creation, their qualities and character, how they are accessed, and how protection and other human rights can be assured. Finally, it considers the responsibility and accountability of various international actors with respect to safe zones and safe corridors. The existence of different terms to describe the concepts, and the interplay of several different sub-branches of international law, make the analysis more complicated, but the conclusion reached is that in all but the most extreme circumstances – where flight is impossible – safe zones can never provide a substitute for asylum. They cannot provide the same degree of protection that a safe third country can. By contrast, safe corridors can enable people to flee to a place of safety, and at the very least can help those unable to leave by facilitating access to vital services.
Topic:
Syrian War, Asylum, Armed Conflict, Protection, and Safe Zones
Political Geography:
Global Focus

44. In search of commitments: The 2016 refugee summits

Author:
Elizabeth Ferris
Publication Date:
11-2016
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Andrew & Renata Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law at UNSW Sydney
Abstract:
An extraordinary series of meetings took place in 2016 to respond to perceptions of an unprecedented global refugee crisis. This policy brief traces the context and the results of these meetings and explores the common themes that emerged over the course of the year. The meetings examined include: the Supporting Syria and the Region Conference, held in London in February; the High-Level Meeting on Global Responsibility Sharing through Pathways for Admission of Syrian Refugees, held in Geneva in March, the World Humanitarian Summit, held in Istanbul in May; the Summit on Refugees and Migrants, held in New York on 19 September; and the United States (US) Leaders’ Summit, held in New York on 20 September. Although not all these meetings were technically ‘summits’, they all sought to mobilise attendance and commitments at the highest political level, and for this reason are referred to in this policy brief as ‘the summits of 2016.’ Four specific contextual factors set the stage for the summits of 2016. First, the United Nations (UN) had scored major successes in summits focused on development, climate change and disaster risk reduction in 2015. Secondly, the growing carnage in Syria and the inability of the international community to address it was a vivid backdrop to all of the summits. A third and related trend was the dramatic increase in requests for humanitarian funding. Donors had tripled their contributions to humanitarian appeals over a decade – and yet it still was not enough. Finally, the summits took place at a time of political change. The United Nations Secretary-General’s term was coming to an end. There were nasty politics in Europe with the rise of right-wing populist parties and the United Kingdom (UK)’s decision to leave the European Union. Xenophobic politics in the United States had led to a vociferous reaction to the resettlement of Syrian refugees. These all contributed to a sense that the system itself was not fit for purpose.
Topic:
Migration, United Nations, Refugee Crisis, Dialogue, and Protection
Political Geography:
Europe, Syria, Global Focus, and United States of America