In his reaction to my article, Vincent claims that I have 'invented' an argument so that I can easily refute it. Both he and Bennett emphasise that no one suggests the refugee regime should be expanded to include IDPs. No one? Rutinwa does in his reaction to my article…. as does Luke Lee in an oft-cited article published in the Journal of Refugee Studies (Vol 9, No 1, 1996). Even the UN High Commissioner for Refugees has made recent speeches hinting that her mandate could be extended more generally to include internal displacement. Anyone familiar with the academic debates of the early 1990s will remember that the relevance of the distinction between refugees and IDPs was often questioned in order to encourage similar forms of protection for all victims of displacement.
Kingsley-Nyinah suggests my article is not balanced because it does not acknowledge the evidence suggesting that 'the distinctions between the refugee realm and the world of internal displacement are fully recognised'. This is difficult to do when the UN High Commissioner for Refugees makes statements such as the following: 'Take Kosovo, for example. There, the
categorisation of those who flee their homes into refugees, internally displaced or other groups is not very significant, given that all those who flee try to reach the nearest secure area, irrespective of the status they will acquire in doing so' (October 1998). While many UN lawyers are now well aware of the need to distinguish refugees from IDPs, some specialists
have apparently not grasped why the distinction makes sense. Kingsley-Nyinah also claims that my article leaves the false impression that an expansion of the refugee regime is currently underway. To the extent that UNHCR's mandate now includes many activities in countries of
origin that were not part of the original asylum-centred statutory mandate, it is relatively clear that the regime is expanding. This is not necessarily a negative development; the article simply tries to raise some problems in the work that this expansion entails.
The attempts to counter my historical arguments for a more cautious approach appear somewhat unconvincing. Vincent simply states that Nansen's work cannot be compared to today's crises, but he does not actually advance any arguments. It is indeed difficult to ignore the similarities between the 'ethnic cleansing' and population exchanges of the Balkans in the 1990s and Asia Minor in the 1920s. Let us hope that international actors have at least considered the various policy responses explored throughout the century. Likewise, the reference made by Rutinwa to High Commissioner James McDonald simply confirms my argument about non-political activities - precisely because McDonald resigned in 1936 following the publication of his criticisms. It was in a sense his 'parting shot’.
The legal arguments against my position are also somewhat imprecisely articulated. Rutinwa's summary of my points and presentation of counter-arguments indicate that he has largely misread the nuances in my article. Kingsley-Nyinah appears to accept the main thrust and prescriptive elements of the article but raises objections “in the area of method” because the prescriptions are apparently “erected on questionable premises”. He identifies two “questionable premises”. The first concerns the regime extension issue addressed above. The second concerns an ancillary statement of mine: “the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement do not really fill any legal gap; they simply state and interpret existing norms”. Yet the qualification “really” is important in this context. In the preceding sentence I state that “there are no significant and specific forms of legal protection that could be granted to IDPs that do not already exist in international law”. Kingsley-Nyinah slightly misrepresents my view when he claims that I make the “assertion that the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement do not fill any legal gap”. While Vincent also notes perceived gaps in international law, I maintain they are not significant and specific to IDP situations. In the current context in which respect for even fundamental norms is problematic, it seems to me that the additional rules drafted in Geneva or New York are of limited relevance. It should also be recognised that these new rules concern issues that affect all civilian populations in times of conflict and not only those that have been displaced. As I mention in my article, all these situations already involve recognised infringements of human rights law. The basic problems of asylum-seeking or humanitarian intervention are not new and I remain unconvinced that we significantly advance the debate by adding the 'new' rights identified in the responses by Vincent or Kingsley-Nyinah.
Yet Kingsley-Nyinah and Bennett are right in underlining that the debate should not become overly 'academic' and should keep a clear focus on ground realities. It is precisely in this spirit that the article seeks to make certain general conceptual comments and warn practitioners that their difficult work is unlikely to change in any fundamental way despite the positive developments in legal drafting.