Since the World Humanitarian Summit in May 2016, the idea of responses that are ‘as local as possible, as international as necessary’ has emerged as both a central and a contentious point of departure for reforming the existing humanitarian architecture. Critiques of the system have led to calls to allow space for a more devolved humanitarianism that recognises that first responders are almost always local. Such a response is more contextually appropriate and attuned to existing needs; enhances flexibility and efficiency; and involves local aid actors and communities more meaningfully in humanitarian decision-making.
Many people fleeing persecution and conflict become separated from their families. They may have had to leave family members behind or to leave without being able to ensure or know if they are safe. They may become separated or lose track of each other during flight. Finding and reuniting with family members can be one of the most pressing concerns of asylum-seekers, refugees, and others in need of international protection. Family reunification in the country of asylum is often the only way to ensure respect for their right to family life and family unity.
The separation of families when people flee persecution and conflict can have devastating consequences on family members’ wellbeing and their ability to rebuild their lives. At the moment of flight, they may be forced to leave without being able to ensure or know if their families are safe. Once in safety, refugees and other beneficiaries of international protection are often unaware of the whereabouts of their family. Others have to make difficult decisions about leaving their family behind to find safety in another country. The right to family life and family unity, as set out in international and regional law and outlined in this research paper, applies to all, including refugees. It applies throughout displacement, including at the stage of admission, in reception, in detention, during the refugee status determination process, where expulsion may be threatened, and in the context of durable solutions.
https://www.iom.int/sites/default/files/our_work/DMM/AVRR/IOM_SAMUEL_HALL_MEASURE_REPORT%202017.pdfIOM, the UN Migration Agency, published today the report Setting Standards for an Integrated Approach to Reintegration. The report, prepared and conducted by the Samuel Hall think tank, outlines recommendations to support sustainable reintegration of migrants who return to their home countries in the framework of Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration (AVRR) programmes.
El Instituto de Estudios sobre Conflictos y Acción Humanitaria (IECAH) y Médicos Sin Fronteras (MSF) ha presentado hoy el informe “La acción humanitaria 2016 – 2017: Usos, abusos y desusos del humanitarismo en el escenario internacional”, donde se realiza un balance de acción humanitaria en este bienio. En 2016-2017, a las tres emergencias nivel tres (según la clasificación de la ONU) ya conocidas –Siria, Irak y Yemen– se añadió en octubre de 2017 la crisis de personas refugiadas rohingyas en Bangladesh y el agravamiento de la situación en la República Democrática del Congo (en la zona de los Kivu). Además, hay otras crisis de carácter crónico como República Centroafricana, Sudán del Sur, Etiopía, Nigeria y Somalia, que se han hecho tristemente habituales en el escenario internacional.
As policymakers in countries around the world look to expand their migration-management policy toolkits, a growing number have sought cooperation with neighboring states and those further along common migration corridors. This shift is rooted in part in a recognition that unilateral action is often of limited effect and can have unintended consequences. Closing a border, absent a broader regional strategy, often diverts rather than stems flows, pushing migrants to instead travel new (and often more dangerous) routes. While most partnerships aim to improve border management, return those migrants who are found not to have a claim to remain, and address the underlying drivers of migration, such cooperation does not always bear the intended fruit. This Transatlantic Council Statement, which caps a series on partnerships that can respond to the next decade’s migration challenges, explores how countries along different migration corridors are working to cooperatively manage migration—and why the results of these partnerships have been so mixed. Though reducing arrivals and increasing returns have long been of central importance to destination countries, some are beginning to appreciate the need to look beyond short-term enforcement aims to sustain cooperation with origin and transit countries. In doing so, policymakers may need to find ways to ensure both sides derive real benefits from cooperation, think critically about how to address politically sensitive issues, and develop a forward-looking approach to monitoring and acting to pre-empt potential crises.
The Norwegian Refugee Council, the Danish Refugee Council, the International Rescue Committee and Save the Children are pleased to share with you their joint recommendations on durable solutions for the Global Compact on Refugees’ Programme of Action, ahead of the High Commissioner’s Dialogue on Protection Challenges.
Since 2014, the International Organization for Migration has recorded the deaths of nearly 25,000 migrants. This figure is a significant indicator of the human toll of unsafe migration, yet fails to capture the true number of people who have died or gone missing during migration. This report, the third volume in the Fatal Journeys series, focuses on improving data on migrant fatalities. It is published in two parts. Part 1 critically examines the existing and potential sources of data on missing migrants. Part 2 focuses on six key regions across the world, discussing the regional data challenges and context of migrant deaths and disappearances.
This report focuses on the gravest of violations against human rights defenders: killings and enforced disappearances. The motives behind these attacks are multiple and layered. Some people are attacked because of their legitimate activities: for example, as they stand up to powerful actors violating human rights, share information and raise awareness, or confront discriminatory public opinion and social norms. Others are attacked both for what they do and who they are. Human rights defenders who experience discrimination and inequality are at heightened risk of attack.