Sustainable Return in Post‐conflict Contexts

Abstract

Post‐conflict return is a highly politically charged process in a number of contexts, both for returnees and those who did not migrate or flee, leading many observers to question the notion of an unproblematic return “home”. Specifically, doubts remain both about the conditions and voluntariness of return, the ability of individual returnees to reintegrate in their home countries and regions, and the wider sustainability of the return process. This paper seeks to provide an overview of recent policy interest in returns, before setting out a tentative definition of what might be considered a “sustainable” return. It is argued that it is possible to draw a distinction between narrow indicators of the “sustainability” of return, such as whether returnees subsequently reemigrate, and wider definitions, which see “sustainability” as involving both the reintegration of individual returnees in their home societies, and the wider impact of return on macroeconomic and political indicators. Based on either definition, the development of robust indicators of the sustainability of return could assist in monitoring the impact of return programmes, providing valuable insight on return policies. The broader definition suggested also draws attention to the idea that continued mobility after an initial return ‐ including circulation and the development of a “transnational” lifestyle ‐ may be more “sustainable” than a single and definitive return to the refugee's place of origin.

Deconstructing the meanings of and motivations for return: an Afghan case study

“…The end of the Cold War marked a change of discourse with regard to migrants arriving in Western European countries from conflict areas. Once accepting refugees from rival regimes had lost its ideological or geopolitical value (Chimni, 2000), immigration policies changed from protection and integration to containment and return (Black & Gent, 2006;Koser & Black, 1999). In European migration management policies, return of unwanted migrants, such as asylum seekers whose claim was rejected or expired after a conflict has ended, therefore became a priority since the 1990s (Hammond, 1999;Omata, 2013;Stein & Cuny, 1994).…”

Return mobilities of highly skilled young people to a post-conflict region: the case of Kurdish-British to Kurdistan – Iraq

“…However, conflict-generated refugee-diasporas such as the Kurds preserve a distinctive diasporic identity over generations (Brubaker 2005). Therefore, diasporas mobilize for a homeland in various ways including contributing to the conflict/peace process (Black and Gent 2006), creating transnational networks and sending financial and political remittances (Rian˜o-Alcala´ and Goldring 2014). This creates an intergenerational diasporic consciousness (Clifford 1994;Brubaker 2005) because"[e]ven if they [the children of migrants] rarely visit their ancestral homes or are not fluent in its language, they are often raised in settings that reference the homeland ideologically, materially and affectively each day" (Levitt 2009(Levitt ,1231.…”

Moderating Effect of the Situation of Return or Relocation on the Well-Being and Psychosocial Trauma of Young Victims of the Armed Conflict in Colombia

“…The concept of return began to be studied at the end of the Second World War (Black and Gent, 2006). South Sudan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Uganda, and Afghanistan appear as the countries with the highest returns, within and toward them, with loss of confidence and doubts about their own capacities, destruction of homes, despair, a pessimistic view of the world, among others, influencing the decision to return or to relocate (Bozzoli et al, 2012;Haroz et al, 2013;Huser et al, 2019;Sullivan, 2019;Renner et al, 2020), and affect their well-being (Siriwardhana and Stewart, 2013).…”

“…South Sudan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Uganda, and Afghanistan appear as the countries with the highest returns, within and toward them, with loss of confidence and doubts about their own capacities, destruction of homes, despair, a pessimistic view of the world, among others, influencing the decision to return or to relocate (Bozzoli et al, 2012;Haroz et al, 2013;Huser et al, 2019;Sullivan, 2019;Renner et al, 2020), and affect their well-being (Siriwardhana and Stewart, 2013). Various international studies have focused on this population in order to better understand the consequences of return and relocation on the well-being of these victims (Diener and Diener, 1995;Black and Gent, 2006;Siriwardhana and Stewart, 2013;Burns et al, 2018).…”