Journal of Refugee Studies Vol. 27, No. 2 ß The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press.
All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: [email protected]
doi:10.1093/jrs/fet031 Advance Access publication 19 November 2013
A Dignified Approach: Legal Empowerment
and Justice for Human Rights Violations in
Protracted Refugee Situations
ANNA LISE PURKEY
Faculty of Law, McGill University, Montreal
[email protected]
MS received March 2013; revised MS received August 2013
Although the concept of legal empowerment has gained significant traction in
development studies recently as a means of addressing social inequality, exclusion and human rights violations, little scholarship exists on its potential in the
context of protracted refugee situations (PRS). This article seeks to further the
discussion on the role of law and justice in PRS by proposing that legal empowerment-based approaches offer an alternative to traditional aid initiatives
which respects the dignity and agency of recipients. It is argued here that
enabling refugees to use the law and legal mechanisms to protect and advance
their rights and acquire greater control over their lives could have important
implications. In particular, legal empowerment has the potential to improve the
administration of justice within refugee camps, to increase the accountability of
host state authorities and aid providers, and to contribute to the achievement of
durable solutions either by providing the skills and knowledge to facilitate resettlement or local integration or by empowering refugees to be actors in resettlement and transitional justice initiatives.
Keywords: Protracted refugee situations, legal empowerment, humanitarian assistance,
transitional justice, durable solutions, access to justice
Introduction
Although it is well accepted that the law and legal institutions and mechanisms can play an important role in ensuring that every individual within a
society is able to live a dignified life in which their rights are fully realized,
this knowledge has had little impact on the way in which states and the
international community at large address the situation of one of the
world’s most vulnerable groups of people: individuals caught in protracted
refugee situations. In many ways, protracted refugee situations are a form of
social, political, legal and even economic purgatory for those trapped within
them. These refugees often share many of the characteristics of other
Legal Empowerment in Protracted Refugee Situations
261
marginalized and vulnerable groups including poverty, discrimination, lack of
access to services, social exclusion, and routine and systemic human rights
violations, but face the added challenge of lacking an effective citizenship
and/or formal legal status in the country in which they are living. The
great number of refugees caught in increasingly prolonged states of ‘rightlessness’ presents a fundamental challenge to the international human rights
regime and demands a reimagining of responses to these situations.
The rightlessness of refugees is not a given; the rights of refugees are protected under international human rights law, the 1951 Refugee Convention,
regional human rights treaties and often domestic human rights law. The
problem arises with the implementation and enforcement of these rights. In
practice, refugees in protracted situations rarely benefit from anything near
the full range of rights to which they are legally entitled. In these situations,
the rights actually enjoyed by refugees are contingent upon a broad range of
political and economic factors including the level of international assistance
provided and the perceived potential outcome of the refugee crisis (GoodwinGill and McAdam 2007). Host states often lack the necessary resources and
have little political incentive to guarantee a broad range of rights to refugees.
Thus, instead of being regarded as individuals in need of protection or as
potential assets to the state, refugee communities are more often viewed as
burdens and sources of insecurity to be contained and minimized (Loescher
and Milner 2004). The dignity and human rights of refugees are made subordinate to the entrenched interests of the host state, other states, humanitarian actors and donors.
Even in situations where states and aid providers recognize the existence of
these rights, refugees are often unable to assert their claims effectively or
achieve redress when rights are violated due to their precarious legal and
political situation and the substantial barriers that impede their access to
relevant legal processes. What is suggested here is that an increased emphasis
on the legal empowerment of refugees in situations of protracted exile offers a
way of breaking down those barriers and increasing refugees’ control over
their own lives.
To this end, this article explores the different roles that legal and justice
mechanisms can play in ensuring that refugees in protracted situations are
able to live with dignity. It is argued here that legal empowerment represents
a central capability that, in addition to being a goal in and of itself, is a
crucial enabling mechanism for the realization of other important ‘beings and
doings’ including the protection and fulfilment of fundamental human rights.
As this article will show, legal empowerment of refugees has the potential to
improve access to justice and the effective administration of justice for refugee communities, to enhance the accountability of powerful actors for the
protection and fulfilment of refugee and community rights, and even to contribute to the achievement of durable solutions, by facilitating integration or
reintegration and preparing refugees to be active participants in transitional
262
Anna Lise Purkey
justice mechanisms. From an examination of these roles, we can then identify
several principles that can be used as a framework for future legal empowerment-based interventions, as well as the obstacles that have the potential to
undermine this shift in emphasis.
The argument developed in this article is based on an analysis of the implications of the socio-legal concept of legal empowerment in the context of
protracted refugee situations, drawing on existing studies concerning the role
of legal empowerment in development and the administration of justice in
refugee camps, as well as the author’s experiences researching legal empowerment and access to justice in the Burmese refugee camps in Thailand. The
qualitative research that informs this article and the author’s perspectives was
carried out in Mae Sot, Thailand, and Mae La refugee camp over seven
weeks in 2011. During that time the author conducted a limited series of
interviews with relevant justice stakeholders,1 the majority of which focused
specifically on the International Rescue Committee’s (IRC) Legal Assistance
Centre (LAC) programme. The interviews were conducted in private, in
English or, where necessary, with the assistance of a translator drawn from
the host community.
Protracted Exile: An Untenable Situation
Refugees in situations of protracted exile2 are subject to conditions that make
them particularly vulnerable to human rights abuses. First, they may face
high levels of insecurity in camps and with respect to the attitudes and
policies of the host state, and are more likely to be arrested for minor infractions and to face greater punishments. In the Burmese refugee camps in
Thailand, for example, residents are prohibited from leaving the camps without permission. A resident caught outside the camp without permission risks
arrest, detention and deportation and/or may be forced to pay a bribe to be
released (UNHCR 2006a; HRW 2012).
Second, refugees in protracted situations face uncertainty with regards to
their current and future status as they often have little hope of a durable
solution. They cannot return home to a country that is still unsafe, they
cannot move on to a third country, as none have offered them resettlement,
and they cannot establish themselves in the country of first asylum because of
resistance to integration on the part of the host state (Veroff 2010).
Finally, refugees in protracted situations are commonly subject to a complicated and often sui generis system of governance involving community
leaders, international organizations, aid providers, and the host state authorities. As host states often abdicate their responsibilities with regards to assisting and governing refugee communities, refugees may find themselves in
situations where non-state actors exercise state-like administrative and governance powers over them, including with respect to the administration of
justice (Veroff 2010). Given these conditions and the vulnerability that
Legal Empowerment in Protracted Refugee Situations
263
results, refugees have a great deal to gain from any approach that will ensure
and protect their human rights.
Law and Legal Empowerment as Key to the Transition from Needs to Rights
Despite the clear human rights implications of prolonged exile, humanitarian
interventions have historically focused on meeting the immediate needs of
refugees, not on their rights. With the advent and increase in popularity of
human rights-based approaches, however, we have started to see a shift in
emphasis with more humanitarian actors mainstreaming human rights into
their programming at the policy level. Unfortunately, a substantial gap remains between the adoption of rights-based approaches at the policy level
and their implementation on the ground (Ferris 2008). In practice, rightsbased programming faces a number of obstacles. It is far easier to mobilize
funding for needs-based activities that produce immediate results than for
long-term initiatives aimed at developing the rights and capabilities of refugees (Ferris 2008). Many PRSs are still characterized by minimal host state
involvement which makes the enforcement of human rights in the domestic
forum more difficult (Slaughter and Crisp 2009). Additionally, host states
may be more willing to support needs-based activities as they are less
threatening to the state than rights-based programmes that may be seen as
a backdoor to local integration (Loescher et al. 2007). Logistical problems
also arise with respect to rights-based development programming for refugees, as there is a substantial degree of compartmentalization and lack of
coordination between development and humanitarian actors and as these
actors may often be in competition for funding (Slaughter and Crisp 2009).
Nevertheless, a growing trend towards adopting a human rights focus in
refugee assistance can be supported and facilitated by increased emphasis
on the legal empowerment of refugees.
The potential of legal empowerment must be understood in large part as a
consequence of the special nature of the law. The starting point for this
discussion is the premise that for human rights to be meaningful they must
be able to be enjoyed and guaranteed, which is only possible when the law
functions for everyone regardless of their authority, status and resources
(CLEP 2008; Banik 2009). The law has a particular normative force that is
different and in many ways superior to that of other types of claims and that
will often trump claims based on tradition, social utility or mere preference
(Donnelly 2006). This normative force gives the law power that can be transferred to the claim-holder and used to alter the power dynamics of relationships; an individual with a legal claim has more practical power to control
her destiny than one who merely has a moral claim. Of course, the efficacy of
such legal claims will vary depending on the strength of local and national
governance systems.
Both the law’s normative force and its importance in power dynamics is
based substantially on the principle that every individual within a state,
264
Anna Lise Purkey
whether a citizen or not, is equal before and subject to the law. Thus the law
and the justice system can play an equalizing role, constraining power and
providing an important forum where the voices of marginalized groups and
individuals can be heard and must be listened to (Banik 2009). This characteristic is especially important for refugees, who often live and function in a
state of de facto illegality and who often do not have access to the traditional
political mechanisms of accountability. For refugees, the ability to use the law
has the capacity to bring them more squarely into the realm of legality.
Through the law refugees may claim rights, entitlements and status to
which they are entitled but which they have been denied, as well as a place
within the decision-making system.
A Definition of Legal Empowerment Appropriate to Refugee Situations
Given the importance of law to the realization of human rights, it is interesting that the topic of justice in refugee camps has only become a subject of
study fairly recently and that, as Veroff has noted, what little scholarship
there is tends to be overly legalistic, focusing on the specific procedural aspects of justice as opposed to adopting a more open-ended analysis (2010). In
particular, the concept of legal empowerment is largely absent from discussions of protracted refugee situations where empowerment initiatives focus
primarily on economic empowerment through income-generating activities.
As a result, we must look to the research on legal empowerment that has
been produced by the development sector largely in response to the work of
the Commission on Legal Empowerment for the Poor (CLEP 2008), an independent international organization hosted by the United Nations
Development Programme between 2005 and 2008 which focused on the
links between exclusion, poverty and the law and which deserves much
credit for raising the profile of legal empowerment.
Even within development studies there is no single definition of legal empowerment (Golub 2010). Perhaps the most authoritative definition is that
featured in the report by the United Nations Secretary-General which describes legal empowerment as ‘the process of systemic change through which
the poor are protected and enabled to use the law to advance their rights and
their interests as citizens and economic actors’ (UNGA 2009). According to
that report, legal empowerment is rooted in a human rights-based approach
to development and strives to empower and strengthen the voices of individuals and communities from the ground up. The report acknowledges the
importance both of the rule of law and of access to justice for each individual
in combating deprivation, exclusion and vulnerability and in strengthening
democratic governance and accountability. In addition to access to justice,
the Secretary General’s report re-emphasizes the three other ‘pillars of legal
empowerment’ identified by the CLEP: property rights, labour rights and
rights to self-employment and business.
Legal Empowerment in Protracted Refugee Situations
265
In applying this definition to the protracted refugee context, several problems appear. The Secretary General refers specifically to the advancement of
rights and interests ‘as citizens’. Refugees are not citizens of the country in
which they reside and so are immediately excluded. In referring to ‘economic
actors’, this definition also reflects the economic bias of the development
sector and displaces the proper focus of empowerment, which should be on
the rights of individuals merely as human beings, regardless of their other
roles. In many protracted refugee situations, restrictions on employment,
freedom of movement and other rights mean that refugees are not in fact
economic actors within the host state, despite their potential to be. Likewise,
the three ‘pillars’, especially property rights, do not have quite the same
resonance in refugee camps as in broader development contexts.
Without ignoring the important role that economic activities can play in
refugee assistance, what is needed is a definition of legal empowerment that is
specifically tailored to the refugee context and that embodies a rights-based
approach to refugee assistance. Drawing on the definitions used in various
reports (Golub 2003; CLEP 2008; ADB 2009; Maru 2009), legal empowerment in protracted refugee contexts can be defined as the process through
which protracted refugee populations become able to use the law and legal
mechanisms and services to protect and advance their rights and to acquire
greater control over their lives, as well as the actual achievement of that
increased control.
There are several important features of this definition. First is the recognition that legal empowerment is both a process and a goal (ADB 2001;
Golub 2003, 2010). It is a process through which refugees become able to
use the law to advance their rights, and it is the actual realization of those
rights, of enhanced control over their own lives and the decisions that affect
them.
Second, the most important concept in legal empowerment is not law but
power (Golub 2003). In legal empowerment, law is being used as the vehicle
for a transfer of power. Although they can be corrupted and co-opted, law
and legal processes provide the foundation on which socio-economic and
political institutions are built and legitimized (Banik 2009), and amplify the
voices and claims of those that have little political power.
Third, this definition of legal empowerment gives centre stage to the individuals who are actually in need of empowerment; the focus is on what
refugees are able to do and to achieve, not on what others can achieve on
their behalf. Although marginalized communities will generally require some
external assistance to achieve legal empowerment, disadvantaged persons are
not entities to whom development or assistance happens, but active participants in their own lives (Golub 2003; UNGA 2009).
Finally, by focusing on the ability of refugees to actually access and use the
law and legal processes to claim entitlements, it is acknowledged that the
existence of adequate formal legal institutions is a necessary but insufficient
condition for true justice.
266
Anna Lise Purkey
Legal Empowerment vs the Rule of Law Orthodoxy
The definition and description set out above suggest distinctions between
legal empowerment and the rule of law. In a substantial way, legal empowerment depends upon there being at least a nominal conception of the rule of
law within society. The strength of legal empowerment lies in part in understanding that power is subject to law: enabling individuals to use the law
mitigates the misuse of power by those who exercise control over them.
Nevertheless, rule of law initiatives, long a feature of development programmes, have historically tended to define legal problems and solutions
narrowly and to focus on state institutions and the formal justice system.
This top-down approach is dominated by elite actors and leaves little room
for the agency of disadvantaged groups. It also often overlooks the fact that
perhaps up to 90 per cent of the law-oriented problems involving disadvantaged individuals are addressed outside the context of the formal legal system
(Golub 2003).
In contrast, legal empowerment includes both top-down and bottom-up
components and formal and informal legal mechanisms as well as nonjudicial strategies that ‘transcend narrow notions of legal systems, justice
sectors and institution building’ (Golub 2003: 4). Where the rule of law is
traditionally institution-driven, legal empowerment is person and rightsdriven.
Legal Empowerment as a Human Rights-Based Approach
Several authors (e.g. Banik 2008; Sengupta 2008) have criticized the CLEP
for failing to adequately explore (and explain) the link between legal empowerment and human rights, which is a fundamental and mutually beneficial one. Put simply, legal empowerment is a human rights-based approach
(HRBA) that employs the law and legal processes to effect empowerment,
‘the ability or opportunity [of refugees] to claim and exercise their rights’, and
thereby to gain the power to ‘influence the behaviour of other agents and
social arrangements’ (Sengupta 2008: 32). To realize the promise of human
rights, mere formal recognition of rights is insufficient; society must also
create an atmosphere and establish mechanisms to facilitate the enjoyment
and exercise of rights (Sengupta 2008).
The tangible benefits of defining legal empowerment in terms of human
rights include the possibility of using existing international human rights instruments and principles to support legal empowerment (Sengupta 2008). One
of these principles is that states have an obligation to incorporate international human rights into their domestic legal systems and, consequently, are
bound to help to realize these rights. A second relevant principle is that the
obligation to support and fulfil human rights extends beyond the territory of
the state and includes all members of the international community that have
recognized these rights and assumed the responsibility for helping to realize
them (Sengupta 2008). Finally, the vast majority of human rights apply to
Legal Empowerment in Protracted Refugee Situations
267
every individual regardless of their status within the state, and are thus available to refugees as well as to citizens.
The Faces of Legal Empowerment in Protracted Refugee Situations
Drawing on the specific strengths of the law, adopting legal empowerment
strategies as a mechanism for implementing a human rights-based approach
to refugee assistance has the potential to impact refugees’ lives in many different ways. In particular, legal empowerment can help to make the conditions of exile more consistent with international human rights and refugee
law, and perhaps also has the potential to help facilitate durable solutions.
Legal Empowerment and the Administration of Justice
The first role of legal empowerment is its most traditional and narrowly
‘legal’ one, namely to facilitate the administration of justice and access to
justice. Adopting an expansive definition, access to justice refers to the ‘ability of people to seek and obtain a remedy through formal or informal institutions of justice and in conformity with human rights standards’ (UNDP
2005: 5) and concerns itself not only with access to the mechanisms and
institutions of justice but also with the quality of justice accessed. Ensuring
access to justice is a primary objective of legal empowerment because, in
addition to being a basic human right itself, it acts in combination with
the rule of law to form the foundation and enabling framework for the
realization of other rights (CLEP 2008).
Residents of refugee camps often find themselves subject to multiple overlapping legal and quasi-legal regimes including camp by-laws and regulations,
religious or traditional laws, informal codes of conduct and gender roles, the
law of their country of origin, the law of the host state and international law.
Depending on the issue at stake and the parties involved (refugees only,
citizens of the host state, aid workers, etc.) justice may be administered
either by the formal host state justice system or by some form of refugee
dispute resolution system (RDRS).
While the formal justice system of the host state may be more consistent
with international justice standards and more appropriate for serious cases
(such as those involving murder, assault causing bodily harm and sexual and
gender-based violence) (Da Costa 2006), these systems are often unfamiliar to
refugees and are subject to numerous access barriers such as distance, language, cost, lack of knowledge and potential discrimination (Da Costa 2006).
In contrast RDRSs vary widely in terms of their formality, structure and
procedures. For example, they range from referring disputes to a council of
elders for resolution to the six different Bench Courts applying Sudanese
customary law that operate in Kakuma refugee camp (Griek 2006).
Because of their cultural familiarity and the fact that the decision makers
are often respected members of the community, RDRSs often benefit from a
268
Anna Lise Purkey
high degree of legitimacy and community involvement. There are few barriers
to accessing these mechanisms, and the systems themselves have low operating costs and simplified and expedient procedures. On the other hand, these
systems are subject to little oversight, are often not representative, and may
be inconsistent both with international justice standards and with the laws
and standards of the host state (Da Costa 2006). In this context, legal
empowerment initiatives can help to facilitate refugees’ access to justice mechanisms both within and outside the camp, and can assist in improving the
quality of justice that is thus accessed.
In PRSs, three main types of activities are implemented to achieve these
objectives, each of which can be seen in the IRC’s Legal Assistance Centre
(LAC) programme in the Burmese refugee camps in Thailand. The first type
of activity emphasizes education and training. To ensure access to justice and
the effective administration of justice, refugees must be aware of their rights,
the applicable laws, their entitlement to remedies and the mechanisms
through which their rights can be claimed and their disputes settled.
Information and training sessions about human rights, the host state justice
system and the resources available to refugees are a central feature of virtually every legal empowerment intervention in refugee situations.3 For
example, in Thailand, LAC runs regular legal education workshops to familiarize members of the refugee community with Thai law and the available
dispute resolution and justice services.
Knowledge on its own, however, is insufficient. For the administration of
justice to function well, refugees need to be able to convert that knowledge
into action (ADB 2001). This is facilitated by the provision of legal services
and by efforts to improve the accessibility of the host state justice system.
After education and training, the provision of direct legal services (advice and
representation), is perhaps the most common form of legal initiative to reach
refugees. Without legal representation refugees are unlikely to be able to
make use of the formal justice system and may be vulnerable to mistreatment
by that system. These problems can be mitigated by providing refugees with
direct legal assistance and counsel and by other activities aimed at facilitating
access to justice such as the use of a system of mobile courts. These strategies
provide the framework in which the knowledge and skills acquired by refugees can be exercised and justice administered. In the case of Burmese refugees in Thailand, LAC provides these services by running a legal clinic that
camp residents can go to for information or advice and, in the event that a
case is brought before the Thai courts, by providing accompaniment services,
translation and assistance in obtaining legal counsel.
A particularly interesting practice is the use of refugee paralegals to provide legal services, including translation, education and legal advice.4 LAC,
for example, uses camp-based assistants to run training sessions, provide legal
information and to monitor the camp-based dispute resolution mechanisms.
The use of refugee paralegals helps to eliminate many of the access barriers
and enhances the sustainability of justice initiatives by ensuring that services
Legal Empowerment in Protracted Refugee Situations
269
can be maintained even in the absence of external aid providers. Moreover, as
community-based workers are familiar with the social and cultural context of
the refugee camp, they can act as bridges between the legal system and the
refugee community and as conduits for information (UNDP 2005).
Finally, legal empowerment initiatives can enhance the administration of
justice by helping to improve the quality of justice provided. This can be
achieved through targeted training, monitoring and supporting law reform.
Many legal empowerment initiatives provide training on mediation, dispute
resolution and judicial procedure to justice stakeholders such as refugee
security officers and community leaders,5 while others provide training on
refugee law and protection to host state police officers, immigration officials,
lawyers and judges.6 The LAC programme is particular in that it has also
been given a rule of law mandate by the leaders of the refugee community
which involves facilitating the revision and drafting of a new set of camp
rules and procedures and vetting the proposed rules and guidelines against
Thai and international law.
Though legal empowerment strategies have been implemented to improve
access to justice and the administration of justice in some refugee situations,
much work remains to be done. In particular, aside from the LAC project,
few initiatives exist that directly aim to improve the ability of the informal
justice systems within the camps to provide justice. Nevertheless, as legal
awareness and access to justice increase, so do the capacity and willingness
of individuals to claim their rights and demand justice and to hold the justice
systems to account. Demands by refugees for a higher standard of justice can
in turn improve the overall quality of justice provided.
Legal Empowerment and Accountability
The second level at which legal empowerment plays an important role is with
respect to the relationship between the refugee community and those who
exercise control or power over it: aid providers, host state authorities and
even refugee community leaders. Ideally, assistance should be provided in a
manner that is consistent with the human rights of refugees and respectful of
their agency both as individuals and as communities. In reality, despite
increased efforts to implement human rights-based responses, the assistance
provided to refugees is often dependent upon policy and budget constraints
that have little to do with their well-being or rights. When aid organizations
are responsible to their donors and host states to their citizens, refugees
become regarded as beneficiaries of charity rather than as rights-holders
(Harrell-Bond 2002). In this context legal empowerment becomes a key
tool for ensuring that aid providers and the host state can be held to account
at least to some degree by the refugee community.
While there is no consensus on an international definition, at the very least
accountability can be understood as requiring that states and other dutybearers be answerable to stakeholders regarding the exercise of their
270
Anna Lise Purkey
powers. In the refugee context, we are primarily talking about accountability
for the respect, protection and fulfilment of refugee and human rights obligations; an accountability that is owed by every duty-bearer but especially by
those that exercise a broad range of powers over vulnerable individuals.
Too often refugees are given rights that exist only on paper. The 1951
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees is a prime example of this.
Although refugees are granted a set of specific rights under international law,
there is no effective mechanism in the Convention for ensuring that those
rights are enforced in each country. UNHCR has some supervisory authority
in this regard but this is itself problematic because UNHCR is often the
primary entity responsible for implementing the Convention as the governing
authority in many protracted refugee situations.
Empowering the refugee community to claim accountability for the violation or failure to ensure their human rights is especially important in protracted refugee situations as these are situations that can persist for decades,
largely out of the public eye, and that have moved beyond the emergency
phase when there may be some justification for prioritizing security and immediate assistance over the full respect and fulfilment of human rights. PRSs
may also be subject to donor and assistance fatigue, benefiting over time
from fewer resources and less intervention, thus leaving refugees increasingly
vulnerable to human rights abuses.
Accountability is not, however, only about responding to abuses and providing remedies; accountability mechanisms can also provide refugees with
the opportunity to participate in the decision-making processes that affect
their lives and can ultimately help to identify systemic and structural problems early and increase stability and security, benefiting both the refugee
community and the host state.
Because refugees lack access to the normal political processes of accountability that are at least in principle available to citizens of a democratic state,
specifically voting in or contesting elections, other strategies such as social
mobilization and advocacy for legal reform, facilitating negotiations with
government officials, documenting and reporting on the state of human
rights, and direct legal action must be employed to ensure accountability.
Again, the primary way in which legal empowerment contributes to accountability is by defining the legitimate claims of refugees (their human rights), by
providing them with the knowledge and skills necessary to demand these
claims, and by enhancing the mechanisms and processes through which
these claims are protected. In addition, however, legal empowerment has
the potential to change the paradigm in which refugees and aid providers
interact; it gives refugees access to the language of rights-holder and dutybearer and can stimulate a process of social change, including in the relationship with government officials and aid providers, by increasing the likelihood
that power-holders will be held accountable for their actions. For example,
during the author’s fieldwork, several interviewees mentioned that the presence of the LAC project in Mae La refugee camp has resulted in an
Legal Empowerment in Protracted Refugee Situations
271
improvement in the behaviour of Thai authorities within the camp as they are
aware that they may be held responsible for their actions.
As a final note on accountability, the need for accountability and the
contributions that legal empowerment can make are similarly applicable to
the governing authorities within refugee communities, as refugees may be
vulnerable to abuse and human rights violations by their own leadership as
well (Da Costa 2006; HRW 2012). Accountability can be equally important
and difficult to achieve within the refugee community. An article by the
Burma Lawyers’ Council in 2007 specifically noted that there were no mechanisms within the camp to hold elected officials accountable for their actions
(BLC 2007). It was only in 2010 that a Code of Conduct Committee was
established in each camp to act as a primary quasi-legal accountability mechanism with respect to members of the camp administration.
Legal Empowerment and Transitional Justice
The third role that legal empowerment has the potential to play is in facilitating and preparing refugees for durable solutions, specifically in the contexts of transitional justice and integration or reintegration. Transitional
justice refers to ‘a set of measures that seek to redress the legacies of massive
human rights abuses that occur during conflict and under abusive regimes,
primarily by giving force to human rights norms that were systematically
violated’ (ICTJ/Brookings 2012: 1). Transitional justice processes can include
criminal prosecutions, reparations programmes, restitution programmes,
truth-telling initiatives, and justice and security sector reform. Historically,
displaced persons generally have had little involvement either in peace negotiations or in ensuing transitional justice initiatives (Campbell 2012). More
recently, however, there has been an acknowledgement of the critical stake
that displaced populations have in transitional justice which coincides with
recognition of displacement itself as a serious human rights violation (ICTJ/
Brookings 2012). In addition to addressing the specific human rights violations that refugees have suffered, transitional justice mechanisms can be a key
feature of the process of ‘just return’, which aims to ‘put returnees back on
an equal footing with their non-displaced co-nationals by restoring a normal
relationship of rights and duties between the state and its returning citizens’
(Bradley 2008: 286) by re-establishing a relationship in the legal context
between the state and returning refugees.
Unfortunately, refugees face many obstacles to participation in peace and
transitional justice initiatives. These include not only the reluctance of state of
origin actors to involve displaced populations, but also the lack of information about transitional justice processes outside the country of origin, the lack
of documentation with which refugees could substantiate any potential
claims, and the simple physical distance. Additionally, the best-educated
and resourced refugees are the most likely ones to find resettlement options,
272
Anna Lise Purkey
thus leaving the returning population disproportionately impoverished and
socially marginalized (Bradley 2008; Duthie 2012).
Legal empowerment that is both general and specifically targeted at facilitating refugee participation in transitional justice processes can mitigate
many of these obstacles. In addition to fostering empowerment such that
members of the refugee population are aware of their rights and feel capable
of making use of the justice mechanisms in their state of origin, legal empowerment initiatives can provide refugees with specific information about
transitional justice mechanisms and about their rights upon return (including
rights to property restitution and compensation when available) and can help
returnees to mobilize and organize themselves in order to be able to demand
more effectively that transitional justice mechanisms respect their rights,
address their interests and coordinate their possible claims.
Even in situations where there are no formal transitional justice mechanisms, legal empowerment can play an important role in facilitating reintegration and repatriation. One example of this is the Norwegian Refugee
Council’s Information, Counselling and Legal Assistance (ICLA) programme
which offers support to Afghan refugees in Pakistan, including the provision
of legal assistance and information regarding returning to Afghanistan. The
Council also works in Afghanistan, assisting returning refugees and internally
displaced persons through mediation and legal procedures relating to the
repossession of land and houses that had been confiscated while they were
displaced (UNHCR 2006b).
The skills and knowledge acquired through legal empowerment processes in
refugee camps may also place refugees in a position to potentially make
important contributions to state-building and reform activities upon repatriation and ultimately to help to ensure that justice institutions within the
country of origin conform to international standards. This potential was
noted in the 2007 report by the Burma Lawyers’ Council which suggested
that if refugee communities became accustomed to living in a society based
upon the rule of law during exile, their return to Burma could help to promote human rights and foster peace and stability in their country of origin
(BLC 2007).
Legal Empowerment and Integration
Legal empowerment can likewise facilitate local integration in the host state.
Local integration is at once a legal, economic and social process whereby
refugees are granted an increasing range of rights, achieve self-reliance and
become able to live alongside the local population without fear of discrimination (Crisp 2004). Legal empowerment can assist this process by providing
refugees with the knowledge and capabilities necessary to navigate the legal
and administrative systems of the host state and by helping to establish a
relationship of rights and duties between the state and the refugee. In
Tanzania, where refugees are required to live in camps, the organization
Legal Empowerment in Protracted Refugee Situations
273
Asylum Access helps empower refugees by providing them with training to
understand their rights and legal assistance to access employment, food and
housing and to obtain legal permission to remain outside the camps (Asylum
Access 2013).
Simply by increasing the number and depth of interactions between refugee
communities and the official institutions and mechanisms of the host state,
the level of integration on the ground may also increase. For example, in
addition to providing training sessions to the courts, government staff and
other authorities, by helping Afghan refugees access legal remedies in
Pakistan, the Norwegian Refugee Council’s information and legal aid projects
have helped to change the perception that Afghans are illegal and thus without any means of redress (UNHCR 2006b).
Local integration is virtually always a contentious issue as it engages to
varying degrees the interests of the refugee community, the host state, the
host state population, the international community, and even the state of
origin. Nevertheless, temporary or partial integration on a variety of levels,
including economic and legal, can act as a precursor to full and permanent
local integration.
Obstacles to Legal Empowerment
Legal empowerment initiatives will of course face numerous potential obstacles in protracted refugee situations. In addition to the general lack of
resources and capacity that afflicts most such initiatives, four categories of
obstacles are identified here: the shortcomings of the law, top-down resistance, lack of grassroots engagement, and obstacles specific to refugee contexts. These are not exhaustive, but they provide a representative sample of
the many impediments that legal empowerment initiatives must overcome.
The Shortcomings of the Law
Although the purpose of the law is to dispense fair justice between unequal
parties, that very inequality (in terms of money, power, authority, position)
too often contaminates the process (Maru 2010). The result is that the law
frequently ends up merely reflecting the interests of the powerful while the
rights of marginalized groups exist only on paper. Thus, while the law has the
potential to be used as an instrument of power by the disenfranchised, it can
also be used as an instrument of oppression by the powerful. The effectiveness of the law, and to some degree legal empowerment, depends substantially upon the applicable political and administrative systems: if the laws
being applied are biased or unjust, or the legal institutions corrupt or incompetent then the benefits of the law will be lost. Even the best laws and court
system can be undermined by political actors that ignore or fail to enforce
and implement the court’s rulings or that pass discriminatory or abusive laws.
Similarly, a lack of funding and support for legal aid and the legal system as
274
Anna Lise Purkey
a whole may either weaken the authority of the law generally or at least make
equality before the law impossible.
The vulnerability of the institution of the law is one of the reasons that
legal empowerment is to be given priority over the rule of law orthodoxy.
By focusing more on grassroots, informal and quasi-legal mechanisms in
addition to the formal legal institutions, legal empowerment has the potential to make progress even when in the context of highly defective justice
systems.
Top-down Resistance: Overcoming Power Dynamics
Historically, initiatives targeting reform of the law and legal systems have
been primarily top-down, with most of the actions taken requiring state leadership. Under these circumstances, legal reform goes nowhere without political buy-in and it is difficult to get the power centres of any community to
commit to the overhaul of structures that serve their interests. Too often this
type of reform will be seen as a zero-sum game where those in power are
asked to act against their own interests and yet have the opportunity to
subvert potential reforms for their own purposes, and where efforts to
secure and enforce the rights of refugees fall victim to the entrenched interests
of powerful parties (see for example Banik 2008; Sengupta 2008). This state
of affairs is exacerbated in refugee situations by the fact that there is often
little political benefit to be gained by espousing the interests of refugees and
little to be lost in ignoring them.
Legal empowerment circumvents these power dynamics to some extent by
focusing at the grassroots level, developing a strong civil society and enlisting
civil society groups and non-government organizations to do the majority of
the work. Unlike the traditional rule of law approaches, legal empowerment
is not entirely a question of institutional reform. Then again, legal empowerment initiatives may challenge the power dynamics within protracted refugee
situations and are thus particularly threatening to powerful actors for precisely the same reasons that they have the potential to improve the human
rights situation of refugees: the normative force of law, the ability of the law
to constrain power, the ability to hold actors accountable, the ability to
enforce rights, etc.
Despite the bottom-up nature of legal empowerment, the cooperation of
power-holders is still necessary if only because those actors, specifically the
host state and UNHCR, exert control over the conditions in which refugees
live, the types of assistance provided, funding and what rights are protected
under domestic law. In theory institutional reform can be mobilized from the
bottom up, but given their lack of political power and insecure status, it will
be difficult for refugees to achieve this. Consequently, powerful actors within
the host state, the international community and even within the refugee community itself have the ability to seriously obstruct legal empowerment.
Legal Empowerment in Protracted Refugee Situations
275
Lack of Engagement at the Grassroots
To be effective and sustainable, legal empowerment must be largely community-driven with civil society organizations and NGOs providing assistance.
As a result, lack of engagement, or buy-in, at the grassroots level can be a
substantial obstacle. Various factors can impede engagement. For example,
certain aspects of legal empowerment, such as the empowerment of women or
the use of formal justice systems, may be viewed as being in conflict with the
community’s cultural background. For refugees, the need to hold on to the
belief that exile is merely a temporary situation may make individuals less
willing to devote time and effort to legal empowerment initiatives that are
necessarily longer-term. Finally some communities may have a culture of
learned helplessness, a
resigned attitude and lack of expectations among those who feel that traditional
power relations will invariably leave them powerless to assert their rights or
to participate in local public decision making or other governance processes
(ADB 2001: 41).
This may be of particular relevance in protracted refugee situations where
communities have seen aid projects and assistance initiatives come and go for
years, if not generations, with little sustainable impact. This challenge highlights the importance of community participation in the design of legal
empowerment strategies, including in identifying their objectives. It is also
vital to identify and support change agents within the community (such as a
refugee with legal training) who can serve as advocates for their community,
as bridges between the community and external actors, and who can use their
position and influence within the community to foster greater engagement.
Obstacles Specific to Refugee Situations
While the legal empowerment of any marginalized group will face many
obstacles, there are certain challenges that are particular to the situation of
refugees. To start with, refugees may face legal and institutional discrimination. Because of their legal status, refugees may not be entitled to access
legal aid or may be subject to unequal treatment under the law. The negative
social attitudes and beliefs about refugees that may be held by the host state
population and authorities may also make the legal empowerment of refugees
difficult. If refugees are viewed as a burden on the host state, the idea of
devoting resources to empowering them to use the law for the purpose of
claiming more rights in a country that is not their own may have little traction and garner little support within the host state.
The legal empowerment of refugees may also be impeded by their lack of
formal identity or legal status. The importance of identity for legal empowerment of the poor was highlighted by the CLEP (2008). A refugee needs to
have both her identity as an individual and her identity as a refugee
276
Anna Lise Purkey
recognized, as identity gives refugees standing within the host state and
within the legal system. Consequently, its absence is a serious impediment
to legal empowerment.
According to article 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
every individual, not just every citizen, ‘has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.’ Ensuring that individuals have some form
of identity document is crucial for their international and legal recognition
(UNHCR 2003). This right is often challenged in protracted refugee situations where birth and civic registration may be lacking. Proper civic registration and proof of identity can have a serious impact on the rights and
services to which individuals have access and can be determinative when
it comes to the possibility of resettlement or repatriation (Tan 2012).
Recognized proof of identity may be required for access to education, food
and health care, for the right to marry, for inheritance claims, for property
claims and restitution or compensation upon repatriation and for the preservation of family unity (UNHCR 2003).
Equally important is formal identity (and proof thereof) of refugee status.
Refugees are not citizens of the host state and cannot benefit from the rights
and protections that citizenship affords. They do, however, benefit from a set
of rights and protections associated with refugee status. Proof of refugee
status helps to protect individuals against refoulement and arbitrary arrest
and detention, as well as facilitating their access to basic rights, services
and assistance, including potentially the possibility of a durable solution
(UNHCR 2003). Given the importance of identity, one of the first steps in
any legal empowerment initiative must be to establish and secure proof of the
identity of those that seek to be empowered.
The Characteristics of a Legal Empowerment Framework for Protracted
Refugee Situations
One of the great strengths of legal empowerment is that it is less prescriptive
than other approaches to development (or assistance) (CLEP 2008). As a
result, legal empowerment-based approaches to refugee assistance will vary
greatly depending upon the specific needs and characteristics of each situation. As the objective of legal empowerment is to increase the capacity of
disadvantaged people, decisions on the nature of these initiatives should
belong to them. Nevertheless, certain basic principles can be identified that
provide the foundation for effective legal empowerment in any context.
Creating a Participatory and Responsive Framework
Unlike traditional rule of law initiatives, the starting point for legal empowerment is at the grassroots. The issues and strategies that make up legal empowerment initiatives in a refugee situation should arise from a survey of the
needs and preferences of the refugees themselves and be responsive to changes
Legal Empowerment in Protracted Refugee Situations
277
in those needs and preferences (Golub 2003). Refugees need to be actively
involved in all levels of the design and implementation of a legal empowerment-based approach. In this context, participation means not only consultation but also some level of control over decision-making and the final
outcomes of initiatives (UNDP 2005). In this way, the agency of refugees
as actors in their own lives is respected. Other actors, including the state and
international aid providers, need to be involved through the provision of
expertise, material and financial resources and organizational assistance for
legal empowerment to succeed, but a significant portion of the driving force
must be at the ground level.
Putting Emphasis on Capacity-Building
To achieve legal empowerment in a manner that is effective in the short term
but also sustainable, the focus must be on capacity-building—both the capacity of individuals to use the law and legal processes and to access their
rights, and the capacity of state and non-state actors to meet their obligations
(UNGA 2009). Although there are many strategies for capacity-building,
perhaps the most important method is through education and training. For
legal empowerment to be successful, refugees must possess basic knowledge
about their rights and entitlements and how to access these. They also need
the practical knowledge required to defend those rights. Providing members
of the refugee community with this knowledge and with training on specific
skills helps to ensure that legal empowerment within the community will
outlast the provision of external assistance.
Fostering the Voice of Refugees
Linked to the idea of capacity is that of ‘voice’. Legal empowerment strategies must begin by securing and fostering the voice of refugees. Voice is both
a necessary condition for effective legal empowerment and also one of its key
objectives (CLEP 2008). On one hand individuals need to speak and be heard
in order to claim their legal rights; on the other, as legal empowerment
stimulates systemic change, the voice of those beneficiaries is reinforced.
The voice of refugees is often compromised by restrictions on their freedom
of movement, expression and political participation. In this context, having
voice does not just mean being able to express oneself; it means having a say
in the processes that affect one’s life and some degree of control over the
discussion. For refugees, this means being able to access the forums where
these decisions are being made and not only express their views but also be
listened to.
As the CLEP’s report explains, effective voice must be based on information and education and be supported by organization and representation
(2008). A person cannot claim her rights or her entitlements unless she
knows what these are; she cannot change the way in which decisions are
made unless she understands how society is organized. For refugees, effective
278
Anna Lise Purkey
voice may require outside representation, for example by lawyers and activists. But representation can also come from within the community when the
community is able to organize. Disadvantaged groups are far better able to
claim their rights and entitlements when they do so collectively (ADB 2001).
Adopting a Broad, Multi-faceted Approach
An effective legal empowerment approach must not be restrictive in its focus.
In this context ‘law’ and what is ‘legal’ must be defined broadly to include
not only legislation and the courts but also actors and processes that are not
part of a narrowly defined justice sector such as regulation, policy reform,
administrative processes, local governance, alternative dispute resolution,
legal literacy and informal justice mechanisms (Golub 2003, 2010). This principle is particularly important as it is these quasi-legal structures that most
often govern the issues of import to the lives and well-being of refugees.
In addition, a wide range of related activities, though not inherently laworiented, complement and support legal services and, as such, can be included
in a broad understanding of legal empowerment. These activities include
political mobilization, community organizing, the development of civil society
groups, the use of media and other activities that facilitate the ability of
refugees to use the law (general education, health services, livelihood initiatives, etc.) (Golub 2003).
The ultimate objective of legal empowerment is not only to enable refugees
to access courts and legal processes, but to enable them to use law to gain
control over various aspects of their lives that may not have a clear legal
dimension (for example: education, access to clean water, to markets and to
services and improved relations with citizens of the host state) (ADB 2001).
Securing Individual and Collective Empowerment
The powerlessness engendered by protracted asylum is both individual and
communal, and so legal empowerment initiatives must foster both community
and individual empowerment. On the one hand, legal empowerment should
encourage effective organization and mobilization to address common concerns such as conditions of just return or the need to secure the right to work
in the host state. In these cases, there is strength in numbers and the refugee
community as a collective can use the law and legal institutions to influence
outcomes that are important to each individual as well as to the existence of
the community as a whole.
On the other hand, the extent of disempowerment varies within the refugee
community. Certain groups, such as women, children, disabled persons and
minorities may face a double burden of oppression, which it is essential for
legal empowerment initiatives to acknowledge. Individuals must be empowered to exercise control over their lives within the refugee community
and also with regard to external actors when their interests do not coincide
with those of the majority of the refugee community.
Legal Empowerment in Protracted Refugee Situations
279
Moving Forward
If decades of refugee assistance have taught us anything, it is that there is no
easy fix for cases of protracted exile. Traditional charity-based humanitarian
assistance has succeeded in protecting the lives of refugees and providing for
their immediate needs, but often at the cost of their human rights and dignity.
While the advent of human rights-based approaches represents a much
needed shift in perspective, faced with the powerful interests of states and
the entrenched practices and culture of aid providers, the implementation of
these approaches has been uneven and inadequate. What has been proposed
here is that, by drawing on the normative authority of the law and adopting a
grassroots focus, legal empowerment has the potential to act as a critical
enabling mechanism for securing and protecting the rights of refugees and
for achieving justice when those rights are violated. Moreover, legal empowerment has the potential to benefit not only the refugee community but
also the host state, aid providers and the state of origin by facilitating the
achievement of durable solutions.
Implementing legal empowerment initiatives will not be without substantial
challenges: state cooperation will be necessary and thus state interests will
have to be negotiated. Nevertheless, legal empowerment is fundamentally
grounded in basic legal principles that states have already accepted and implemented domestically. By using existing law and legal mechanisms to
concretize the principles of human rights-based approaches, legal empowerment offers refugees and their advocates an opportunity to try to change the
current discourse and achieve tangible improvements in the lives of refugees.
Acknowledgements
Thanks are due to Megan Bradley and Roger Duthie for their valuable comments and assistance. Portions of this analysis are based on the author’s
forthcoming doctoral thesis.
1. Formal interviews were conducted with representatives of two leading aid agencies,
the head justice of Mae La camp, one of the Zone Secretaries of Mae La camp,
and LAC staff members (foreign, Thai and Burmese) and camp-based assistants
(members of the refugee community). Additional information was drawn from
informal conversations with members of the refugee community and aid workers.
Unless otherwise indicated, references to the situation on the Thai–Burmese border
are the product of this research.
2. While not all refugees reside in camps, the author has chosen to focus on situations
of protracted encampment because the particular legal and governance challenges
that these situations raise merit in-depth discussion. Consequently, non-camp situations are outside the scope of this article.
3. See for example the International Rescue Committee’s Legal Assistance Centre
Programme in Thailand, the work of Asylum Access in Ecuador, Tanzania and
Thailand, the Refugee Law Project at Makerere University in Uganda and the
280
Anna Lise Purkey
Information, Counselling and Legal Assistance programmes of the Norwegian
Refugee Council.
4. Paralegals are used by the International Rescue Committee’s Legal Assistance
Centre Programme in Thailand and by the Refugee Consortium of Kenya’s
Legal Aid and Policy Development Centre.
5. This type of training is provided by the Legal Assistance Centre Programme, the
Refugee Law Project of Makerere University and the Information, Counselling and
Legal Assistance programmes of the Norwegian Refugee Council.
6. This type of training is provided by the Refugee Consortium of Kenya’s Legal Aid
and Policy Development Centre and the Refugee Law Project of Makerere
University.
ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK (ADB) (2001) Law and Policy Reform at the Asian
Development Bank—Legal Empowerment: Advancing Good Governance and Poverty
Reduction. Manila: Asian Development Bank.
ADB (2009) Legal Empowerment for Women and Disadvantaged Groups, Final Report. Manila:
Asian Development Bank.
ASYLUM ACCESS (2013) Tanzania, [online] Available at: 5asylumaccess.org/AsylumAccess/
who-we-are/tanzania4 [Accessed 25 January 2013].
BANIK, D. (2008) ‘Rights, Legal Empowerment and Poverty: An Overview of the Issues’.
In Banik, D. (ed.) Rights and Legal Empowerment in Eradicating Poverty. Farnham,
England: Ashgate, pp. 11–30.
BANIK, D. (2009) ‘Legal Empowerment as a Conceptual and Operational Tool in Poverty
Eradication’. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law 1: 117–131.
BRADLEY, M. (2008) ‘Back to Basics: The Conditions of Just Refugee Return’. Journal of
Refugee Studies 21(3): 285–304.
BURMA LAWYERS’ COUNCIL (BLC) (2007) ‘Analysis on the Situation of the Refugee Camps
from the Rule of Law Aspect’. LawKa Pala: Legal Journal on Burma 26: 38–62.
CAMPBELL, B. (2012) ‘Addressing Concerns about Transitional Justice in Displacement
Contexts: A Humanitarian Perspective’. In Duthie, R. (ed.) Transitional Justice and
Displacement. New York: Social Science Research Council, pp. 65–84.
COMMISSION ON LEGAL EMPOWERMENT OF THE POOR (CLEP) (2008) Making the
Law Work for Everyone: Volume One, Report of the Commission on Legal Empowerment of the
Poor. New Jersey: Toppan.
CRISP, J. (2004) ‘The Local Integration and Local Settlement of Refugees: a Conceptual and
Historical Analysis’, New Issues in Refugee Research 102, UNHCR Policy Development and
Evaluation Service.
DA COSTA, R. (2006) The Administration of Justice in Refugee Camps: A Study of Practice.
Geneva: UNHCR, Available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4417f9a24.html (October
25 2012).
DONNELLY, J. (2006) ‘The Virtues of Legalization’. In Meckled-Garcia, S. and Çali, B. (eds)
The Legalization of Human Rights. New York: Routledge, pp. 67–80.
DUTHIE, R. (2012) ‘Incorporating Transitional Justice into the Response to Displacement’.
In Duthie, R. (ed.) Transitional Justice and Displacement. New York: Social Science
Research Council, pp. 11–36.
FERRIS, E. (2008) ‘Protracted Refugee Situations, Human Rights and Civil Society’.
In Loescher, G., Milner, J., Newman, E. and Troeller, G. G. (eds) Protracted Refugee
Situations: Political, Human Rights and Security Implications. Tokyo: United Nations
University Press, pp. 85–107.
Legal Empowerment in Protracted Refugee Situations
281
GOLUB, S. (2003) ‘Beyond the Rule of Law Orthodoxy: The Legal Empowerment Alternative’,
Working Papers, Rule of Law Series, Democracy and Rule of Law Project, No. 41, Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace.
GOLUB, S. (2010) ‘What is Legal Empowerment? An Introduction’. In Golub, S. (ed.) Legal
Empowerment: Practitioners’ Perspectives. Rome: International Development Law
Organization, pp. 9–18.
GOODWIN-GILL, G. and MCADAM, J. (2007) The Refugee in International Law, 3rd edn.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
GRIEK, I. (2006) ‘Traditional Systems of Justice in Refugee Camps: The Need for Alternatives’.
Refugee Reports 27(2): 1–5.
HARRELL-BOND, B. (2002) ‘Can Humanitarian Work with Refugees be Humane?’ Human
Rights Quarterly 24: 51–85.
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH (HRW) (2012) Ad Hoc and Inadequate: Thailand’s Treatment of
Refugees and Asylum Seekers. New York: Human Rights Watch, Available at: http://www.
hrw.org/reports/2012/09/12/ad-hoc-and-inadequate (1 November 2012).
ICTJ/BROOKINGS (2012) ‘Transitional Justice and Displacement: Challenges and
Recommendations’, Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacement.
LOESCHER, G. and MILNER, J. (2004) ‘Protracted Refugee Situations and State and Regional
Insecurity’. Conflict, Security and Development 4(1): 3–20.
LOESCHER, G., MILNER, J., NEWMAN, E. and TROELLER, G. G. (2007) ‘Protracted
Refugee Situations and the Regional Dynamics of Peacebuilding’. Conflict, Security and
Development 7(3): 491–501.
MARU, V. (2009) ‘Access to Justice and Legal Empowerment: A Review of World Bank
Practice’, World Bank Justice and Development Working Paper No. 9/2009.
MARU, V. (2010) ‘Allies Unknown: Social Accountability and Legal Empowerment’. Health and
Human Rights in Practice 12(1): 83–93.
SENGUPTA, A. (2008) ‘The Political Economy of Legal Empowerment of the Poor’.
In Banik, D. (ed.) Rights and Legal Empowerment in Eradicating Poverty. Farnham,
England: Ashgate, pp. 31–46.
SLAUGHTER, A. and CRISP, J. (2009) ‘A Surrogate State? The Role of UNHCR in Protracted
Refugee Situations’, New Issues in Refugee Research 168, UNHCR Policy Development and
Evaluation Service.
TAN, V. (2012) ‘In Thailand, Birth Registration Gives Refugee Babies a Good Start in Life’,
UNHCR News Stories 24 September 2012. Available at: http://www.unhcr.ca/news/2012-0924.htm (October 27 2012).
UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (UNDP) (2005) Programming for Justice:
Access for All – A Practitioner’s Guide to a Human Rights-Based Approach to Access to Justice.
Bangkok: UNDP.
UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY (UNGA) (2009) Legal Empowerment of the Poor and Eradication of
Poverty: Report of the Secretary-General, UN Doc A/64/133.
UN HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES (UNHCR) (2003) Handbook for Registration:
Procedures and Standards for Registration, Population Data Management and Documentation,
Provisional Release September 2003.
UNHCR (2006a) Analysis of Gaps in Refugee Protection Capacity: Thailand, November 2006.
Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/472897020.html (November 1 2012).
UNHCR (2006b) Operational Protection in Camps and Settlements. Geneva: UNHCR.
VEROFF, J. (2010) ‘Crimes, Conflicts and Courts: the Administration of Justice in a Zambian
Refugee Settlement’, New Issues in Refugee Research 192, UNHCR Policy Development and
Evaluation Service.