Rethinking durable solutions

It is not acceptable, former High Commissioner Ruud Lubbers said in 2001, that refugees spend years of their lives in confined areas. Yet the political failure to find durable solutions for refugees leads to precisely the kinds of protracted situations that degrade the displaced. Unable to return to their homeland, settle permanently in their country of first asylum or move to a third state, many refugees find themselves confined indefinitely to camps or holding areas, often in volatile border zones. Such restrictive conditions are a denial of rights under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and a waste of human talent. Furthermore, the prevalence in prolonged refugee situations of idleness, aid-dependency, a legacy of conflict and weak rule of law can induce fresh cycles of violence, threatening human security. With more than 6 million refugees stranded in a ‘long-lasting and intractable state of limbo’ at the end of 2004, it is imperative that the search for durable solutions be intensified. Three durable solutions—voluntary repatriation, local integration in the country of first asylum or resettlement in a third country—are the options available for the permanent resolution of the ‘refugee cycle’. All three are regarded as durable because they promise an end to refugees’ suffering and their need for international protection and dependence on humanitarian assistance. The search for durable solutions has been a central part of UNHCR’s mandate since its inception. The organization’s statute commands the High Commissioner to seek ‘permanent solutions for the problem of refugees by assisting Governments . . . to facilitate the voluntary repatriation of such refugees, or their assimilation within new national communities’. However, the role of the three durable solutions and the relative priority accorded to each has changed with time.