Adam Pilarski

Efforts to move away from the use of refugee camps

Wednesday, February 4
These questions apply to chapter 8 and 9. You should skim Chapter 10 because it summarizes
the main points of the book, but we will re-read it in the end of the semester when we are talking
about reforms.
1. What strategies did High Commissioner Hocke endorse to move away from the reliance
on refugee camps? Why did these strategies fail?
Within the Office, there was the growing consensus that refugees were not being adequately
protected in refugee camps. Thus, they advocated for repatriation, and tried to secure more
credibility by instating policies that promoted for rapid return-in spite of the tumult their
respective countries might be in. In the case of the Tamils to Sri Lanka, for example, these
refugees returned back to the civil war and adverse conditions from which they had previously
fled.
Additionally, the UNHCR also altered its previous standards for repatriation. Rather than it be a
voluntary decision on the part of the refugee, the Office could dictate that an individual would be
guaranteed a "safe return." This being that their home country's situation would not improve
substantially but, rather, "appreciably." This further fostered the belief that the needs of the
refugee were blunted by the security interests of the state.
The UNHCR also aspired to cover the full ambit of repatriation. Specifically, they hoped to
formulate a complex series of rehabilitation, reintegration, and development for the returning
areas. However, the UNHCR was hardly equipped for tending to fiscal matters, and the financial
powers that be proved incapable of overseeing development projects to the degree to which they
endeavored.
3. What is "preventative protection?" (p. 297- ) How did that work out for them?
According to Ogata, "preventative protection" was conceived of as helping to eliminate the need
for flight for refugees. This included calling for adjunct protection from other states, and a place
of refuge, as a means of reducing violence on the ground. Unfortunately, the UNHCR proved far
too inexperienced within war-affected populations to secure these rights. Indeed, during these
policies, they even bore witness to harassment of minorities, expulsions, evictions, and an array
of other human rights abuses. On August 11th, 1992 UNHCR confessed that their ambition
"ha[d] its limits...Without an immediate ceasefire the shelling or destruction of civilian targets
and other violations of the laws of war unlikely to stop..." Indeed, in their attempts to provide
protection to the would-be refugees, the UNHCR failed to successfully counter the combatants'
ardently driven carnality and apathy towards humanitarian law.