Effectiveness of ‘local settlement’ practice for protection of Rohingyas

Local settlement practice does not follow any limitation of time or ask for residence permit for the refugees. However, article 6 of the TPD prescribes a certain time limit to bring an end to temporary protection. And article 8 of the Directive provides residence permit to the asylum seekers for a definite time frame.

Since 2020, the Government of Bangladesh has been relocating the Rohingyas to Bhashan Char. The UN and other agencies initially criticised the relocation process. However, after agreement with the Bangladesh Government, the UN is all set to monitor the relocated Rohingyas in Bhashan Char. The UN agreed to do so after getting the Bangladesh Government's assurance of providing education, medical services and income generating activities to the Rohingyas. Bangladesh's move is defined as "local settlement" in the language of international refugee law. Local settlement practice is basically a temporary solution provided by the host country. It is also known as a follow up process after mass refugee influxes to handle the crisis immediately. The Organization of African Unity Refugee Convention 1967 introduced the practice in refugee protection worldwide. This practice is also considered as the temporary version of local integration.

This underdeveloped practice of the UNHCR resembles the Temporary Protection Directive (TPD) of the European Union (EU). The TPD solicits to provide temporary protection to the incoming refugees in European countries after large influxes. The EU introduced it during the Balkan crisis of 1990. It generally gives protection to the refugee for a definite time frame to create a sense of belongingness and security among the refugees. Article 4 of the Directive permits the refugees to stay for one year in the respective asylum-giving countries. The Directive has settled three separate criteria to invoke the protection mechanism, i.e., (i) there must be an armed conflict in the country of origin; (ii) the conflict disturbs the process of return; and (iii) an asylum seeker must remain within the borders of the EU countries. Activation of the TPD for Ukrainian refugees after Russian aggression on Ukraine is pursuant to these three standards.  

Simultaneously, the Rohingyas' local settlement to Bhashan char is bringing coherence to the EU's TPD. After applying the customary principle of non-refoulement, local settlement or TPD is the most convenient way for comprehensive protection of the refugees. But strategically, TPD is more accurate comparing to local settlement. There are two distinct reasons for that, (a) firstly, local settlement did not receive written acceptance as a solution under the UN Refugee Convention or by the UNHCR; and (b) secondly, the TPD is an approved form of protection among the EU countries. The UN Refugee Convention itself created the gap by clustering the means of solution only as 'permanent solution'. Also, international refugee law scheme ingenuously undervalued temporary solutions of refugee protection and that diluted the importance of 'local settlement' practice. The practice remained irregular without getting recognition as a principle of international refugee law. At the same time, recognition of this practice as customary principle is undesirable, when every state is not a party to the Refugee Convention. The EU's assertion on similar type of principle should influence the global refugee protection mechanism. It will benefit both refugees and the host countries.

Local settlement practice does not follow any limitation of time or ask for residence permit for the refugees. However, article 6 of the TPD prescribes a certain time limit to bring an end to temporary protection. And article 8 of the Directive provides residence permit to the asylum seekers for a definite time frame. The TPD in terms of protection is more comprehensive than local settlement despite their similar nature. As a result, in pursuance to the Directive, the UNHCR has adopted a guideline in 2013 for temporary protection named as 'Temporary Protection or Stay Arrangements'. However, there is a dilemma between the two alternatives when there is a massive influx.

To end this dilemma, the TPD/TPSA might go hand in hand with local settlement. Local settlement being a temporary solution in contrast to local integration connects to the TPD/TPSA in various aspects. The UNHCR might cohere to these two principles aligning with the principle of non-refoulement. This will open a new era of protection mechanism for refugees. Additionally, local settlement might achieve the comprehensiveness of local integration in terms of providing temporary solution to a crisis.

The writer is Lecturer in Law, Feni University.