Internally displaced people
Total population
70.5 million (2022)
Regions with significant populations
Europe7.2 million
East and Horn of Africa, and African Great Lakes2.6 million
Southern Africa2.6 million
Asia and the Pacific1.4 million
West and Central Africa1.3 million
Middle East and North Africa0.4 million
Americas0.2 million

An internally displaced person (IDP) is someone who is forced to leave their home but who remains within their country's borders.[1] They are often referred to as refugees, although they do not fall within the legal definitions of a refugee.[2]

Villagers fleeing gunfire in a camp for internally displaced persons during the 2008 Nord-Kivu war
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy with in internally displaced people during the Russian invasion of Ukraine
Okie mother and children, internally displaced by the Dust Bowl in the United States in the 1930s.

In 2022, it was estimated there were 70.5 million IDPs worldwide.[3] The first year for which global statistics on IDPs are available was in 1989. As of 3 May 2022, the countries with the largest IDP populations were Ukraine (8 million),[4][5][6][7] Syria (7.6 million), Ethiopia (5.5 million),[8] the Democratic Republic of the Congo (5.2 million), Colombia (4.9 million),[9] Yemen (4.3 million),[10] Afghanistan (3.8 million),[11] Iraq (3.6 million), Sudan (2.2 million), South Sudan (1.9 million), Pakistan (1.4 million), Nigeria (1.2 million) and Somalia (1.1 million).[12] More than 85% of Palestinians in Gaza (1.9 million) were internally displaced as of January 2024.[13]

The United Nations and the UNHCR support monitoring and analysis of worldwide IDPs through the Geneva-based Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre.[1][14]

Definition

Whereas 'refugee' has an authoritative definition under the 1951 Refugee Convention, there is no universal legal definition of internally displaced persons (IDP); only a regional treaty for African countries (see Kampala Convention). However, a United Nations report, Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement uses the definition of:

persons or groups of persons who have been forced or obliged to flee or to leave their homes or places of habitual residence, in particular as a result of or in order to avoid the effects of armed conflict, situations of generalized violence, violations of human rights or natural or human-made disasters, and who have not crossed an internationally recognized State border.[15]

While the above stresses two important elements of internal displacement (coercion and the domestic/internal movement), rather than a strict definition the Guiding Principles offer "a descriptive identification of the category of persons whose needs are the concern of the Guiding Principles".[16] In this way, the document "intentionally steers toward flexibility rather than legal precision"[17] as the words "in particular" indicate that the list of reasons for displacement is not exhaustive. However, as Erin Mooney has pointed out, "global statistics on internal displacement generally count only IDPs uprooted by conflict and human rights violations. Moreover, a recent study has recommended that the IDP concept should be defined even more narrowly, to be limited to persons displaced by violence."[18] This outlook has become outdated, however, as natural disasters and slow-onset climate degradation have become the primary driving force behind internal displacement in recent years, although conflict remains the primary reason for pre-existing IDPs overall. [19] Climate displaced IDPs are therefore being given more attention overall through being recorded in statistics. Thus, despite the non-exhaustive reasons for internal displacement, many consider IDPs as those who would be defined as refugees if they were to cross an international border, hence, the term refugees in all but the name is often applied to IDPs.

IDP populations

It is very difficult to get accurate figures for internally displaced persons because populations are not constant. IDPs may be returning home while others are fleeing, and others may periodically return to IDP camps to take advantage of humanitarian aid. While the case of IDPs in large camps such as those in Darfur, western Sudan, are relatively well-reported, it is very difficult to assess those IDPs who flee to larger towns and cities. It is necessary for many instances to supplement official figures with additional information obtained from operational humanitarian organizations on the ground. Thus, the 24.5 million figure must be treated as an estimate.[20] Additionally, most official figures only include those displaced by conflict or natural disasters. Development-induced IDPs often are not included in assessments. It has been estimated that between 70 and 80% of all IDPs are women and children.[21]

50% of internally displaced people and refugees were thought to be in urban areas in 2010, many of them in protracted displacement with little likelihood of ever returning home. A 2013 study found that these protracted urban displacements had not been given due weight by international aid and governance as historically they had focused on rural cam displacement responses.[22] The study argues that this protracted urban displacement needs a fundamental change in the approach to those who are displaced and their host societies. They note that re-framing responses to urban displacement will also involve human rights and development actors and local and national governments. They call for a change in the narrative around the issue is needed to reflect ingenuity and fortitude displayed by displaced populations, the opportunities for self-sufficiency and safety represented by urban areas, and that the displaced can make a contribution to their host societies.[22] An updated country by country breakdown can be found online.[23]

Latest IDP population

The following table is a list of countries and territories by the number of Internally Displaced People (IDPs). According to Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC), the internal displacement figures refer to the number of forced movements of people within the borders of their country recorded during the year, and may include individuals who have been displaced more than once. The total number of IDPs is a snapshot of all the people living in internal displacements at the end of the year, and is the sum of the number of conflict IDPs and disaster IDPs.

Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) (2022)[3]
Country / Territory Conflict Internal Displacement Conflict IDPs Disaster Internal Displacement Disaster IDPs Total IDPs
 Afghanistan 32,000 3,444,000 220,000 2,482,000 5,926,000
 Albania 320
 Algeria 2,000 1,500 1,500
 American Samoa 59 26 26
 Angola 1,800
 Argentina 730
 Armenia 7,600 8,400 8,400
 Australia 17,000 9,900 9,900
 Azerbaijan 659,000 190 659,000
 Bangladesh 560 427,000 1,524,000 8,600 435,600
 Belgium 100
 Belize 5,100 820 820
 Benin 1,200 1,200 6,900 6,900 8,100
 Bolivia 3,000 650 650
 Bosnia and Herzegovina 91,000 78 58 91,058
 Brazil 5,600 5,600 708,000 44,000 49,600
 Bulgaria 900 14 14
 Burkina Faso 438,000 1,882,000 2,400 1,882,000
 Burundi 600 8,500 13,000 67,000 75,500
 Cambodia 28,000 3,900 3,900
 Cameroon 139,000 987,000 66,000 23,000 1,010,000
 Canada 15,000 280 280
 Central African Republic 290,000 516,000 77,000 516,000
 Chad 80,000 300,000 158,000 300,000
 Chile 1,500 1,500 1,500
 China 3,632,000 146,000 146,000
 Colombia 339,000 4,766,000 281,000 41,000 4,807,000
 Congo 27,000 42,000 201,000 228,000
 Cook Islands 7
 Costa Rica 1,600
 Côte d'Ivoire 302,000 2,500 302,000
 Croatia 100 38 38
 Cuba 90,000
 Cyprus 246,000 54 246,000
 DR Congo 4,004,000 5,686,000 423,000 283,000 5,969,000
 Denmark 20
 Djibouti 6,100
 Dominican Republic 54,000 7,900 7,900
 Ecuador 6,400 2,200 2,200
 El Salvador 73,000 52,000 4,600 52,000
 Eswatini 360 360 360
 Ethiopia 2,032,000 3,852,000 873,000 717,000 4,569,000
 Fiji 4,800 400 400
 Finland 8
 France 45,000 44 44
 French Polynesia 17
 Gambia 7,800 5,600 7,000 5,600
 Georgia 308,000 430 31,000 339,000
 Germany 630
 Ghana 2,700 5,900 5,900
 Greece 710 60 60
 Guadeloupe 140
 Guatemala 5 242,000 74,000 7,900 249,900
 Guinea 340
 Guyana 120
 Haiti 106,000 171,000 15,000 24,000 195,000
 Honduras 260 247,000 46,000 3,900 250,900
 Hong Kong 330
 Iceland 56
 India 1,000 631,000 2,507,000 32,000 663,000
 Indonesia 7,100 72,000 308,000 68,000 140,000
 Iran 42,000 390 390
 Iraq 32,000 1,169,000 51,000 69,000 1,238,000
 Ireland 26
 Israel 1,100
 Italy 4,100 300 300
 Japan 51,000 45,000 6,000
 Kazakhstan 120 120 4,000 14 134
 Kenya 15,000 30,000 318,000 373,000 403,000
 Kosovo 16,000 120 16,000
 Kuwait 14
 Kyrgyzstan 166,000 4,000 1,700 4 4,004
 Laos 560 560 560
 Latvia 27
 Lebanon 35
 Libya 360 135,000 135,000
 Madagascar 2,800 291,000 68,000 70,800
 Malawi 297,000
 Malaysia 156,000 680 680
 Maldives 370
 Mali 154,000 380,000 24,000 32,000 412,000
 Marshall Islands 28 28 28
 Mauritania 23,000 23,000 23,000
 Mauritius 140
 Mayotte 8 8
 Mexico 9,200 386,000 11,000 3,600 389,600
 Mongolia 75 75 75
 Morocco 9,500
 Mozambique 283,000 1,030,000 113,000 127,000 1,157,000
 Myanmar 1,006,000 1,498,000 13,000 3,000 1,501,000
   Nepal 93,000 58,000 58,000
 New Caledonia 150 170 150
 New Zealand 2,800 150 150
 Nicaragua 77 16,000 11 88
 Niger 101,000 372,000 248,000 5,100 377,100
 Nigeria 148,000 3,646,000 2,437,000 854,000 4,500,000
 North Korea 200
 North Macedonia 110 110
 Norway 170
 Oman 45
 Pakistan 680 21,000 8,168,000 1,025,000 1,046,000
 Palestine 1,800 12,000 250 12,000
 Panama 460
 Papua New Guinea 64,000 94,000 9,600 190 94,190
 Peru 73,000 24,000 29,000 102,000
 Philippines 123,000 102,000 5,453,000 533,000 635,000
 Portugal 4,500 3 3
 Puerto Rico 49,000 58 58
 Romania 160
 Russia 7,100 7,500 2,700 28 7,528
 Rwanda 7,800 3,600 3,600
 Samoa 14
 São Tomé and Principe 240
 Senegal 8,400 12,000 460 8,860
 Serbia 195,000 1 195,000
 Sierra Leone 3,000 800 3,000
 Slovenia 500
 Solomon Islands 1,000 11 11 1,011
 Somalia 621,000 3,864,000 1,152,000 3,864,000
 South Africa 62,000 220 220
 South Korea 30,000 5,100 5,100
 South Sudan 337,000 1,475,000 596,000 665,000 2,140,000
 Spain 31,000 10 10
 Sri Lanka 12,000 11,000 23 12,023
 St. Lucia 560
 St. Vincent and the Grenadines 3 3 3
 Sudan 314,000 3,553,000 105,000 227,000 3,780,000
 Suriname 1,500
  Switzerland 66 4 4
 Syria 171,000 6,865,000 21,000 6,865,000
 Taiwan 1,700
 Tajikistan 260 18 18
 Tanzania 4,200 2,200 2,200
 Thailand 41,000 22,000 680 41,680
 Togo 2,300 2,300 16,000 4,700 7,000
 Tonga 2,400 260 260
 Trinidad and Tobago 40 7 7
 Tunisia 2,000
 Turkey 1,099,000 6,900 52 1,099,052
 Turks and Caicos Islands 160
 Uganda 2,000 4,800 34,000 38,000 42,800
 Ukraine 16,870,000 5,914,000 1 5,914,000
 United Kingdom 1,900 80 80
 United States 675,000 543,000 543,000
 Uruguay 800
 Uzbekistan 170
 Vanuatu 390
 Venezuela 13,000 9,900 9,900
 Vietnam 353,000 2,200 2,200
 Yemen 276,000 4,523,000 171,000 4,523,000
 Zambia 3,600 3,600 3,600
 Zimbabwe 1,300
Total 28,270,385 61,476,565 32,541,165 8,978,169 70,454,734

Historical IDP populations

UNHCR registered IDPs and people in IDP-like situations by country/territory between 2007 and 2014[24]
Country/territory 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Afghanistan 129,300 153,700 230,700 297,100 351,900 447,500 486,300 631,300
Azerbaijan 686,600 686,600 603,300 586,000 592,900 599,200 600,300 609,000
Bosnia and Herzegovina 135,500 131,000 124,500 113,600 113,400 113,000 103,400 84,500
Burundi 13,900 100,000 100,000 100,000 157,200 78,800 78,900 78,900
CAR 147,000 197,000 197,000 197,000 192,500 106,200 51,700 894,400
Chad 112,700 178,900 166,700 170,500 231,000 124,000 90,000 19,800
Colombia 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,304,000 3,672,100 3,888,300 3,943,500 5,368,100
Congo 3,500
Côte d'Ivoire 709,200 709,000 686,000 519,100 517,100 126,700 45,000 24,000
Croatia 4,000 2,900 2,500 2,300 2,100
DRC 1,075,300 1,317,900 1,460,100 2,050,700 1,721,400 1,709,300 2,669,100 2,963,800
Georgia 246,000 271,300 329,800 352,600 360,000 274,000 279,800 257,600
Iraq 1,834,400 2,481,000 2,647,300 1,552,000 1,343,600 1,332,400 1,131,800 954,100
Kenya 250,000 404,000 399,000 300,000 300,000
Kyrgyzstan 80,000 163,900
Lebanon 200,000 70,000
Libya 93,600 59,400 53,600
Mali 227,900 254,800
Montenegro 16,200 16,200
Myanmar 58,500 67,300 67,300 62,000 239,200 339,200 430,400 372,000
Nepal 100,000 50,000
Nigeria 360,000
Pakistan 155,800 155,800 1,894,600 952,000 452,900 758,000 747,500
Philippines 139,500 159,500 1,200 117,400
Russia 158,900 263,700 91,500 79,900 75,400
Serbia 227,600 226,400 225,900 224,900 228,400 228,200 227,800 227,500
Somalia 400,000 1,000,000 1,277,200 1,392,300 1,463,800 1,356,800 1,133,000 1,133,000
South Sudan 223,700 209,700 345,700 331,100
Sri Lanka 469,000 459,600 504,800 434,900 273,800 138,400 93,500 42,200
Sudan 1,325,200 1,225,000 1,201,000 1,079,100 1,602,200 2,033,100 1,873,300 1,873,300
Syria 2,016,500 6,520,800
East Timor 155,200 62,600 15,900
Uganda 1,814,900 1,236,000 853,000 428,600 125,600
Yemen 77,000 100,000 250,000 193,700 347,300 385,300 306,600
Zimbabwe 54,300 57,900 60,100
Country/territory 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Official opening of MONUSCO's photo exhibition organized in the framework of the 70th anniversary of the United Nations. In the photo are the Head of MONUSCO, Martin Kobler (1st left), Lambert Mende (middle), and the Director of MONUSCO Public Information Division, Charles Antoine Bambara, commenting on a picture showing an internally displaced person.
Serbian and other non-Albanian refugees during Kosovo War. Serbia is home to highest number of refugees and IDPs in Europe.[25][26][27]

Protection and assistance

The problem of protecting and assisting IDPs is not a new issue. In international law it is the responsibility of the government concerned to provide assistance and protection for the IDPs in their country. However, as many of the displaced are a result of civil conflict and violence or where the authority of the central state is in doubt, there is no local authority willing to provide assistance and protection.[28] It has been estimated that some 5 million IDPs in 11 countries are "without any significant humanitarian assistance from their governments."[21] Under these circumstances rehabilitation policies on humanitarian grounds should be aimed at reducing inequality of opportunity among these vulnerable groups by integrating them into local social services and allowing them access to jobs, education, and healthcare opportunities; otherwise new conflicts might break out.[29]

Unlike the case of refugees, there is no international humanitarian institution which has the overall responsibility of protecting and assisting the refugees as well as the internally displaced. A number of organizations have stepped into the breach in specific circumstances.

UNHCR

The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) was mandated by General Assembly Resolution 428 (V) of 14 December 1950 to "lead and coordinate international action for the worldwide protection of refugees and the resolution of refugee problems.... guided by the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol."[30] The UNHCR has traditionally argued that it does not have an exclusive mandate for IDPs[31] even though at least since 1972 it had relief and rehabilitation programs for those displaced within a country. Until the mid-2000s, it conditioned involvement to cases where there is a specific request by the UN Secretary-General and with the consent of the State concerned it has been willing to respond by assisting IDPs in a given instance.[32] In 2005 it was helping some 5.6 million IDPs (out of over 25 million), but only about 1.1 million in Africa.[33][34]

In 2005, the UNHCR signed an agreement with other humanitarian agencies. "Under this agreement, UNHCR will assume the lead responsibility for protection, emergency shelter and camp management for internally displaced people."[35] In 2019, UNHCR issued an updated IDP policy that reaffirms its commitment to engaging decisively and predictably in situations of internal displacement.[36]

ICRC

The International Committee of the Red Cross has a mandate of ensuring the application of international humanitarian law as it affects civilians in the midst of armed conflict. They have traditionally not distinguished between civilians who are internally displaced and those who remain in their homes. In a 2006 policy statement, the ICRC stated:

The ICRC's overall objective is to alleviate the suffering of people who are caught up in armed conflict and other situations of violence. To that end, the organization strives to provide effective and efficient assistance and protection for such persons, be they displaced or not, while taking into consideration the action of other humanitarian organizations. On the basis of its long experience in different parts of the world, the ICRC has defined an operational approach towards the civilian population as a whole that is designed to meet the most urgent humanitarian needs of both displaced persons and local and host communities.[37]

However, its Director of Operations has earlier recognized that IDPs "deprived of shelter and their habitual sources of food, water, medicine and money, they have different, and often more urgent, material needs."[38]

Collaborative approach

The previous system set up internationally to address the needs of IDPs was referred to as the collaborative approach as the responsibility for protecting and assisting IDPs was shared among the UN agencies, i.e. UNHCR, Unicef, WFP, UNDP, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the International Organization for Migration (IOM), the ICRC and international NGOs. Coordination is the responsibility of the UN Emergency Relief Coordinator and the Humanitarian Coordinator in the country concerned.[39] They are assisted by the Inter-Agency Displacement Division, which was created in 2004 and is housed in the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).[40]

The original collaborative approach has come under increasing criticism. Roberta Cohen reports:

Nearly every UN and independent evaluation has found the collaborative approach deficient when it comes to IDPs. To begin with, there is no real focus of responsibility in the field for assisting and protecting... There is also no predictability of action, as the different agencies are free to pick and choose the situations in which they wish to become involved on the basis of their respective mandates, resources, and interests. In every new emergency, no one knows for sure which agency or combination thereof will become involved.[41]

In 2005 there was an attempt to fix the problem by giving sectoral responsibilities to different humanitarian agencies, most notably with the UNHCR taking on the responsibility for the protection and the management of camps and emergency shelters.[41] The Forced Migration Review stated that the "abnegation of responsibility is possible because there is no formal responsibility apportioned to agencies under the Collaborative Response, and thus no accountability when agencies renege on their promises."[42]

Similarly, research on refugees has suggested a cross-sector collaboration as a key means to assist displaced people.[43]

Cluster approach

This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

The cluster approach designates individual agencies as 'sector leaders' to coordinate operations in specific areas to try to plug those newly identified gaps. The cluster approach was conceived amid concerns about coordination and capacity that arose from the weak operational response to the crisis in Darfur in 2004 and 2005, and the critical findings of the Humanitarian Response Review (HRR) commissioned by the then ERC, Jan Egeland. Egeland called for strengthening the leadership of the sectors, and introduced the concept of "clusters" at different levels (headquarters, regional, country and operational)'.

The cluster approach operates on the global and local levels. At the global level, the approach is meant to build up capacity in eleven key 'gap' areas by developing better surge capacity, ensuring consistent access to appropriately trained technical expertise and enhanced material stockpiles, and securing the increased engagement of all relevant humanitarian partners. At the field level, the cluster approach strengthens the coordination and response capacity by mobilizing clusters of humanitarian agencies (UN/Red Cross-Red Crescent/IOs/NGOs) to respond in particular sectors or areas of activity, each cluster having a clearly designated and accountable lead, as agreed by the HC and the Country Team. Designated lead agencies at the global level both participate directly in operations, but also coordinate with and oversee other organizations within their specific spheres, reporting the results up through a designated chain of command to the ERC at the summit. However, lead agencies are responsible as "providers of last resort", which represents the commitment of cluster leads to do their utmost to ensure an adequate and appropriate response in their respective areas of responsibility. The cluster approach was part of a package of reforms accepted by the IASC in December 2005 and subsequently applied in eight chronic humanitarian crises and six sudden-onset emergencies. However, the reform was originally rolled out and evaluated in four countries: DRC, Liberia, Somalia and Uganda.

The clusters were originally concentrated in nine areas:

  1. Logistics (WFP)
  2. Emergency Telecommunications Cluster (WFP)
  3. Camp Coordination and Camp Management (UNHCR for conflict-generated IDPs and IOM for natural disaster-generated IDPs)
  4. Shelter (IFRC for natural disasters; UNHCR for conflict situations)
  5. Health (WHO)
  6. Nutrition (UNICEF)
  7. Water, sanitation, and hygiene promotion (UNICEF)
  8. Early recovery (UNDP); and
  9. Protection (UNHCR for conflict-generated IDPs, UNHCR, UNICEF, and OHCHR for natural disaster-generated IDPs).

IASC Principles deemed it unnecessary to apply the cluster approach to four sectors where no significant gaps were detected: a) food, led by WFP; b) refugees, led by UNHCR; c) education, led by UNICEF; and d) agriculture, led by FAO.

The original nine clusters were later expanded to include agriculture and education.

International law

Unlike the case of refugees, there is no international universal treaty which applies specifically to IDPs. Only a regional treaty for African countries has been established (see Kampala Convention). Some other countries have advocated re-thinking the definitions and protections for refugees to apply to IDPs, but so far no solid actions have come to fruition.[44][45] Recognizing the gap, the UN Secretary-General, Boutros-Ghali appointed Francis Deng in 1992 as his representative for internally displaced persons. Besides acting as an advocate for IDPs, Deng set out in 1994, at the request of the UN General Assembly to examine and bring together existing international laws which relate to the protection of IDPs.[46] The result of this work was the document, Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement.[15]

The Guiding Principles lay out the responsibilities of states before displacement – that is, to prevent displacement – during and after displacement. They 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, which include Sudan, DRC and Uganda.

The Guiding Principles, however, are non-binding. 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."[47]

In September 2004 the Secretary-General of the UN showed the continuing concern of his office by appointing Walter Kälin as his Representative on the Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons. Part of his mandate includes the promoting of the Guiding Principles.[48]

Right of return

In so-called "post-conflict" situations, there has traditionally been an emphasis in the international community to seek to return to the pre-war status quo.[49] However, opinions are gradually changing, because violent conflict destroys political, economic and social structures and new structures develop as a result, quite often irreversibly.[49] Furthermore, returning to the pre-war status-quo may actually be undesirable if pre-war structures led to the conflict in the first place, or prevented its early resolution. IDPs' and refugees' right of return can represent one of the most complex aspects of this issue.[49]

Normally, pressure is applied by the international community and humanitarian organization to ensure displaced people are able to return to their areas of origin and the same property.[49] The UN Principles for Housing and Property Restitution for Refugees and IDPs, otherwise known as the Pinheiro Principles, provides guidance on the management of the technical and legal aspects of housing, land and property (HLP) restitution.[49] Restitution rights are of key importance to IDPs and refugees around the world, and important to try preventing aggressors benefiting from conflict.[49] However, without a clear understanding of each local context, full restitution rights can be unworkable and fail to protect the people it is designed to protect for the following reasons, refugees and IDPs:[49]

Researchers at the Overseas Development Institute stress the need for humanitarian organization to develop greater expertise in these issues, using experts who have knowledge in both humanitarian and land and property issues and so provide better advice to state actors seeking to resolve these issues.[49] The ODI calls on humanitarian agencies to develop an awareness of sustainable reintegration as part of their emphasis on returning IDPs and refugees home.[49] Legal advice needs to be provided to all parties involved even if a framework is created in which to resolve these issues.[49]

See also

Notes

  1. ^ a b "Internally Displaced Persons". UNHCR. Retrieved 10 July 2017.
  2. ^ IJR Center (10 October 2012). "Who is a Refugee".
  3. ^ a b "Global Internal Displacement Database". IDMC - Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre. Retrieved 2024-02-03.
  4. ^ "Мировые новости".
  5. ^ "UNHCR: Ukraine, other conflicts push forcibly displaced total over 100 million for first time".
  6. ^ "Needs Growing for over 8 Million Internally Displaced in Ukraine".
  7. ^ "Ukraine". IDMC. Retrieved 2022-05-24.
  8. ^ "Response to Internal Displacement in Ethiopia Fact Sheet – January to March 2022". ReliefWeb. 19 May 2022.
  9. ^ "Global displacement figures 2021". Norwegian Refugee Council.
  10. ^ "Needs mount as conflict in Yemen rages". UNHCR. 1 April 2022.
  11. ^ "Afghanistan situation". UNHCR. 2022.
  12. ^ "UNHCR – Global Trends –Forced Displacement in 2014". UNHCR. 18 June 2015.
  13. ^ "As Israel's Aerial Bombardments Intensify, 'There Is No Safe Place in Gaza', Humanitarian Affairs Chief Warns Security Council". United Nations. 12 January 2024.
  14. ^ IDMC at the UNHCR website Archived 2023-03-20 at the Wayback Machine: "At the request of the United Nations, the Geneva-based IDMC runs an online database providing comprehensive information and analysis on internal displacement in some 50 countries."
  15. ^ a b Deng, Francis. "The guiding principles on internal displacement". E/CN.4/1998/53/Add.l, February 11. New York, NY: United Nations. New York: United Nations.
  16. ^ KALIN, G. "Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement. Annotations." The American Society of International Law & The Brookings Institution Project on Internal Displacement. Studies in Transnational Legal Policy, No. 32, 2000.
  17. ^ VINCENT, M, "IDPs: rights and status", Forced Migration Review, August 2000, p. 30.
  18. ^ MOONEY, E. "The Concept of Internal Displacement and the Case for Internally Displaced Persons as a Category of Concern." Refugee Survey Quarterly. (24) 3, 2005, p. 12.
  19. ^ IMDC (2022) "Global Report on Internal Displacement 2022." Geneva: Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, Norwegian Refugee Council. P. 12
  20. ^ IDMC (April 2006). INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT Global Overview of Trends and Developments in 2006 (PDF). Geneva: Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, Norwegian Refugee Council. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2014-05-06. Retrieved 2014-05-06.p. 13
  21. ^ a b IDMC (April 2006). INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT Global Overview of Trends and Developments in 2006 (PDF). Geneva: Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, Norwegian Refugee Council. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2014-05-06. Retrieved 2014-05-06.p. 6
  22. ^ a b Haysom, Simone. "Sanctuary in the city? Reframing responses to protracted urban displacement, HPG Policy Briefs". odi.org.uk. Archived from the original on 2013-12-03. Retrieved 2013-12-02.
  23. ^ Council, Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) - Norwegian Refugee. "IDMC » Global Figures".
  24. ^ "UNHCR Statistical Yearbook Data - Humanitarian Data Exchange". data.humdata.org. Retrieved 2022-10-27.
  25. ^ "Serbia home to highest number of refugees and IDPs in Europe". B92. 20 June 2010.
  26. ^ "Serbia: Europe's largest proctracted refugee situation". OSCE. 2008.
  27. ^ S. Cross, S. Kentera, R. Vukadinovic, R. Nation (7 May 2013). Shaping South East Europe's Security Community for the Twenty-First Century: Trust, Partnership, Integration. Springer. p. 169. ISBN 9781137010209. Retrieved 31 January 2017.((cite book)): CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  28. ^ Goodwin-Gill, Guy S. (1996). The refugee in international law. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 0-19-826019-9.p. 264
  29. ^ Das, Tuhin K.; Haldar, Sushil K.; Das Gupta, Ivy; Kundu, Sangeeta (August 2016). Deprivation of Internally Displaced Persons: Case Studies in India (First ed.). India: Power Publishers. p. 130. ISBN 978-93-85892-71-4.
  30. ^ "Mission Statement" (PDF). UNHCR. Retrieved 2007-10-24.
  31. ^ Refugees, United Nations High Commissioner for. "Refugees Magazine Issue 103 (IDPs) - Interview: Dr. Francis M. Deng, advocate for the uprooted". UNHCR. Retrieved 2020-11-22.
  32. ^ Goodwin-Gill, Guy S. (1996). The refugee in international law. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 0-19-826019-9.p. 266
  33. ^ Roberta Cohen in Marsella, Anthony J. (2007). Fear of Persecution: Global Human Rights, International Law, and Human Well-Being. Lexington, Mass: Lexington Books. ISBN 978-0-7391-1566-4.p. 15
  34. ^ Cohen, Roberta (Winter–Spring 2006). "Strengthening Protection of IDPs: The UN's Role" (PDF). Georgetown Journal of International Affairs. Retrieved 2007-10-23. p. 106
  35. ^ "Internally Displaced People Q&A" (PDF). UNHCR. Retrieved 2007-10-24.
  36. ^ Refugees, United Nations High Commissioner for. "UNHCR and internally displaced persons: UNHCR's role in support of an enhanced humanitarian response to IDP situations". UNHCR. Retrieved 2020-11-05.
  37. ^ "ICRC Position on Internally Displaced Persons" (PDF). Retrieved 2007-10-23.
  38. ^ Tauxe, Jean-Daniel (2000-03-01). "We Should Have Humanitarian Access to Displaced Civilians". International Herald Tribune. Archived from the original on November 25, 2006. Retrieved 2007-10-24.
  39. ^ IASC (September 2004). Implementing the Collaborative Response to Situations of Internal Displacement (PDF). New York: United Nations. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-10-29.
  40. ^ "OCHA IDP Unit Home Page". Archived from the original on 2003-04-15. Retrieved 2007-10-28.
  41. ^ a b Cohen, Roberta (Winter–Spring 2006). "Strengthening Protection of IDPs: The UN's Role" (PDF). Georgetown Journal of International Affairs. Retrieved 2007-10-24.p. 105
  42. ^ DAVIES, A. and MURRAY, M.W., "Implementation of the Collaborative Response in Liberia", Forced Migration Review. IDP Supplement. October 2005, p. 17.
  43. ^ Lee, Eun Su; Szkudlarek, Betina (2021-04-14). "Refugee employment support: The HRM–CSR nexus and stakeholder co-dependency". Human Resource Management Journal. 31 (4): 1748–8583.12352. doi:10.1111/1748-8583.12352. ISSN 0954-5395. S2CID 234855263.
  44. ^ Celik, Ayse Betul (August 2005). "Transnationalization of Human Rights Norms and Its Impact on Internally Displaced Kurds". Human Rights Quarterly. 27 (3): 969–997. doi:10.1353/hrq.2005.0032. JSTOR 20069817. S2CID 144402185.
  45. ^ Schoenholtz, Andrew I. (11 June 2015). The New Refugees and the Old Treaty: Persecutors and Persecuted in the Twenty-First Century. SSRN 2617336.
  46. ^ Roberta Cohen in Marsella, Anthony J. (2007). Fear of Persecution: Global Human Rights, International Law, and Human Well-Being. Lexington, Mass: Lexington Books. ISBN 978-0-7391-1566-4.p. 20
  47. ^ Nyanduga, Bahame Tom (September 2004). "The challenge of internal displacement in Africa" (PDF). Forced Migration Review. 21. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-10-29. Retrieved 2007-10-24.
  48. ^ "Mandate". UNHCHR. Archived from the original on 2007-08-07. Retrieved 2007-10-24.
  49. ^ a b c d e f g h i j "Uncharted territory: land, conflict and humanitarian action". ODI: Think change. Retrieved 2022-10-27.

References