The Plight of Internally Displaced Persons: Beyond Refugee Law

When people flee their homes but remain within their country’s borders, they enter a legal gray zone that millions worldwide know all too well. Unlike refugees who cross international boundaries and gain specific legal protections, internally displaced persons face unique challenges that international law has struggled to address comprehensively.

Understanding internal displacement
The critical distinction: refugees versus IDPs
Shared vulnerabilities, unequal protections
The absence of a binding legal framework
The UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement
Development and foundation
Key provisions and scope
Grounding in human rights and humanitarian law
International recognition and application
Challenges in India’s context
The way forward

Understanding internal displacement

Internally displaced persons are individuals forced to flee their homes due to conflict, violence, human rights violations, or disasters, but who remain within their own country. According to the International Organization for Migration, by the end of 2021, the total number of people internally displaced reached a record 59 million. More recently, IDMC reported that 83.4 million people were living in internal displacement at the end of 2024, representing an increase of 7.5 million from the previous year.

In India specifically, the issue has gained prominence. The country recorded 5.4 million internal displacements in 2024, the highest in over a decade, driven primarily by natural disasters such as floods, storms, and landslides. The Manipur conflict alone accounted for around 67,000 displacements in 2023, representing approximately 97% of all internal displacements occurring in South Asia that year.

The critical distinction: refugees versus IDPs

The fundamental difference between refugees and internally displaced persons lies in one critical element: the crossing of an international border. According to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, a refugee is defined under the 1951 Convention as someone outside their country of nationality who cannot return due to well-founded fear of persecution. This border crossing triggers specific legal protections under international law.

In contrast, internally displaced persons do not have a special legal status in international law with rights specific to their situation. The term itself is merely descriptive, not a legal designation. While assistance to refugees is a legal requirement under international conventions, the principles on internal displacement remain non-binding. This leaves IDPs particularly vulnerable, as their own governments may be unable or unwilling to protect their rights.

Shared vulnerabilities, unequal protections

Despite remaining within their own countries, IDPs often face challenges similar to or worse than refugees. They frequently remain close to conflict zones, caught in crossfire and at risk of being used as pawns by warring parties. They suffer significantly higher mortality rates than the general population and remain at high risk of physical attack, sexual assault, and abduction. Many are deprived of adequate shelter, food, and health services.

The legal paradox is striking. While both groups flee the same threats, refugees receive international protection because they crossed a border, while IDPs theoretically retain the protection of their own government. Yet in many cases, it is their own government from which they flee, or their government lacks the capacity to protect them.

The absence of a binding legal framework

Unlike the refugee regime, which rests on the solid foundation of the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, there exists no universal legally binding treaty specifically for internally displaced persons. This gap in international law has created significant challenges in providing consistent protection and assistance to IDPs worldwide.

Regional attempts have been made to address this void. The African Union adopted the Kampala Convention in 2009, which provides legally binding protections for IDPs in Africa. However, most of the world lacks such comprehensive regional frameworks. This absence means that while IDPs enjoy general human rights under international human rights law and international humanitarian law during armed conflicts, there is no specific international instrument that addresses their unique displacement-related needs.

The UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement

To bridge this legal gap, the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement were developed and presented to the UN Commission on Human Rights in 1998. These principles represent the most comprehensive framework available for protecting and assisting internally displaced persons.

Development and foundation

The Guiding Principles were developed by Francis M. Deng, the Representative of the UN Secretary-General on Internally Displaced Persons, working with a team of international legal experts. The process extended over four years and involved extensive consultation with international organizations, NGOs, and research institutions worldwide.

While not a legally binding treaty, the principles are firmly grounded in existing international humanitarian law and human rights law. They restate and compile relevant provisions from these bodies of law, tailoring them specifically to the needs of internally displaced persons. As the Brookings Institution explains, the principles take general provisions of international law and make them specifically applicable to IDPs.

Key provisions and scope

The Guiding Principles begin with a working definition of internally displaced persons as individuals forced or obliged to flee their homes due to armed conflict, generalized violence, human rights violations, or natural or human-made disasters, who have not crossed an internationally recognized border. This definition was crucial because no such definition existed before 1998.

The principles are structured in five sections. Section I establishes general principles, asserting that IDPs cannot be discriminated against because of their displacement and that national authorities bear the primary responsibility for their protection and assistance. Section II addresses protection from displacement, articulating a right not to be arbitrarily displaced and specifying when displacement is prohibited.

Section III, the main body, sets forth civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights tailored to the specific needs of displaced persons. This includes rights to food, water, shelter, medical services, protection from violence, and safeguarding of property. Section IV addresses humanitarian assistance, affirming that when national authorities are unable or unwilling to provide assistance, international organizations have the right to offer their services. Section V covers return, resettlement, and reintegration, emphasizing voluntary return in safety and dignity.

Grounding in human rights and humanitarian law

The strength of the Guiding Principles lies in their foundation in existing binding international law. They draw from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, among other instruments.

At their heart is the concept of “sovereignty as responsibility.” This principle, emphasized in recent commemorations of the Guiding Principles, holds that IDPs are citizens or residents of their country, and national authorities have a duty to protect their rights and promote durable solutions. When states fail in this responsibility, the international community has a role to play.

International recognition and application

Since their adoption, the Guiding Principles have gained significant international standing. The UN Commission on Human Rights and General Assembly have acknowledged them in numerous resolutions. The UN Secretary-General has called upon the Security Council to encourage states to observe the principles in situations of mass displacement.

According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, all main international humanitarian, human rights, and development organizations have endorsed the principles. Regional organizations including the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the Council of Europe have incorporated them into their frameworks.

Most encouragingly, governments increasingly use the principles as guidelines in dealing with internal displacement. Countries including Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Georgia, Armenia, Colombia, and Angola have based policy and law upon their provisions. In Colombia, the Constitutional Court has cited the Guiding Principles in leading decisions, creating judicial precedent.

Challenges in India’s context

India faces particular challenges in addressing internal displacement. As Economic and Political Weekly notes, the country has no national policy and legal institutional framework to deal specifically with internally displaced persons. India has not ratified the 1951 Refugee Convention and lacks a permanent institutional structure for displacement issues.

The types of displacement in India are diverse. Development-induced displacement from dam construction, mining operations, and land acquisition has affected millions. Conflict-induced displacement occurs primarily in the northeast, stemming from long-standing armed conflicts and ethnic tensions. Natural disaster displacement, particularly from floods and cyclones, affects millions annually. In 2024, floods accounted for two-thirds of all internal displacements in India.

Despite the absence of a binding national framework, the Guiding Principles can serve as a valuable tool for policy development and advocacy in India. They provide a comprehensive standard against which current practices can be measured and improved.

The way forward

The existence of the Guiding Principles represents significant progress in addressing the protection gap for internally displaced persons. However, their non-binding nature means that implementation depends heavily on political will, advocacy efforts, and continued international pressure.

For India and other countries facing significant internal displacement, adopting the principles into national law and policy would strengthen protection for displaced populations. This could include developing comprehensive national policies on internal displacement, incorporating the principles into domestic legislation, establishing institutional mechanisms for coordinating responses to displacement, and ensuring meaningful participation of displaced communities in decisions affecting them.

The concept of “sovereignty as responsibility” embedded in the Guiding Principles offers a framework for balancing state sovereignty with the international community’s role in protecting vulnerable populations. As displacement numbers continue to rise globally, this framework becomes increasingly important.

What do you think? How can countries like India better integrate the UN Guiding Principles into national policy to protect internally displaced persons? What mechanisms would be most effective in ensuring that IDPs receive the protection and assistance they need while respecting state sovereignty?

How useful was this post?

Click on a star to rate it!

Average rating 0 / 5. Vote count: 0

No votes so far! Be the first to rate this post.

References

PDF 📄

Table of Contents

Understanding internal displacement 🔗

The critical distinction: refugees versus IDPs 🔗

Shared vulnerabilities, unequal protections 🔗

The absence of a binding legal framework 🔗

The UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement 🔗

Development and foundation 🔗

Key provisions and scope 🔗

Grounding in human rights and humanitarian law 🔗

International recognition and application 🔗

Challenges in India’s context 🔗

The way forward 🔗