Strengthening Support for Refugees: The Collaborative Effort of UNHCR and Human Rights Bodies

When a refugee crosses borders fleeing persecution, they need more than just shelter and food. They need their fundamental rights protected, their voices heard, and institutions that will stand up for them when governments fail to act. This is where an often overlooked partnership becomes critical: the collaboration between the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and national human rights institutions working together to strengthen refugee protection worldwide.

Why human rights institutions matter for refugee protection 🔗

National human rights institutions are unique entities. Unlike non-governmental organizations, they are official state institutions established by law or constitution, yet they must operate independently from government interference. This dual nature gives them remarkable power. They can investigate human rights violations, advise governments on policy reforms, handle individual complaints from refugees, and publicly hold states accountable for their obligations.

According to UNHCR’s partnership framework, these institutions now operate in over 120 countries worldwide. Their broad mandate covers all persons within a state’s territory, including refugees, asylum-seekers, internally displaced persons, and stateless individuals. This means they can advocate for refugee rights even when UNHCR faces access restrictions or political constraints.

The Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions has made explicit commitments to protect displaced persons through awareness-raising, investigation, monitoring, and collaboration with UNHCR and other stakeholders. These pledges translate into concrete action on the ground, from detention monitoring to legal aid provision.

How the partnership works in practice 🔗

The collaboration between UNHCR and national human rights institutions takes many forms. These institutions conduct border monitoring to ensure refugees can access asylum procedures and are not forcibly returned. They visit detention centers where asylum-seekers are held, investigating conditions and advocating for alternatives to detention. They provide legal aid to refugees navigating complex asylum systems, handle individual complaints, and advise governments on legislative reforms.

What makes this partnership particularly effective is the complementary nature of their strengths. UNHCR brings technical expertise on refugee law and international protection standards. National human rights institutions contribute local knowledge, legal standing within national systems, and the ability to publicly challenge government actions without diplomatic constraints.

The institutions also leverage regional networks to address refugee situations that span multiple countries. European institutions adopted the Belgrade Declaration in 2015, committing to protect refugee rights through joint monitoring, cross-border cooperation, and coordinated advocacy. Similar frameworks exist in the Americas, Africa, and Asia-Pacific regions.

Monitoring and data collection 🔗

National human rights institutions regularly collect data on refugee populations, monitor their living conditions, and document rights violations. Unlike UNHCR, which sometimes faces political pressure or access restrictions, these institutions have statutory authority to visit refugee camps, detention facilities, and border areas. Governments are legally obligated to grant them unrestricted access to persons, places, and documentation.

This monitoring produces valuable evidence for advocacy. The institutions publish thematic reports, submit information to international human rights mechanisms, and make public recommendations to governments. This transparency creates accountability that purely diplomatic channels cannot achieve.

Advocacy and legal reform 🔗

One of the most significant contributions of national human rights institutions is their advisory role in legislative and policy development. They review draft asylum laws, propose amendments to ensure compliance with international standards, and advocate for the inclusion of refugees in national services like healthcare and education.

These institutions can also initiate legal proceedings or intervene in strategic cases that set important precedents. Their quasi-judicial powers allow them to challenge government decisions in ways that civil society organizations often cannot.

The Chakma refugee case: a powerful example from India 🔗

Perhaps no case better illustrates the critical role of national human rights institutions than India’s intervention on behalf of the Chakma refugees. In the mid-1960s, approximately 65,000 Chakma and Hajong tribal people fled to India from present-day Bangladesh after being displaced by the construction of the Kaptai Dam. They settled primarily in Arunachal Pradesh, but decades later still faced persecution, discrimination, and threats of forcible expulsion.

In 1996, the National Human Rights Commission of India filed a public interest petition directly with the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Commission invoked Article 21, which protects the right to life and liberty, arguing that these fundamental rights extend to all persons within India’s territory, not just citizens.

The case arose during a particularly dangerous period. Local student organizations in Arunachal Pradesh had issued ultimatums demanding the Chakmas leave the state by a specific deadline. When that deadline passed, they enforced economic blockades on refugee camps, cutting off supplies of food, medicine, and essential facilities. The situation became so serious that the central government deployed additional paramilitary forces.

The Supreme Court sided with the National Human Rights Commission, issuing orders that transformed the protection landscape for these refugees. The Court directed the state government to protect the life and liberty of every Chakma residing in the state, use force if necessary to repel attempts at forcible eviction, process citizenship applications expeditiously, and ensure that no Chakma would be evicted except in accordance with law.

This intervention demonstrated several key strengths of national human rights institutions. First, the Commission had legal standing to approach the Supreme Court when refugees themselves might have faced significant barriers to accessing justice. Second, it could frame the issue in constitutional terms that resonated with domestic law, rather than relying solely on international refugee conventions that India has not ratified. Third, its status as an independent state institution gave weight to arguments that might have been dismissed if raised only by advocacy groups.

According to subsequent analysis, this case became a crucial precedent for refugee protection in India. The Commission’s intervention forced the government to withdraw plans for deportation and established that refugees have constitutional rights under Article 21, including protection from refoulement.

Ongoing challenges and continued advocacy 🔗

Despite the Supreme Court ruling, Chakma refugees continue to face obstacles. The National Human Rights Commission has remained engaged, monitoring their situation and advocating for full citizenship rights. This long-term involvement illustrates another advantage of partnering with national institutions: they provide continuity and sustainability that international agencies alone cannot guarantee.

The case also highlights how national human rights institutions can address the gap created when countries have not signed international refugee conventions. India is not party to the 1951 Refugee Convention, yet constitutional protections enforced by domestic institutions can still provide meaningful protection.

Building stronger protection systems together 🔗

The partnership between UNHCR and national human rights institutions is not without challenges. These institutions face resource constraints, political pressure, and sometimes threats or reprisals for their work. In some countries, governments have undermined institutional independence through legislative changes or budget cuts.

However, the collaboration offers unique advantages that make it worth strengthening. National human rights institutions provide protection that persists even when UNHCR must reduce its presence. Their work is embedded in national systems, creating long-term accountability. They can respond rapidly to emerging situations, conduct unannounced visits, and publicly challenge government actions without the diplomatic constraints that bind international agencies.

UNHCR has recognized this potential by developing comprehensive guidance on engaging with national human rights institutions. The guidance encourages UNHCR offices to formalize collaboration through memoranda of understanding, provide capacity-building on refugee protection standards, and integrate these institutions into protection strategies from the outset.

The institutions themselves have made commitments at global and regional levels. At the Global Refugee Forum, the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions pledged that its 120 member institutions would identify and implement national-level initiatives to achieve greater protection for displaced and stateless persons. Regional networks have adopted declarations committing to specific actions like border monitoring, detention oversight, and legislative advocacy.

Practical steps for effective collaboration 🔗

Successful partnerships require clear frameworks that define roles, responsibilities, and information-sharing protocols. Confidentiality and the principle of “do no harm” must guide all collaboration, especially when sharing sensitive information about refugees. UNHCR can support national human rights institutions through capacity-building, joint missions, and regular briefings on protection challenges.

The institutions, in turn, can leverage their statutory powers to access places and information that UNHCR cannot reach, handle individual complaints through national mechanisms, and advocate for refugee inclusion in national development plans and services. This complementarity creates protection outcomes that neither actor could achieve alone.

Looking ahead 🔗

As displacement continues to grow globally, with over 123 million people forcibly displaced worldwide, the need for effective protection partnerships becomes ever more critical. National human rights institutions represent a largely untapped resource for strengthening refugee protection systems.

The Chakma case in India demonstrates what is possible when these institutions exercise their full mandate on behalf of refugees. Similar examples exist across regions, from Kenya’s National Commission challenging refugee camp closures, to Chile’s institution providing legal aid to asylum-seekers, to Malaysia’s commission conducting nationwide detention monitoring.

These partnerships work because they combine international standards with domestic accountability, technical expertise with local knowledge, and diplomatic advocacy with legal enforcement. They create multiple layers of protection that make refugee rights more resilient to political pressures and policy shifts.

What do you think? How can governments better support the independence and capacity of national human rights institutions to protect refugees? What role should these institutions play in countries that have not ratified international refugee conventions?

References

1. https://ganhri.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/5f92a5604.pdf
2. https://www.unhcr.org/about-unhcr/our-partners/un-and-international-organizations
3. https://globalcompactrefugees.org/multi-stakeholder-pledge-national-human-rights-institutions
4. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/767216/
5. https://politicsforindia.com/6-8-national-human-rights-commission-nhrc-psir/
6. https://rli.blogs.sas.ac.uk/2021/05/06/india-is-chipping-away-at-its-past-generosity-towards-refugees/
7. https://www.unhcr.org/us/