This study explores how Donbass IDPs in Kyiv view the role of the state in relation to ‘durable solutions’ to their displacement. Specifically, it examines the expectations on the state as a provider of rights and entitlements vis-à- vis IDPs. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with Donbas IDPs, experiences of displacement and perceptions of durable solutions and citizen-state relations are exemplified. The data collection and analysis methodologies applied allow for the elicitation of the views and opinions of IDPs, in an attempt to mitigate vertical policy-making. The concepts of citizenship, state and sovereignty are applied to analyze the relationship between IDPs and the state. Further, the IASC framework for durable solutions to internal displacement is used to as a structure to outline the views of the IDPs. The results show a large discrepancy between the expectations of the respondents on the states’ role in durable solutions to displacement, and the experience of this in reality. Furthermore, the results reveal high levels of discontent, resignation and apathy towards the state as a provider of durable solutions, especially in terms of returning to Donbass.

This thesis concerns persons recognised as refugees based on the criteria set by Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (CSR1951) and residing in a Contracting State. It appraises the exclusion of CSR1951 refugees from participation in elections of their countries of asylum pursuant to a citizenship voting qualification, which most countries set. It is emphasised that, since neither the CSR1951 refugees nor their country of asylum know when or indeed whether cessation of CSR1951 refugee status may occur, their exclusion may last for an indeterminate period of time. CSR1951 confers on recognised refugees a host of civil, social and economic rights in their country of asylum; voting rights are absent. Concomitantly, while the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (and regional human rights treaties) pronounce that all persons are entitled to have their rights respected, protected and promoted, Contracting States are permitted to reserve two rights for their (full) members: the right to enter and remain in their country, and the right to vote in its elections. The central claim of this thesis is that recognised CSR1951 refugees are a special category of non-citizen residents, due to their unique political predicament. They are unable to participate in elections of their country of origin, do not enjoy its diplomatic protection and consular assistance abroad, and – most fundamentally – are unable or unwilling, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, to return to it for an indeterminate (and potentially protracted) period. It is submitted that recognised CSR1951 refugees should be entitled to vote in elections of their countries of asylum, notwithstanding general citizenship qualifications imposed by these countries. At present, treaty law does not require countries of asylum to enfranchise their recognised CSR1951 refugees. Hence, this thesis explores a gap in international refugee law and international human rights law between de lege lata and de lege ferenda; it is an exercise in ‘progressive development of the law’. Its inquiry is located in the international domain, and concerns, in principle, any Contracting State which admits and recognises CSR1951 refugees. References to national or regional practices serve solely an illustrative purpose.

In the 1990s Palestinian refugees sought to secure a seat in negotiations alongside the PLO and Israel in talks to resolve their situation. Their efforts raise a number of basic questions concerning the right to political participation and the negotiation of durable solutions to refugee situations. First and foremost is the question of whether peace negotiations comprise a conduct of public affairs under international law entailing a concomitant right to take part. Second and related is the question of whether citizens, refugees in particular, have a right to take part in the conduct of public affairs when they are outside their country of citizenship voluntarily or otherwise. This study examines these questions through legal analysis of the right to political participation under international treaty law, jurisprudence and soft law and through empirical analysis of all negotiated settlements to armed conflict between 1990 and 2000. The study concludes that while refugees did not have a "right" to take part in the negotiation of durable solutions during the period under consideration, the PLO and Israel may have nevertheless had an obligation to facilitate the participation of refugees in a manner that would have allowed for substantial influence on decisions affecting their lives with the objective of shared ownership of agreements reached. The study also finds that between 1990 and 2000 few refugees appeared to take part directly in the direct negotiations to their situation. The implementation of durable solutions and agreements reached along with unofficial or indirect peacemaking mechanisms appeared to comprise the primary or most common domains for political participation. The study concludes that the negotiation of durable solutions for refugees is nevertheless a developing area of law and practice which has arguably strengthened in the decade since Israel and PLO sought to achieve a negotiated solution to the Palestinian refugee issue.

In October 2019, thousands of migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers took the streets in Cape Town and Pretoria to publicly express their dissatisfaction with their living and protection conditions in South Africa. The protests erupted one month after a series of xenophobic incidents in several urban areas. While Pretoria protests dissolved quickly, the Cape Town sit-in protests were only cleared in early 2020. In both cities, protesters claimed that poor living conditions, a lack of access to services and a constant fear of xenophobic violence and harassment had made it unbearable for them to sustain their lives in South Africa. Refugees and asylum-seekers therefore demanded improved protection and the resettlement to a safer third country. Third country resettlement forms one of the three durable solutions for refugee situation as defined by the UNHCR, besides local integration and voluntary repatriation. The South African government and the UNHCR, however, made it clear that third country resettlement could not be considered a solution for a majority of South Africa's refugees and asylum-seekers. With local integration equally failing the forced migrants in South Africa, voluntary repatriation may by default be their only option left. This study aims to explore the relation between xenophobia and voluntary refugee repatriation in a South African context. The fear of xenophobic violence that was expressed by the 2019 protesters raises doubt about South Africa's ability to meet the UNHCR's standards of refugee protection. At the same time, it compromises the protection measure of temporary local integration as outlined in the South African 1998 Refugee Act. This study will therefore explore he connection between conditions of asylum in South Africa and the decision-making process on repatriation by refugees and asylum-seekers. This study aims to contribute to better the understanding of conditions and dynamics that lead to spontaneous voluntary repatriation in refugee situations.

Internal displacement is one of the most significant challenges in the world today, and violence, conflict, and climate-related disasters have engendered millions of internally displaced persons (IDPs) on the globe. Despite this, the IDP-population is a marginalised group on the international agenda and stay primarily under governmental protection and assistance. This makes the adequacy and durability of solutions and governmental management of IDPs crucial. The number of IDPs continues to rise every year, and many nations have evident difficulties in IDP-management, negatively affecting prospects for sustainable peace. Previous research has primarily focused on singular aspects of IDPs and solutions of such. Less has been written in terms of a broader and more comprehensive understanding of government management of internal displacement. Several scholars, researchers, and experts have stressed the urgency to pay more attention to the issue and consider IDPs a concern beyond humanitarian responsibility. This study seeks to increase the understanding of governmental management of IDPs from a broader and more holistic point of view. This by comparing two cases that have faced high numbers of IDPs in a "post-conflict" context (Uganda and South Sudan) and applying the Inter-Agency Standing Committee Framework on Durable Solutions for IDPs as a guide and analytical tool for comparison. The study finds that the governments have managed the situation with similarities and dissimilarities but have both faced difficulties in providing durable solutions and adequate response to IDPs' plight. Accentuated is also the insufficiency of establishing national instruments covering durable solutions when the political will or national capacity is absent. Reflected in the IDP-situations and trajectories examined, the primary obstacles for adequate response and management have been solely or a combination of such. The study also accentuates the interconnection of IDP-management and peace processes. For peace to be sustainable, and for solutions for IDPs to be durable, simultaneous progress of peace processes and IDP-management is crucial.

The major thrust of refugee protection worldwide is directed towards providing assistance to refugees in emergency situations. In South Africa, a large number of refugees have moved beyond this initial emergency phase such that the extended nature of their refugee status has left them in a state of continuous vulnerability. Their prolonged exile has led to violations of various rights recognised by international law and South Africa’s own constitutional and refugee law. Faced with restricted access to rights, refugees in South Africa live in poverty, are frustrated, and do not realise their full potential, to say nothing about the overt and brutal attacks they constantly face as victims of xenophobia. Their continued status as refugees deprives them of opportunities and subjects them to constant fear of harassment and exploitation. Even though neither the UNHCR nor the South African government has classified refugees living in South Africa as being in a protracted situation, many refugees have been in South Africa for five years or longer, with no durable solution in sight. This thesis highlights the plight of refugees in protracted refugee situation in South Africa and recommends suitable solutions to the problems this situation raises.

Refugee camps, mostly located in the Global South, host millions of human beings and mirror the overburden and incapacity of humanitarian response. If these places were once supposedly created to aggregate asylum-seekers temporarily, now they have become the norm for prolonged stays where future generations grow.This thesis explores the viability of the UNHCR’s durable solutions for Rohingya Refugees- local integration, resettlement, and repatriation. Moreover, it questions the role of non-state actors when it comes to decision-making in refugee governance. The analysis is conducted through a critical interpretive synthesis. The selected literature was scrutinized and linked to theoretical concepts such as human security, securitization of migration, legal pluralism, and complex interdependence.In summary, the literature analyzed shares a unanimity that, although conditions in the camps are unsustainable for permanent stays, efforts to build better futures for refugees are not being explored enough. This is mainly due to a reluctance of States to accept refugees on behalf of their integrity and security, in the sense that refugees are perceived as threats to their sovereignty. In this sense, potential efforts by non-state actors to provide a sustainable future for refugees fall behind: in a scenario where national security prevails, keeping refugees in the camp seems to be the safest choice.

This thesis examines the role of international organizations (IOs) at the domestic level. While International Relations (IR) offers an extensive literature on IOs, with understandings of IOs ranging from instruments of states to autonomous actors, it tends to ignore the role of IOs working at the domestic level, with an 'on-the-ground' presence of their own, and what this means for the IO's relationship with the state. The thesis develops a heuristic framework for understanding what is called IO 'domestication', which outlines a range of ways an IO can work domestically. It then focuses on one type domestication in particular: surrogate statehood, or cases where an IO substitutes for the state by providing services, executing functions of governance, and assuming authority in a given locale. The framework identifies indicators of surrogacy, the conditions for IO surrogacy, and reasons why it is sustained. It also considers the various types of relationship that can emerge from IO surrogacy between the IO and the state, ranging from states that willingly choose to abdicate responsibility to the IO, to states that partner with the IO. Empirically, the thesis examines these relationships through the case studies of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, which present a spectrum of UNHCR’s surrogacy over time. Ultimately, the thesis puts forth a counterintuitive claim: IOs that take on surrogate state properties actually have less influence on the states in which they are working. The analysis draws on two mechanisms to help explain this outcome: marginalisation of the state, and responsibility shifting.

This thesis makes two related arguments regarding the academic field of migration and refugee studies (MARS) and the control of migration by UK state agencies. The first, and more empirical one, is that the former facilitated the latter: the field’s members provided symbolic, technical, and pedagogic assistance to two non-departmental public bodies in controlling migration. The second, and more theoretical, argument of this thesis is that MARS facilitated migration control because of culture, power, and structure. It is through the field’s implication in the coercion of its human subjects by UK state agencies that MARS academics a) answered their calling, b) assisted class rule as ideologists, and c) separated sacred and profane by policing endogamy. The introduction describes the existing literature on the relationship between MARS and migration control. The consensus is that the former facilitated the latter. However, these studies fail to provide detailed accounts of the ways in which it did so. Chapter One defines the elements of my more empirical argument: MARS and migration control. An historical narrative outlines the institutional development of the field since its beginnings in the early 1980s. Then a new model for understanding migration control – i.e., migrant CODAR – is described. Chapter Two uses this model to trace the actor network through which MARS academics facilitated the restriction of their human subjects’ mobility by the UK state agencies of the Advisory Panel on Country Information and the Migration Advisory Committee. Chapters Three, Four, and Five use Weberian, Marxist, and Durkheimian anthropological approaches (respectively) to explain the implication of MARS and migration control that is described in Chapters One and Two. Finally, the conclusion of the thesis discusses its contributions to both more particular (i.e., the literature surveyed in the introduction on MARS and migration control) and more general (i.e., anthropology) scholarly fields.

This dissertation focuses on international actors' response to the ethnic cleansing perpetrated during the 1992 – 1995 Bosnian War. The work illuminates the multilateral attempt to reverse one of the outcomes of ethnic cleansing following the war, through the return of displaced people. The policy emphasis on "re-mixing" people, interpreted through a strategy of minority returns, and supported and coordinated on an international scale, was unprecedented. This dissertation asks: why did powerful states and international organizations pursue a re-mixing policy as a response to ethnic cleansing in Bosnia? At first glance, the choice seems counterintuitive. The policy was expensive. Post-1989, the West no longer needed "to keep Yugoslavia afloat." Furthermore, reversal required a degree and duration of international involvement that, at the time, was thought to be politically, militarily, and financially impossible. There are two existing explanations for this surprising phenomenon: international moralism and norm evolutionism. International moralists posit that international actors were moved to re-mix Bosnians out of a sense of guilt. Norm evolutionists argue that international norms governing appropriate responses to ethnic cleansing have shifted during the twentieth century towards support for re-mixing. In contrast to these two dominant views, this dissertation argues that the re-mixing policy initially emerged as a practical fix to a series of pressing, context-specific political challenges. State policymakers justified the re-mixing policy, however, on normative grounds. Though not the original incentive for action, international organizations on the ground then adopted the policy, empowered by states' normative justifications and thereby transformed the political rhetoric into concrete action. This dissertation corrects a common assumption that the origins and motivations behind the re-mixing policy were normative in nature, it contributes to a better understanding of how normative discourses emerge, mature, and transform into policy and it offers policy recommendations based on lessons learnt from this important and seemingly contradictory case.