Refugees Adaptability on the Peaceful Coexistence with the Host Communities. A Case of Rwamwanja Refugee Camp- Uganda

This article looks at the possible ways for refugees to have peaceful coexistence of refugees with their hosts based on an understanding of the causes of conflict between refugees and host communities and how the existence of refugees impacts the lives of the host communities which also has a bearing on peaceful coexistence. Based on the descriptive design that employed both qualitative and quantitative approaches, the results are that there is a relationship between causes of conflicts and the peaceful coexistence of refugees in the Rwamwanja refugee settlement. The article also indicates that political incitement was the main cause of conflict, that illiberal and illiterate people within and outside the camp provided leeway for violence, and this affected peace negatively. The article further indicated that poverty, inequality, and marginalization or lack of respect were the major reasons for violence in the Rwamwanja refugee settlement. The article recommends that the government and the settlement management should initiate sustainable livelihoods through small-scale businesses among the people in the settlement to shock-absorb idleness and unemployed refugees and host community members who are blamed for violent inter-ethnic conflict. The article further recommends that Nongovernmental organizations and other religious societies, self-help groups, and Districts efforts should be strengthened by the government of Uganda and other stakeholders to aid in poverty reduction initiatives and promotion of peaceful coexistence among the refugees and host communities for socio-economic development in the area. Further at the policy level peaceful coexistence between refugee and host communities is possible if approaches like the degree that locals recognized their benefits from projects and services provided to refugees, clear guidelines for implementing local integration, including readily available information for refugees, guide how to distribute resources or implement programs, host governments should be clear towards local integration, meet their responsibilities to improve socio-economic conditions in areas affected by protracted refugee situations and support the full integration of refugees instead of confining them to camps.

Local Integration as a Durable Solution? Negotiating Socioeconomic Spaces between Refugees and Host Communities in Rural Northern Uganda

With a growing number of displaced people, there is a need for robust approaches to coping with displacement. Uganda has a progressive refugee policy that promotes freedom of movement and the socioeconomic rights of the refugees. Specifically, refugees are often allocated land to settle and cultivate rural settlements, and the integrated social service provision facilitates interaction with host communities. However, there remain challenges in creating sustainable livelihoods for refugees in rural settlements. There exist significant tensions over shared resources such as land, water, woodlots, and grazing areas. Based on a survey of 416 households and key informant interviews with South Sudanese refugees in selected settlements in the Adjumani district, the paper highlights refugees’ access to social and economic spaces as critical pathways to sustainable livelihoods and integration. Uganda’s progressive policy expands the opportunity space; however, refugees still encounter significant barriers in accessing the socioeconomic spaces.

“Where is home?”—“Doctors Without Borders”, doctors without a homeland?

Are “Doctors Without Borders” (MSF) doctors without a homeland? Based on fifty interviews, statistical data and a participatory observation, this articledescribes humanitarian mission conditions limiting local integration and suggests three forms of attachment: home (“break expatriates”), elsewhere (“multi‑homeland expatriates”) or nowhere (“duty‑free expatriates”). For the latter, MSF plays, until their departure from the organization, the role of substitute homeland. Son los “Médicos sin Fronteras” (MSF) médicos sin patria? Basado en cincuenta entrevistas, datos estadísticos y una observación participante, este artículo describe condiciones de misión humanitaria que limitan la integración local y propone tres formas de apego: en casa (“expatriados paréntesis”), en otros lugares (“expatriados multipátridos») o en ninguna parte (“expatriados duty‑free”). Para estos últimos, MSF desempeña el papel de patria sustituta hasta que dejen la organización. Les « Médecins Sans Frontières » (MSF) sont‑ils des médecins sans patrie ? Basé sur une cinquantaine d’entretiens, des données statistiques et uneobservation participante, cet article décrit des conditions de mission humanitaire limitant l’intégration locale et dégage trois formes d’attachement : chez soi (« expatriés parenthèse »), ailleurs (« expatriés multipatrides ») ou nulle part (« expatriés duty‑free »). Pour ces derniers, MSF joue, jusqu’à leur départ de l’organisation, le rôle de patrie de substitution.

Part 3 Protection, 10 International Cooperation, Protection, and Solutions

This chapter addresses international cooperation, protection, and solutions. ‘Protection’ is useful shorthand to describe the complex of obligations derived from general international law and from international refugee and human rights law. ‘Protection’ is often an end in itself, but it also has a goal beyond that moment, which is a durable solution in which refugees can live in safety and with dignity, not subject to arbitrary expulsion, discrimination, or alienation. ‘Solutions’, in turn, is the overarching objective of the international refugee regime itself, premised upon international cooperation to solve humanitarian problems, which is among the purposes and guiding principles of the United Nations. The chapter considers the rights background which undergirds the situation of the displaced, and then examines the three traditional durable solutions of voluntary repatriation, local integration, and resettlement, as well as labour mobility and other complementary pathways that may secure refugees admission to, and inclusion in, a State.

Part III Regional Regimes, Ch.23 Regional Refugee Regimes: Southeast Asia

This chapter focuses on the 10 States that form the Association of Southeast Asian Nations: Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Laos), Malaysia, Myanmar, Singapore, Thailand, the Philippines, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. There has been a tendency by Southeast Asian States to avoid using the term ‘refugees’ at the national level, even though they have to deal with the term in international fora. Most States in the region do not have specific laws on refugee protection; their legal structure tends to classify people who seek refuge as ‘illegal immigrants’ under national immigration law. Occasionally, policies allowing asylum seekers to reside temporarily in the country pending durable solutions help to exempt them from the strictures of such law. Ultimately, two salient features emerge in the chapter’s discussion. First, most Southeast Asian countries are still not parties to the international refugee instruments. Secondly, however, there is an extensive practice within the region of affording temporary refuge to most people seeking asylum, even if local integration or settlement remains the exception rather than the rule.

Part VII The End of Refugeehood—Cessation and Durable Solutions, Ch.59 Reimagining Voluntary Repatriation

The Statute of UNHCR charges the High Commissioner for Refugees with the task of pursuing durable solutions to the problem of refugees: voluntary repatriation, local integration, and resettlement. Voluntary repatriation is generally considered to be the preferred one. UNHCR takes it, in accordance with this assignment, to mean the return of refugees rather than former refugees, that is, those who lost their refugee status because the circumstances in connection with which they had been recognized as refugees have ceased to exist. In short, UNHCR’s point of departure is promoting and encouraging the return of those who are by definition unrepatriable with the argument that this timing allows it to extend protection and assistance to the refugees before they formally cease to be refugees. In practice – both that of UNHCR and States – this point of departure appears prone to compromising the rights of refugees. It is therefore questioned by means of taking recourse to the repatriation practice of UNHCR’s immediate predecessors. On the basis of past practice, an alternative understanding of voluntary repatriation is offered that does not involve the return of those who are entitled to protection in exile, safeguards their rights, and is nonetheless in accordance with the Statute of UNHCR and the obligations of States under the relevant instruments.