Refugee Repatriation and the Problem of Consent

Abstract

Over the past decade, millions of refugees have fled their countries of origin and asked for asylum abroad. Some of these refugees do not receive asylum, but are not deported. Instead they are detained, or denied basic rights of residency, some forced into enclosed camps. Hoping to escape such conditions, they wish to return to unsafe countries, and ask for help from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. In such cases, should NGOs and the UN assist refugees to return? Drawing on original data gathered in South Sudan, and existing data from around the world, I argue that they should assist with return if certain conditions are met. First, the UN and NGOs must try to put an end to coercive conditions before helping with return. Secondly, helping with return must not encourage the government to expand the use of coercive policies to encourage more to return. Finally, NGOs and the UN must ensure that refugees are fully informed of the risks of returning. Organizations must either conduct research in countries of origin or lobby the government to allow refugees to visit their countries of origin before making a final decision.

Paying Refugees to Leave

“…So long as NGOs themselves use no coercion, and can do little else to help, they do no wrong. Of course, NGOs should also work hard to end coercive background conditions (Barnett, 2011; Gerver, in press). But if NGOs do everything in their power to stop detention policies and fail, refugees’ consent to return may be valid from the perspective of NGOs.…”

Voluntary and Forced Return Migration Under a Pandemic Crisis

“…Focusing on the return of refugees, asylum seekers, and IDPs, existing studies question the pre-and post-return assistance, practices, and interventions of international agencies, home and host states (Bascom, 2005;Omata, 2013;Iaria, 2014;Arias et al, 2014). Drawing from the existing practices, several studies offer key dimensions of better return programmes such as compliance with legal principles (safety, voluntariness, dignity), livelihood development, and equal citizenship within a nation (George et al, 2016;Frank, 2017;Gerver, 2018). In recent years, much interest has been dedicated to examining Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration (AVRR) schemes adopted by European countries to facilitate the return of rejected asylum seekers and those who voluntarily return (Lietaert et al, 2017;Lietaert, 2019;Koser & Kuschminder, 2017).…”

From Exile to Homeland Return: Ethnographic Mapping to Inform Peacebuilding from Afar

“…Second, and reaffirming other themes explored above, is the push for early and unsustainable repatriation by host states with shifting donor interest. In these situations, there is usually an absence of ground-level preconditions for sustainable and peaceful return, and the voluntariness of 'voluntary' return is suspect, even when return is assisted by the UN International Organization for Migration (IOM) (Bendixsen 2019;Flegar 2018;Gerver 2018). Milner (2008Milner ( , 2011Milner ( , 2015 confirms what other scholars have claimed, that refugees can play a positive role in building peace (Duthie 2012;Grace and Mooney 2009;Johansson 2009;Pope 2008;Sommers 2001), but has also recognised that targeted and programmed opportunities for this to take place are few and far between.…”