From Responsibility to Response: Assessing National - Brookings

CHAPTER 1 Assessing National Approaches to Internal Displacement: Findings from 15 Countries
—undertaking educational activities and
training programs, especially for government
officials, including those in military and law
enforcement agencies, on the rights of IDPs
—ensuring that IDPs are informed about and
consulted in the development of government
initiatives on their behalf
—establishing a monitoring presence in areas
where IDPs’ and other civilians’ physical security
is at grave risk and monitoring the return
and resettlement of IDPs to ensure that it is voluntary
and occurs in conditions of safety. 4
By acknowledging that internal displacement is a human
rights issue that falls within the mandate of national
human rights institutions, governments can encourage
(and financially support) the institutions’ efforts to promote
the human rights of the internally displaced.
In recent years, an increasing number of NHRIs around
the world have begun to integrate attention to internal
displacement into their work. To encourage and support
such efforts, a number of capacity-strengthening programs
have been implemented. For example, the Asia
Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions,
together with the Brookings Project on Internal
Displacement, undertook an assessment of the capacity
to engage with IDPs of all of the NHRIs that were
forum members and offered country-specific as well as
forum-wide recommendations to enhance their efforts. 5
4 Brookings-Bern Project on Internal Displacement,
Addressing Internal Displacement: A Framework for
National Responsibility, April 2005, pp. 19–20 (www.
brookings.edu/projects/idp/20050401_nrframework.
aspx).
5 For further information on the Asia Pacific Forum and
the Brookings-Bern Project on Internal Displacement
partnership, see the forum’s website (www.asiapacificforum.
net/partners/project-partners/brookings-institute). See
also Asia Pacific Forum–Brookings-Bern Project on
Internal Displacement, Regional Workshop on National
Human Rights Institutions and Internally Displaced Persons,
Colombo, Sri Lanka (October 2005) (www.brookings.edu/
100
Other regional networks of NHRIs, such as the African
Network of National Human Rights Institutions,
have considered ways of supporting each other to increase
their activities on behalf of IDPs. The Internal
Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) has supported
training on IDP issues for a number of NHRIs
worldwide (see Benchmark 4).
Overview of research findings
Figure 1-2 below provides an overview of the national
human rights institutions in the fifteen countries included
in this study. Six of the countries surveyed have
an internationally accredited NHRI: Afghanistan,
Colombia, Georgia, Kenya, Nepal and Uganda. 6 In
South Sudan, a regional human rights commission was
established in accordance with the Comprehensive
Peace Agreement of 2005; presumably this institution
will become an NHRI following the transformation
of South Sudan into an independent country in July
2011. At least four countries (Myanmar, Pakistan,
Turkey and Yemen) do not have an NHRI, while in
four other countries (the Central African Republic, the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq and Sudan)
there were indications that an NHRI was to be established.
However, from the information available, it appears
that these bodies had not yet been established
and become functional; at the very least, their status at
the time of writing was unclear.
Although NHRIs generally have broad mandates to
monitor, investigate and report on a range of human
rights issues in their countries, several NHRIs have been
very actively engaged, at least at different points in time,
on internal displacement.
The case of Colombia provides an early example and
indeed a potential model of the ways in which an NHRI
projects/idp/contents.aspx).
6 Sri Lanka’s NHRI was accredited in the past but has been
downgraded, as noted further into the discussion.