Why do we need an AU Convention for the Protection
and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons?

People forced to flee their homes are at risk of multiple threats to their security and welfare. Many face imminent threats to life, while others in situations of long-term displacement suffer a systematic denial of rights – civil and political, economic, social and, cultural. Within Africa there are as many IDPs – around 12 million – as there are in the rest of the world and nearly five times as many IDPs as refugees. Unlike refugees, who fall under the protection of international instruments such as the OAU Convention Governing the Special Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa and the UN Refugee Convention, and who have a specialist United Nations (UN) agency to assist them, there are no comparable standards or mechanisms to safeguard the rights of IDPs. Their own state is often unable or unwilling to assist and protect them and the international community is often unable or unwilling to intervene.

In 1998, the UN agreed Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, which lay out the responsibilities of states to prevent displacement and to safeguard the rights of IDPs during and after displacement. The Guiding Principles have been endorsed by the UN General Assembly, the African Commission on Human and People's Rights (ACHPR) and by the signatories to the 2006 Pact on Security, Stability and Development in the Great Lakes Region. The Guiding Principles, however, are non-binding and routinely ignored. As Bahame Tom Nyanduga, Special Rapporteur on Refugees, IDPs and Asylum Seekers in Africa for the ACHPR has stated, "the absence of a binding international legal regime on internal displacement is a grave lacuna in international law".

What would a Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons add to existing laws?

A Convention would establish a specific framework for the protection and assistance of IDPs as a vulnerable section of society by virtue of their status as internally displaced. It would complement existing international standards rather than duplicate them, by interpreting these through the lens of displacement. For example, if based on the Guiding Principles, a Convention would include the right to be protected from forcible return to unsafe areas, a more explicit statement of IDPs' rights and an expansion upon the right to freedom of movement under existing human rights law. An AU Convention will clearly establish the legal responsibility of states to IDPs at all stages of displacement and offer IDPs and civil society a mechanism for holding governments to account in cases of violation.

How would such a Convention help IDPs?

A strong Convention would serve as a legal standard (rather than a set of recommendations) that IDPs and those concerned for their welfare can hold governments to. The existence of legal standards and obligations on states and the wider international community is no guarantee that adequate protection and assistance will be forthcoming, but it does open the possibility for IDPs and wider civil society to press for these rights to be respected and for the state to be held accountable for their violation. It is only if a strong Convention is properly applied that IDPs will benefit. It is imperative that governments take their obligations under a Convention seriously and invest the necessary resources and political will to ensure its full and proper implementation.

How would such a Convention be implemented?

TOP