Iron Swords - Law - Forced Displacement
Forced displacement is regulated by international humanitarian law: Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions, reflective of customary law, provides that no displacement shall be ordered for reasons related to a conflict, unless civilians must move for their own security or a clear military imperative. Should such displacements have to be carried out, all possible measures must be taken so that the civilian population obtains satisfactory conditions of shelter, hygiene, medical, safety, and nutrition.
Internally displaced persons are 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. The U.N. Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement provide an authoritative restatement of existing international human rights, humanitarian and refugee law as it relates to the protection of internally displaced persons.
Forced displacement occurs when individuals are compelled to relocate from their places of usual residence. Some of the most serious problems facing displaced people around the globe are the loss of land, housing and property rights during their displacement and the consequent inability to return to their original homes and lands once they choose to voluntarily repatriate. For virtually all of the worlds displaced, their main wish is to return to their original homes in safety and dignity.
People displaced by forces beyond their control should never face the prospect of losing their housing, land or property rights simply because they were violently forced to leave or otherwise fled an insecure situation in search of protection. And even when actual return and repossession is not considered safe, desirable or possible by the displaced themselves (for instance, when refugees choose to seek asylum, resettlement and permanent residence in a safe third country), few displaced persons willingly renounce their rights to the places they called home before fleeing, even if they have no intention of actually returning.
Forced displacement is associated with elevated risk for poor psychosocial wellbeing. Women make up high proportions of refugee and internally displaced populations, and they suffer unique consequences of war and conflict because of gender-based violence, discrimination, and caretaking roles. Refugee women are especially vulnerable to infectious disease, as well as threats to their mental health and physical safety.
The Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights appointed Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro, of Brazil, as Special Rapporteur on Housing and Property Restitution for Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons in 2002. The final text of principles and guidelines on housing and property restitution was presented to the Sub-Commission and formally endorsed on 11 August 2005.
Housing, land and property restitution rights for refugees and displaced persons are firmly grounded within the core principles of many fields of international law. As a legal concept, of course, restitution has been treated as a central (and often preferred) remedy for violations of legal obligations within many jurisdictions for more than a century. Innumerable United Nations Security Council and General Assembly resolutions adopted over the past 60 years explicitly address housing and property restitution rights.
The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights explains that there are “various elements” that express forced eviction, whether it is expulsion from the home or land permanently or temporarily, or the expulsion is carried out against the will of people using or without force, or when it occurs without taking into account international obligations.
The Commission distinguishes between types of forced eviction or transfer, some of which may be carried out in the implementation of development projects within countries that require the relocation of residential communities for various reasons, or when they are linked to political conflicts that resort to evictions, home demolitions and deportation as a “weapon of war” and to serve the purpose of achieving the goal. "Ethnic cleansing and population transfer."
This also includes what the Commission called “collective punishment” when civilian homes are targeted in armed conflicts, or even if they are part of counter-terrorism measures.
However, not all cases of forced transfer are prohibited under international human rights law, as it does not apply to cases carried out in accordance with the provisions of the law, as there may be a need to remove individuals from areas at risk to protect their lives. International obligations require countries to carry out deportations and resettlement under unavoidable circumstances, such as removing individuals from abandoned buildings or vulnerable areas to protect their lives, and resettlement must result in improving the lives of people and their families.
States should not undertake forced deportation before considering all the alternatives available to the authorities. The true cost of eviction and its impact on the local community must be calculated, and deportation should not lead to people being displaced and putting their lives or health at risk. The issuance of an administrative or judicial decision is not necessarily sufficient to legitimize or justify deportations, as some courts may not comply with international human rights standards.
The Commission for Human Rights considers that cases of forced eviction are not those related to the use of force against people, as they may include intimidation against them, or cutting off water and electricity supplies and making their place of residence unbearable, or they may be prevented from returning to their places of residence.
Forced deportation is considered a “flagrant violation of human rights,” according to the Commission, and it conflicts with many rights, especially with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the resolutions of the United Nations Human Rights Council and the International Declaration of Human Rights. The UN Human Rights Committee has concluded that “forced evictions and transfers are generally discriminatory or lead to discrimination”, which increase inequality, growing social conflict and “segregation and segregation” of segments of society.
The same committee stated in “Resolution 77” issued in 1993, that “forced evictions” cause “real trauma. Rather, they further deteriorate the lives of those already marginalized or vulnerable in society. They also violate a wide range of internationally recognized human rights, including Rights to adequate housing, food, water, health, education, work, personal security, freedom from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and freedom of movement.
In the event that deportation is inevitable, a number of guarantees must be provided by providing adequate housing, and this must be done in a way that meets safety conditions and preserves family unity and health.
According to UNHCR estimates in October 2022, “there are about 400,000 displaced people in various locations” in the Gaza Strip, including the buildings of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA). High Commissioner spokeswoman Ravina Shamdasani said last October that international law stipulates that if Israel “as the occupying power...carries out a temporary evacuation” for security or military reasons, this process must be accompanied by “the provision of suitable housing for all evacuated people." She added that any evacuation must take place “under satisfactory conditions in terms of hygiene, health, security and nutrition,” noting that “Israel appears to have done nothing to ensure these conditions for approximately 1.1 million civilians who were ordered to move.” She continued, "We are concerned that this matter, in addition to imposing a complete siege on Gaza, cannot be considered a temporary legal evacuation, and therefore is a forced transfer of civilians that violates international law," according to an Agence France-Presse report.
In what it says is a response to the Hamas attacks, Israel’s military has been levelling entire city blocks in Gaza and preparing for a ground invasion it says is coming soon. Israeli authorities warned the population of northern Gaza to evacuate to the south, a move considered “unacceptable under humanitarian law” by Marco Sassoli, professor of international law at the University of Geneva. “If Israeli authorities warn a house next door to, for instance, a command and control centre then this evacuation order is welcome,” he says. “But you cannot warn half of the Gaza Strip [to evacuate] … Forced displacement within an occupied territory cannot be justified in this case.”
The United Nations human rights office said on 17 October 2023 that Israel's siege of Gaza and its evacuation order there could amount to the international crime of the forcible transfer of civilians. "We are concerned that this order, combined with the imposition of a complete siege of Gaza, may not be considered as lawful temporary evacuation and would therefore amount to a forcible transfer of civilians in breach of international law," said Ravina Shamdasani, spokesperson for the UN human rights office. The term "forcible transfer" describes the forced relocation of civilian populations and it is a crime against humanity punishable by the International Criminal Court (ICC).
The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights considered, on 08 February 2024, that the systematic destruction of buildings, which experts and human rights organizations confirm is carried out by Israel in the Gaza Strip for the purpose of establishing a buffer zone, is illegal and amounts to a “war crime.” “The widespread destruction of property, which is not justified by military necessity and is carried out unlawfully and arbitrarily, amounts to a serious violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and a war crime,” Commissioner Volker Türk said in a statement.
The Associated Press revealed that the border between the Gaza Strip and Israel witnessed new destruction at a depth of about one kilometer, based on satellite images. This demolition came at a time when Israel said it wanted to create a buffer zone there, despite international objections, “which will further reduce the area of land on which the Palestinians want to establish their state.”
It is noteworthy that Israeli officials indicated, on several occasions, their desire to establish a buffer zone as a defensive measure that “may prevent a recurrence of the October 7 attack launched by Hamas, which led to igniting the war that has been ongoing for nearly four months.” An Israeli government official spoke to the agency anonymously and said that a "temporary security buffer zone" was under construction.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
