A (necessary) shift towards an operational approach in international refugee protection
The ongoing Syrian civil war, now entering its fifth year, has produced catastrophic humanitarian consequences for the state itself, the Middle East region, and most recently, for the influx of refugees and migrants in Europe. Through 2015, and in particular during the summer, refugees surged and the “Eastern Mediterranean and Western Balkan route” became heavily used by asylum seekers from Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, in addition to nationals from Morocco, Eritrea, Iran, and Pakistan, among others. The refugee crisis has come to include nationals from throughout the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region as civil war, interethnic violence, persecution, and human rights violations have become widespread. Border closures throughout the European continent have barred the legal entry of refugees and migrants, preventing the safe passage of peoples into countries of destination.
The notion of refugee identity, seen through a rights-based, uncomplicated way is under threat. Consequently, it is not only the fault of state policies and practices, but more seriously it is as a result of increasingly complicated developments on the ground which are oriented towards immediate humanitarian assistance, as opposed to a rights-based approach to asylum. These are impacting the willingness of states to support refugees in the long term, and are indeed contributing to increased xenophobia. The pervasive securitization discourse – one that places a premium on the notion that refugees are a threat to national security – has increasingly contributed to civilian paranoia, and a push to close borders and stem the influx of refugees. In an international system that is currently experiencing disintegrating borders and internal displacement, a strictly formal and legalistic territorial view of refugee status is no longer relevant to human rights standards nor pressing humanitarian needs. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) must enhance its role that it presently maintains, facilitating cooperation between states and organizations on the ground to provide immediate humanitarian assistance.
Between February 11 and 21, 2016 I had the opportunity to conduct field research in Serbia and on the Macedonian border, where I was examining the role of Serbia along the so-called Balkan route.
Specifically, the norm of refugee protection as administered by the UNHCR and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the context of the recent influx of refugees from the MENA region along this Balkan route. Indeed, norms of protection are evolving to meet the needs of refugees, as these norms are a direct result of an absence of national protection. As the nature of protection provided to refugees is often context-driven, a close examination of a shift towards an operational approach in international refugee protection is indispensable. It is vital to create greater linkages between both assistance and protection functions. While the ‘domino’ effect has forced states to respond to rapid policy changes elsewhere in the European and the MENA region, NGOs and the Serbian state has had to act quickly in order to respond to the needs of refugees and migrants in times of crisis. NGOs are thereby forced to establish contingency plans that are able to adapt to an increasingly chaotic environment. This case study serves as a useful tool for further investigation into the interplay between the UNHCR and NGOs in upholding both refugee protection rights and needs, as the refugee identity continues to come under threat.
By Jelena Djuric
Please note that opinions expressed are the author’s own. They do not necessarily reflect the views and values of The Blank Page.
