Rights of internally displaced persons
Rights of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs)
Who Are IDPs?
Internally Displaced Persons are individuals or groups forced to flee their homes due to conflict, violence, human rights violations, disasters, or development projects but who remain within their country's borders.
Unlike refugees, IDPs do not cross international borders and thus fall under the jurisdiction and protection of their own state.
Legal Framework for IDP Rights
Domestic Law:
States have primary responsibility to protect and assist IDPs within their territory.
International Human Rights Law:
Right to life, liberty, security, and protection from arbitrary displacement
Right to adequate housing, food, water, health, education, and work
Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement (1998):
Non-binding but authoritative guidelines outlining state and international community obligations toward IDPs in all phases of displacement (prevention, protection during displacement, and durable solutions).
Core Rights of IDPs
| Right | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Protection from Forced Displacement | States should prevent arbitrary or forced displacement. |
| Right to Safety and Security | Protection from violence, exploitation, and abuse. |
| Access to Basic Needs | Food, water, shelter, medical care, education. |
| Right to Property and Restitution | Protection of property rights and restitution when possible. |
| Right to Freedom of Movement | Freedom to leave or return without restrictions. |
| Right to Durable Solutions | Assistance in voluntary return, local integration, or resettlement. |
Case Law-Style Examples on IDP Rights
Case 1: State Obligation to Protect IDPs from Violence
Facts:
During an armed conflict, an ethnic minority group was forcibly displaced by state-backed militias. The government failed to protect IDPs from attacks in camps.
Issue:
Does the state violate the rights of IDPs by failing to protect them from violence?
Decision:
The tribunal held the state liable for breach of duty to protect life and security of IDPs. It emphasized that states must take proactive steps to safeguard IDPs under human rights law and Guiding Principles.
Significance:
Affirms the state's positive obligation to protect IDPs from harm.
Case 2: Right to Adequate Housing and Non-Discrimination
Facts:
IDPs in an urban settlement were denied access to government housing programs available to non-displaced citizens.
Issue:
Is this discriminatory treatment a violation of IDPs' rights?
Decision:
The court found the state violated IDPs' right to equal access to housing assistance. Denial based solely on displacement status was deemed unlawful discrimination.
Significance:
Reinforces equality and non-discrimination in humanitarian assistance.
Case 3: Right to Return and Property Restitution
Facts:
IDPs displaced by conflict attempted to return to their homes but found their properties occupied or destroyed. The state failed to provide restitution mechanisms.
Issue:
Does the state have a duty to facilitate return and property restitution?
Decision:
The court ruled the state must enact policies and provide remedies to restore IDPs’ property rights or provide adequate compensation.
Significance:
Establishes that durable solutions include legal recognition and restoration of property rights.
Case 4: Freedom of Movement Restrictions on IDPs
Facts:
Government authorities restricted IDPs' movement by imposing curfews and checkpoints that impeded access to markets and medical facilities.
Issue:
Are these restrictions lawful?
Decision:
The tribunal ruled that movement restrictions must be necessary, proportionate, and non-discriminatory. Arbitrary restrictions violating access to essential services were unlawful.
Significance:
Affirms freedom of movement as fundamental for IDPs.
Case 5: Right to Education for Displaced Children
Facts:
IDP children were excluded from local schools due to lack of documentation and language barriers.
Issue:
Do IDPs have the right to education on equal footing?
Decision:
The court held that the state must ensure IDP children access education without discrimination, including adapting curricula or providing documentation alternatives.
Significance:
Highlights inclusive education as a key right for IDP protection.
Case 6: Accountability for Forced Displacement
Facts:
A military operation forcibly displaced thousands of civilians without warning or relocation plans.
Issue:
Is forced displacement without safeguards a violation of international law?
Decision:
The tribunal condemned forced displacement as a violation of international humanitarian and human rights law, ordering reparations and policy reforms.
Significance:
Underscores the illegality of forced displacement and state accountability.
Summary Table: Rights and Corresponding State Duties
| IDP Right | State Duty | Case Illustration |
|---|---|---|
| Protection from violence | Prevent attacks, ensure security | Case 1 |
| Equal access to aid | Provide non-discriminatory assistance | Case 2 |
| Property rights and restitution | Facilitate return and property claims | Case 3 |
| Freedom of movement | Avoid arbitrary restrictions | Case 4 |
| Access to education | Ensure IDP children’s schooling | Case 5 |
| Prevention of forced displacement | Avoid arbitrary displacement, provide alternatives | Case 6 |
RELATED Blog
0 comments