Protracted refugee situations are a world-wide problem,yetlittle research isavailable. Despite obvious practical obstacles,it is the individual that must decide whether to return, which is why it is interesting to examine if the choice is deliberate or involuntary. This thesis aims to specifically study why Liberian refugees, who fled from the civil wars in the 1990’s, still livesin the refugee camp Buduburam in Ghana, where they have stayed for more than two decades even though their living conditions are continuing toworsen.To understand their choice of not repatriating, the Rational Choice Theory and Social Identity Theory,which separately describeshow and why individuals make decisions, are being compared. The former claims that people always make choices based on selfish and rational assumptions after considering both positive and negative consequences, and then choose the most profitable option. In contrast, the Social Identity Theory implies that an individual’s decision-making is based on group belonging, norms and surroundings.To further achieve the purpose of the study, the theories are appliedto the empirical materialgathered from semi-structured interviews made with eight refugees that stays in the camp, who individually describestheir situation and reason for not repatriating. Lastly, the analysis discusses whyneither of the theories has a complete explanation forthe problematic situation,although interesting approaches are acknowledged.

abstract: Protracted Refugee Situations (PRS) are of serious concern due to their adverse impacts on human rights and stability in host countries. This thesis profiles three, so-called, durable solutions for refugees: local integration, third country resettlement, and voluntary repatriation. However, refugees living in PRS are not given any durable solutions, and they remain confined to refugee camps while the conflicts that forced them from their homelands continue. Refugees usually find themselves in PRS as a result of the restrictive policies of the country in which they have sought refuge. These conditions not only deprive refugees of basic human rights, but act as catalysts for political violence, insurgency, and radicalization. This thesis examines, in detail, one such case: Nahr al-Bared, a Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon where refugees have been living in PRS for decades due to stringent refugee policies that contributed to violent clashes that took place in May 2007. The denial of human rights for Palestinians in Lebanon has effectively marginalized already disempowered refugee populations, thereby increasing the likelihood of instability and radicalization. The denial of rights, a lack of opportunities, and confinement to the poor conditions of the refugee camp, are driving forces of political violence and militant rhetoric. This situation can endanger the refugee host country as well as the refugees, who are civilians in need of international protection. Therefore, there is a strong connection between the inclusion of rights for refugee populations in a host country, and peace and security. The case of Palestinians in Lebanon is examined as a microcosm of the notion that human rights and state security are interdependent. Recognition of this interdependence necessitates a paradigm shift in perspectives and policies of international refugee protection and state security, from regarding PRS as an indefinite state of emergency to be contained, to acknowledgment that the indefinite duty to protect refugees in protracted situations simultaneously serves the host country's security concerns. / Dissertation/Thesis / M.A. Social Justice and Human Rights 2010