At present, there exists no internationally agreed upon definition of who is an Internally Displaced Person (IDP). The UN’s current working definition holds as internally displaced those persons who have been forced to flee their homes suddenly or unexpectedly in large numbers, as a result of armed conflict, internal strife, systematic violation of human rights or natural or manmade disasters and who are within the territory of their own country. Persons fleeing armed conflict, internal strife, and systematic violations of human rights would, if they were to cross a border, qualify as refugees both under the Organization of African Unity (OAU) Convention and the Cartagena Declaration, and, arguably in many cases, under the narrower definition of the Refugee Convention as well. Internally displaced people in Myanmar
International community should be concerned of IDPs when their movement is impelled by the coercion and they are subject to human right abuse
Tasmiah Nuhiya Ahmed
At present, there exists no internationally agreed upon definition of who is an Internally Displaced Person (IDP). The UNs current working definition holds as internally displaced those persons who have been forced to flee their homes suddenly or unexpectedly in large numbers, as a result of armed conflict, internal strife, systematic violation of human rights or natural or manmade disasters and who are within the territory of their own country. Persons fleeing armed conflict, internal strife, and systematic violations of human rights would, if they were to cross a border, qualify as refugees both under the Organization of African Unity (OAU) Convention and the Cartagena Declaration, and, arguably in many cases, under the narrower definition of the Refugee Convention as well.
International community should be concerned of IDP when their movement is impelled by the coercion and they are subject to human right abuse as a result of this up-rootedness, and the lack of protection available without their own countries.
The principle sources of the existing standards for protection of IDPs are found in the international human rights law, namely the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; humanitarian law, which comprises the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the two additional protocols of 1977; and refugee law embodied in the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol. The wide array of rights enshrined in the corpus of human rights law is applicable to the situation common to the displaced. These rights cover the minimum standards of human existence and dignity; physical protection, shelter, food, clothing, basic health, work and the integrity of the person and the family as the most fundamental social unit.
The responsibility for meeting these needs for protection and assistance rests first and foremost with the national Governments. However, in situation of displacement, the State may be required to take additional measurer in order to safeguard these rights, which it might be unable or unwilling to do.
Since basic economic, social and cultural rights form part of international customary law, Governments unable to protect them adequately are obliged to avail themselves of international cooperation. Naturally, internally displaced people face more risks with regards to their physical safety than the rest of the population. Standards to address this special protection needs may be appropriate. Special guideline for the protection problems that women and children face are also necessary. Such guidelines have been developed within the United Nations system in order to deal with the protection needs of refugees and important principles could be derived from them and further elaborated.
Humanitarian law, which codifies the principle that those not participating in the hostilities shall be treated humanely, contains provisions which are of great value to the displaced. Particularly relevant is Article 3, common to all four Geneva Conventions, which in the case of armed conflicts not of an international character; categorically prohibits violence to life and/or persons, the taking of hostages, and outrages upon the personal dignity of persons. Equally important is Article 17 of the Protocol II Additional to the Geneva Convention (1977), which deals with displacements of civilian population in internal conflicts and sets out restrictions on such movements. It provides guarantees to the civilian populations if these movements, for imperative reasons, have to take place and prohibits their being compelled to leave their terrorists for reasons related to the conflict. While useful, these provision applies only to persons displaced because of armed conflict, and only to States parties to Additional Protocol II.
For IDPs, one of the most important rights provided for in refugee and human rights law is the right to seek asylum. However, neither human rights law nor humanitarian law is sufficiently explicit in its protection of the internally displaced. In some cases, it is possible to infer specific rights from existing general norms or by way of analogy.
Humanitarian assistance should be provided to IDPs based on principles of impartiality and nondiscrimination, as articulated in the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response (Sphere standards). All affected populations, including members of the local host communities, should be consulted to ensure assistance best meets their needs, particularly vulnerable and socially excluded people, and should be engaged to help provide such assistance. Humanitarian assistance should incorporate protection measures, targeted services, and staff training to meet the particular needs of refugees and IDPs with special needs, such as unaccompanied children, families traveling with young children, victims of human trafficking, people who have suffered or are at risk of gender-based violence (forced marriage, domestic abuse, etc.), women traveling on their own and female heads of household, pregnant and lactating mothers, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people, and persons with disabilities.
Human Rights Watch advised that Rohingyas in Bangladesh who are yet to get the status of Refugee and IDPs who were arbitrarily or unlawfully deprived of their former homes, lands, properties or places of habitual residence have the right to return to their place of residence or of choice and the return of their property. Those unable or unwilling to return to their homes have the right to choose compensation from the government for the loss of all their homes and properties. These rights are articulated in the UN Pinheiro Principles regarding Housing and property restitution in the context of the return of refugees and internally displaced persons. These principles state that, All refugees and displaced persons have the right to have restored to them any housing, land and/or property of which they were arbitrarily or unlawfully deprived, or to be compensated for any housing, land and/or property that is factually impossible to restore as determined by an independent, impartial tribunal. Refugees and IDPs who have been arbitrarily or unlawfully deprived of their liberty, livelihoods, citizenship, family life, and identity also have the right of restitution.
The Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh has not recognized the Rohingya as refugees, anticipating that possibly it would be more difficult to repatriate the Rohingya to Myanmar if the Rohingyas are given the refugee status in Bangladesh. The governments of Bangladesh and Myanmar have already signed an agreement on November 23 to repatriate the Rohingya from Bangladesh even though, humanitarian professionals have not endorsed this plan of early repatriation. Reportedly, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have both urged caution, while U.N. officials remain unconvinced that such a swift return could be safe, dignified and voluntary.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has asked Bangladesh to grant refugee status to the Rohingya on several occasions, but the Bangladesh government expressed concern that the Coxs Bazar region might turn into a refugee colony. The UNHCR chief said that - We must grant refugee status to the Rohingya who fled from Myanmar and we must take further steps to support them. However, the Disaster Management and Relief Minister of Bangladesh said that Rohingya who have fled to Bangladesh from Myanmar are trespassers.
Bangladesh has recognized the Rohingyas, who have fled ferocity in their homeland, as forcibly displaced Myanmar citizens.
However, Bangladesh has been generous in providing sanctuary for Rohingya facing persecution in Myanmar. Ordinary Bangladeshis, despite widespread poverty and the huge challenge of monsoon floods, have responded with enormous kindness. For example, despite substantial recent inflation in the cost of rice, large numbers of Bangladeshis have contributed rice for Rohingya relief.
As meeting up the humanitarian needs of the Rohingyas in Bangladesh and the IDPs in Myanmar is very important and the same has been prescribed by Human Rights Watch, the donor governments and intergovernmental organizations should urgently provide generous support to meet the humanitarian needs of Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh, and IDPs of all ethnicities remaining in Myanmar. Moreover, the existing standards for protection of IDPs under international law instruments must be considered while dealing the most persecuted IDPs in Myanmar.
The writer is a lawyer
