THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF CONFLATING THE RIGHTS OF REFUGEES AND INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS

Abstract

The rise in global human mobility and the plight of affected populations have brought the issue of internal displacement to prominence, making it a critical matter of international concern. As demography helps unpack this trend in global mobility, the reality of internal displacement is evolving, and the seriousness and scale of the situation are unfolding. Thus, as more attention is given to IDPs, it should become clearer that it is not only those who have crossed a recognised border that should be of national and international concern.  The paper, therefore, explores the debate regarding the appropriateness of recognising IDPs as a category of concern, while highlighting the points of convergence and divergence between refugeehood and internal displacement. It also discusses predominant debates on the pros and cons of subsuming the two systems under one instrument. It argues that there is no harm if the refugee protection mechanism, with appropriate adjustments, is deployed as a valuable resource of principles, concepts, and strategies to enhance the protection of IDPs. This can be achieved without jeopardising the institution of asylum. This paper argues that the focus should be on a broader human rights context rather than on geography or the insider/outsider category. The interest, therefore, should transcend the argument about the suitability of subsuming IDP protection under refugee law and instead draw attention to the rights of IDPs and the obligation of states to protect and realise those rights. THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF CONFLATING THE RIGHTS OF REFUGEES AND INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS