Tag Archive | "refugees"

The European Refugee Crisis: Unaccompanied Refugee and Migrant Children

Photo Credit: Getty Images

Photo Credit: Getty Images

The refugee and migrant influx into Europe continues. Since January 2015 approximately 1.2 million people have journeyed across the Mediterranean in an attempt to reach Europe. The majority arrive in Europe by sea, while almost 34,900 refugees and migrants arrived by land. These individuals are fleeing economic and social breakdown such as conflict, violence, and poverty, with the largest numbers leaving Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

The crisis has had a substantial impact on children. UNICEF’s advocacy brief on the refugee and migrant crisis in Europe describes this crisis as a “children’s crisis.” By the end of December 2015, 1 in 3 refugees and migrants in Europe were children. And, based on arrivals in Europe since January 1, 2016, 27% were children.

Especially vulnerable are unaccompanied children. Children are among the most at risk of refugees and migrants – at risk of trafficking, exploitation, abuse, death, rape, and detention, among others. Unaccompanied children are those under the age of 18 years old and travelling alone. In 2015, approximately 25% of child asylum claims were made by unaccompanied and separated minors. However, it is difficult to gather accurate numbers of unaccompanied children because either they are not registering at borders or the country does not allow for their identification in formal registration procedures.

So, what is global community’s responsibility in addressing the issue of unaccompanied refugee and migrant children? According to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the protection of unaccompanied children is a state obligation. One response to the problem of unaccompanied refugee and migrant children arriving in Europe was that of the United Kingdom, which passed the Immigration Act 2016, Section 67. The Act specifies that the “Secretary of State must… make arrangements to relocate to the United Kingdom and support a specified number of unaccompanied refugee children from other countries in Europe.” It further specifies that the number of children to be resettled will be determined by the government in consultation with local authorities. The Act does not specify a fixed number on arrivals in order to assess the local governments capacity and ability to help. The purpose is to resettle unaccompanied refugee children who have fled conflict in the Middle East and whom it is in their best interest to be transferred to the UK.

Although there are real considerations as to capacity and ability of countries to help unaccompanied refugee children, a greater effort should be made by the global community in collaboration with one another and individually to assist this especially vulnerable population as well as the refugee and migrant population as a whole.

Hannah Mitchell is a 2L at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law and a staff editor on the Denver Journal of International Law and Policy.

Posted in 1TVFA Posts, 2Featured Articles, DJILP Staff, Hannah MitchellComments (0)

Gender-Based Asylum Claims: Why the United States Approves So few

somali_woman2

Somali woman and child

Under current asylum law, gender is not a protected ground for asylum. The United States, as well as many other countries around the world, first committed to the international community to protect the rights of refugees when it signed the Refugee Convention in 1951, the controlling international convention in refugee law.  A refugee, according to the Refugee Convention Article 1(A)(2) is an individual “who is outside his or her country of nationality or habitual residence and is unable or unwilling to return due to a well-founded fear of persecution based on his or her race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.”

Any individual bringing a claim for gender-based asylum must do so under “membership in a particular social group.”  However, merely stating that the individual’s “gender” constitutes as a social group is not enough. The social group cannot be based on the persecution the individual faced, and has to be specific, immutable, and socially visible. There is a fear that if an immigration judge allows a social group that is too broad, it will set precedent for a flood of women to come and claim asylum in the United States.  Women, therefore, have had to describe their social group in convoluted and intricate ways, in order to be as specific as possible to be acceptable to immigration judge.  As one scholar notes, “applicants often define groups in ‘overly complicated and unnecessarily detailed’ ways, including characteristics such as marital status, age, education level, the absence of male protection, opposition to abuse, transgression of social/cultural norms, and past experiences of harm.” These social group formulations are very narrow, sometimes illogical, and almost comical in length.

Claims are especially difficult to bring when the persecution occurs within the private sphere—this means, the government of the country did not conduct the persecution, but instead, the members of the government refused to protect the individual from the violence.  When the persecution occurs within the private sphere, the persecution must be on account of that social group; the persecutor either has or will inflict harm or suffering “in order to punish him [or her] for possessing a belief or characteristic [the] persecutor[seeks] to overcome.”  The asylum seeker must show that the persecutor wanted to persecute her on account of her social group by providing evidence that the persecution occurred, which is often difficult within the private sphere, because there is often no witnesses or evidence.  Women around the world suffer violence, such as female genital mutilation, honor killings,  or domestic violence,  at the hands of their fellow community members because it is “culturally acceptable;” however, when they flee to the United States to avoid this violence, they face many obstacles in getting their asylum applications approved.

Kitty Robinson is a 3L at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law and a Staff Editor on the Denver Journal of International Law and Policy.

 

Posted in 1TVFA Posts, 2Featured Articles, DJILP Staff, Kitty RobinsonComments (0)

Mistaken as Terrorists: How innocent Syrian refugees are prevented from resettling in the US

The Syrian refugee crisis is one of the most horrific this generation has ever seen.

Syrian refugees living in a camp Credits: © Nikolay Doychinov/AFP/Getty Images

Syrian refugees living in a camp Credits: © Nikolay Doychinov/AFP/Getty Images

The United States, which has a long history of welcoming refugees into its borders and giving protection to those fleeing from persecution, has yet to put a significant resettlement initiative for Syrian refugees into motion. The United States has resettled 546 Syrian refugees since the crisis began.  UNHCR, on the other hand, hopes to resettle 50,000 Syrian refugees in 2015, and another 50,000 Syrian refugees in 2016 in permanent resettlement placements around the world.  The lack of action on the part of the United States is due, in part, to its strict immigration laws in regards to terrorism.  The Terrorism Related Inadmissibility Grounds (“TRIG”) sweep broadly over many individuals who are not dangerous in any way.  The TRIG statutory language, codified in the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) prevents many innocent Syrians from finding a stable and safe living situation.

There are two areas of the INA that stand as a significant obstacle for many Syrian refugees wanting to resettle in the United States. First is the definition of “terrorist activity,” defined in INA §212(a)(3)(B)(iii) as “any activity that is unlawful under the laws of the place where it is committed.” Because the law defines any military action against a regime as “terrorist activity,” individuals who were once seen as friends of the Untied States are now labeled as terrorists. For Syrians, opposition fighters are labeled as terrorists and are excluded from entering the United States, even though the United States government supports them. In contrast, those who were in Assad’s army, which the United States opposes for its violations of international law, would still be admissible, because the statute only applies to non-state actors.

Second, many Syrians may be found inadmissible due to their insignificant material support to a Tier I or Tier II terrorist organization (designated terrorist organizations by the Secretary of State and Attorney General, respectively). In INA §212(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI), the giving of material support to a terrorist organization labeled as “terrorist activity.”  DHS, in past oral arguments before the BIA, has stated that they would consider even the most minimal support given to a terrorist organization, like a glass of water or five cents, as material support.  Syrians deemed inadmissible due to their material support of a terrorist organization include a family that sheltered an opposition fighter in their home when their town was being bombed, a young boy who joined the opposition fighters for a short time when his father was killed, eventually leaving the war to join his mother and siblings, and even the man who sold falafel sandwiches to opposition fighters in a war-zone.

In order for the United States to continue its longstanding tradition of welcoming people fleeing from persecution, the TRIG laws need to be changed.  DHS needs to use its discretionary authority and expand the available TRIG waivers. Civilians living in Syria were subject to innocent contact with Tier I and Tier II terrorist organizations on a regular basis; this is the nature of living in a conflict zone.  The armed group that took control over the territory they lived in became their customers in their stores—innocent, insignificant material support is unavoidable.  Additionally, exceptions should be given on a case-by-case basis to former combatants who pass a security background check and are not barred for any other statutory reason, including those who were children at the time they were combatants, or to individuals who did not participate in targeting civilians.

Kitty Robinson is a 2L at the University of Denver and is the incoming Candidacy Editor for the Denver Journal of International Law and Policy  

Posted in 1TVFA Posts, 2Featured Articles, DJILP Staff, Kitty RobinsonComments (0)

Critical Analysis: R2P – Whose responsibility is it?

Nigerian Refugees in Minawao, Cameroon. Credit: DW. http://www.dw.de/stranded-near-the-nigerian-border-a-visit-to-the-minawao-refugee-camp/a-18275323

Nigerian Refugees in Minawao, Cameroon. Credit: DW. http://www.dw.de/stranded-near-the-nigerian-border-a-visit-to-the-minawao-refugee-camp/a-18275323

On April 14, 2014 the hashtag #BringBackOurGirls began trending on Twitter as the abduction of 276 Nigerian schoolgirls in Chibok flooded news outlets around the world.  The Islamist group Boko Haram claimed responsibility for the kidnapping, and, with the exception of a few victims who have since escaped, the majority of the girls whereabouts are still unknown. According to UNICEF, in the year since the Chibok abductions, 1.2 million people in northeast Nigeria have been displaced due to Boko Haram-insurgency. Schools have been a target for Boko Haram since its militant operations began in 2009. In the past three years over 300 schools have been destroyed in the northern region of Nigeria, depriving 10,000 children of an education.

Perhaps the most troubling trends since Boko Haram’s reign of terror began have been the increasing number of the displaced being subject to human trafficking and Nigeria’s lack of effectiveness in preventing it from spiraling out of control. According to the Global Slavery Index an estimated 800,000 people are enslaved in Nigeria. However, by the Nigerian government’s own admission, 8 million children are currently subject to human trafficking. Many of those trafficked children are forced into labor, marriage, and prostitution. The displacement camps and their surrounding communities have had their access to humanitarian aid cut off by the violence, rendering them ineffective in supporting the overwhelming amount of refugees flooding their streets. The overcrowding, lack of food, and fear for safety has forced many young girls into prostitution, and young boys into joining the recruitment of Boko Haram in the armed conflict.

These atrocities have not gone unnoticed by the international community.

Hundreds of Nigerian Refugee Tents in Minawao, Cameroon. Credit: DW.

Hundreds of Nigerian Refugee Tents in Minawao, Cameroon. Credit: DW.

#BringBackOurGirls was tweeted 3.3 million times in the month following the kidnappings in Chibok, and UNICEF has responded by supplying 60,000 children with psychosocial support and by raising an estimated $3.84 million to further its efforts during 2015. Yetdespite worldwide awareness of the crisis in Nigeria the international community has done little. Similar to its inability to address the plight of the Palestinian refugees, international humanitarian law has yet again proven to be inefficient in address humanitarian crises in an urgent and effective manner. While intergovernmental organizations and state commenters have been in favor of implementing a Responsibility to Protect in these situations, they have yet to do so.

Is the lack of any real progress towards the implementation of Responsibility to Protect an indication that it may not be the answer to grave and immediate humanitarian atrocities? In late 2011, multiple states took a stand against a United Nations Security Council draft resolution draft on Syria’s violent response to the protests in Damascus against Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad. China and Russia vetoed the draft fearing that it would be construed by western states as legitimizing “unilateral sanctions and [an attempt] to forcefully overthrow regimes.” Brazil, India, South Africa, and Lebanon abstained from the vote, with South Africa expressly stating its concern that the resolution may be abused to justify implementation of “punitive measures on Syria.” Brazil, in its comments, stated its belief that “[a] meaningful, inclusive national dialogue leading to reform” was the only answer to the Syrian crisis.

Muhammadu Buhari, Nigeria’s President-elect, stated in an op-ed piece for the New York Times: “The answer to defeating Boko Haram begins and ends with Nigeria.” This is a unique answer for many states facing seemingly insurmountable issues with terror like that of Nigeria. However, it may very well be the key to effectively staving immediate humanitarian crises in the future. Buhari’s plans focus on Boko Haram’s target – education. Instead of waiting for the international community to accept its Responsibility to Protect Nigerian citizens from the atrocities committed by Boko Haram, Buhari seems prepared to set the onus on his own government, stating:

“My government will first act to defeat [Boko Haram] militarily and then ensure that we provide the very education it despises to help our people help themselves. Boko Haram will soon learn that, as Nelson Mandela said, ‘Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.’”

It remains to be seen how effective Buhari’s government will be at shouldering the Responsibility to Protect in Nigeria. However, its success could go a long way in solving the conundrum of the international community: “whose responsibility is it?” In the meantime, the international community will continue to grapple with forming a framework in which the doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect can adequately address future humanitarian concerns.

Philip Nickerson is a 2L at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law and is Managing and Production Editor for the Denver Journal of International Law and Policy.

Posted in 1TVFA Posts, 2Featured Articles, DJILP Staff, Philip NickersonComments (0)

Lawsuit challenges Japan’s high standard for refugees

Fumio Kishida

Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida, right, visits Zaatari refugee camp near Mafraq, some 8 kilometers (5 miles) from the Syrian border. Credit to: Asian Correspondent. http://cdn.asiancorrespondent.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Mideast-Jordan-Japan_Crav_opt.jpg

In early March, four Syrian men filed a lawsuit against Japan’s Ministry of Justice, challenging the rejection of their refugee applications.  The group arrived in Japan in 2012 and applied for refugee status, citing the potential for persecution for their participation in pro-democracy protests against the Syrian government.  The Ministry rejected their refugee status in early 2013, and instead granted them each a temporary residence permit under a “humanitarian perspective.”  This type of permit allows the men to work full time and to participate in the national health care and other social programs.  But while this seems like a compromise, the permits must be renewed every year, unlike refugee certificates which are permanent; and permit holders are excluded from certain assistance programs such as language training and employment help that the government grants to certified refugees.  Perhaps the greatest disadvantage the lack of refugee status prevents for the Syrians is the difficulty, or near impossibility, it is to get their families into the country.  Their lawsuit seeks to obtain official refugee status and the full rights and protections that it provides.

Japan’s Immigration and Refugee Recognition Act explicitly refers to the 1951 Convention in its definition of “refugee” as well as in the reasons a temporary refuge may be granted at the border.  Further, the Ministry of Justice itself uses the Convention’s definition of a refugee in its guidelines for refugee status.  The Convention defines a refugee as a person who has a “well-founded fear” of persecution.  In practice, the Ministry tends to grant refugee status to those who are in danger of being “personally targeted” by their home government which, according to the lawsuit, is a higher standard than what the Convention requires.

The Convention’s language of having a “well-founded fear” is too vague on its face to offer any sort of guidance, and the term has no further definition anywhere in the Convention.  Instead, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), provides a handbook to “guide government officials, judges, practitioners, as well as UNHCR staff applying the refugee definition.”  In this handbook, the UNHCR considers the term “well-rounded fear” to have both a subjective and objective element.  Subjective in the person’s motivation for seeking the refugee status; and objective in viewing that motivation within the context of their country of origin or what brought about the motivation in the first place.  When considering whether there is a “well-founded fear”, the UNHCR places most of the weight on the subjective element while the objective element provides a context to assess the credibility of the refugee.

With this framework in mind, will the Syrian refugees’ case against the Ministry be successful?  The answer, naturally, depends most notably on the Ministry’s use of “personally persecuted” when determining refugee status.  Assuming that the terms “personally persecuted” mean that the person is being targeted by their home government and will be arrested the moment they step off the plane, it would seem that the Ministry puts more weight on the objective element of having a “well-rounded fear” instead of the subjective element as the UNHCR states.  Indeed, if a requirement for refugee status is to be a target, then this would effectively do away with the term “well-founded fear of persecution” and replace it with “actual persecution.”  Supporting this interpretation are further explanations in the UNHCR handbook.  A refugee’s fear of persecution, according to the handbook, need not be based on their own personal experiences or the fact that they have previously been persecuted.  The fear could be based on persecution of people in a similar situation, or persecution of friends or family.  The UNHCR further considers that “fear” applies both to those who have actually been persecuted and those who wish to avoid being persecuted.  The Ministry’s standard of “personally persecuted” could be found to be incompatible with 1951 Convention and the standards of the UNHCR.

Japan has been a party to the 1951 Convention since 1981 and has given no reservations or declarations to any provision.  As such, the Ministry of Justice should be bound by the provisions in the Convention and it is likely that it has applied a higher standard than is necessary.  If the lawsuit is successful, it will provide hope for the hundreds of refugee seekers who have been denied the status due to Japan’s rigid and restrictive system.

Leonard Large is a 3L at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law and is Candidacy Editor for the Denver Journal of International Law and Policy.

Posted in 1TVFA Posts, 2Featured Articles, DJILP Staff, Leonard LargeComments (0)

Critical Analysis: Protecting refugees in the midst of war

SYRIA-CONFLICT-PALESTINIAN-YARMUK

Destruction in Yarmouk. Credit: HaAretz. http://www.haaretz.co.il/st/inter/Heng/news/images/yar2.jpg

In the early days of April, the Islamic State (ISIS or ISIL) pushed closer to the center of Damascus, the Syrian capital, than they had been able to before.  They did this by seizing the majority of the Al-Yarmouk camp, a large refugee district in the southern part of the city.  The camp had once held 160,000 refugees from Palestine, but since the beginning of the Syrian Civil War, the refugees have dispersed, leaving 18,000 within the camp.

Even before this ISIS invasion, al-Yarmouk was “a humanitarian nightmare.”  The camp was “ruled” by various factions and armed groups, siphoning scarce food away from the refugees and towards the fighters and their families.  For the last two years, the camp has been subject to a siege that has made the food situation even more grave.  Recently, al-Yarmouk had falled under the control of the Syrian rebel group Nusra Front, whom some eyewitnesses say were fighting alongside ISIS, but who has claimed neutrality in the struggle since. Now, the festering humanitarian crisis in al-Yarmouk has somehow gotten worse.  Mere days after this incursion began, reports of killings and beheadings had already circulated.  The Syrian government has dropped several barrel bombs on the camp. Just as deadly, United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) has been unable to send its usual food or convoys into the camp since the fighting started.  This means that the 18,000 residents of the camp have no food, no water, and very little medicine.  Moreover, only 93 people have been evacuated, leaving the rest stuck in this deadly zone. If nothing is done, “Yarmouk shall remain a testament to the collective human failure of protecting civilians in times of war.” (Saeb Erekat, as quoted in the New York Times.)

The al-Yarmouk situation sheds light not only on the dangers of ISIS and the plight of Palestinian refugees, but also the inadequacy of international humanitarian law in dealing with such situations.  There is an international obligation to protect refugees (1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees; 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees) as well as an obligation to protect civilians in times of war (The Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1949); Additional Protocol I (1977)).  And yet, no one is protecting the 18,000 people trapped in al-Yarmouk.  No one, it seems, is even considered responsible for the 18,000 refugees there.

Perhaps the problem is ISIS itself.  The Geneva Convention is designed to deal with states.  Neither ISIS nor Nusra Front is a state.  Therefore, neither feels bound to protect the civilians in al-Yarmouk.  It is doubtful whether either would even be held responsible for the harm done to civilians in the course of their battle.  While the Syrian government may be held responsible, their attitude (particularly in dropping barrel bombs on the camp) indicates that they feel the refugees are a secondary concern.  So when the state who should be responsible refuses to act to protect the civilians and the non-state actors concerned refuse to “stop the fighting” or let others in to evacuate citizens, who under international law is responsible?

This situation highlights perfectly the need to officially implement a Responsibility to Protect.  Ideally, the United Nations should be able to send in a force to evacuate the refugees, by force if necessary.  If the United Nations cannot or will not act quickly enough, anyone else should have not only the right, but the obligation to do so to protect those 18,000 lives.  But while that reformulation of the law is easy—and indeed, already in progress—the next question is both unsettled in law and difficult practically: where would that nation evacuate those refugees to?  If al-Yarmouk was already a humanitarian mess before the ISIS invasion, what good would relocating those people to another shabby, hastily constructed camp, with minimal food convoyed to them on a daily basis?  Is it as easy to obligate a state to take in 18,000—or 160,000—refugees as to march in and save them from certain death?  Is this not a grave oversight in our conception of both a Responsibility to Protect and our refugee law?

I have no good answers to this, but unfortunately, the refugees of al-Yarmouk do not have the luxury to wait for good answers.  Our international humanitarian law is not equipped to handle this—so we must use the law that we have and create the rest after, based on our victories or mistakes from this situation.  If we do not, al-Yarmouk, as Mr. Erekat has said, “shall remain a testament to the collective human failure of protecting civilians in times of war.”

Samantha Peaslee is a 3L at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law.  She is the Senior Managing Editor for the Denver Journal of International Law and Policy.

Posted in 1TVFA Posts, 2Featured Articles, DJILP Staff, Samantha PeasleeComments (0)

Critical Analysis: Accusations Against Australia’s Border Protection Policies

Over the past month, Australian navy and customs officers have been accused of towing or turning back boats carrying Indonesian asylum-seekers. Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, has reported little about Australia’s asylum-seeker policies, fearing that exposing such information may create a tactical advantage in a wartime scenario. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has previously expressed concerns over how Australian policies of border protection might violate international responsibilities.  These new reports of towing and turning back Indonesian asylum-seekers now raises questions surrounding Australia’s adherence to international conventions and laws protecting refugees.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott fails to open up about the border protection policies in Australia. Image Source: Getty Images/AFP

Prime Minister Tony Abbott fails to open up about the border protection policies in Australia. Image Source: Getty Images/AFP

Australia is just one of 144 states to have ratified the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (Convention) and the 1967 Protocol amendment. In January of 1951, the United Nations General Assembly created the Office of the UNHCR to provide “international protection” to refugees.  The Convention became effective in 1954 and played an important role in the UNHCR’s international refugee policies and protections.

The Convention establishes several obligations that signatory countries must follow in order to provide appropriate protection and potential solutions for refugees. One such obligation is “non-refoulement,” a concept stating that “no refugee should be returned in any manner whatsoever to any country where he or she would be at risk of persecution.” Under this principle, countries party to this Convention should not return refugees to any country where they may face persecution, whether it is their home country or not.  Furthermore, the Convention provides refugees an exemption from penalties for illegal immigration and provides them with protection from expulsion from the country.

While Australian government officials have remained quiet on border protection policies, these reports and accusations of towing and turning back boats questions whether the Australian government is adhering to its obligations under the Convention.  Prime Minister Abbott and his staff maintain silence surrounding the details and/or accuracies of these accusations.  In response to questions surrounding the nation’s border control policies, Abbott stated “I’m pleased to say it is now several weeks since we’ve had a boat, and the less we talk about operational details on the water the better when it comes to stopping the boats.”

In addition to reports of towing and turning back boats, the Australian government has also been accused of purchasing lifeboats to be used in ushering asylum-seekers back to Indonesia.  Australian Operation Sovereign Borders commander Angus Campbell has admitted to the purchase of lifeboats, but mimicking Prime Minister Abbott’s policy of secrecy over government operations, has not stated the intended purpose for the devices.

Even Indonesian officials are angered by Prime Minister Abbott’s failure to open up about the specifics of the country’s border protection policies. Although Abbott has denied some of these allegations, he has failed to make reports on the details of the Australian immigration control policies.  Mark Dreyfus, active immigration spokesman for the Australian Labor Party, stated, “I’m not going to speculate because it’s for the government to explain the circumstances. It’s for the government to reassure Australians that everything that’s been done does comply with international law, that everything that’s been done complies with our obligations under the refugees convention.” Until the Australian government reveals the truth about their border protection operations, the rest of the world will continue to question the legality of their actions. 

Stacy Harper is a 3L at Denver Law and Marketing Editor for the Denver Journal of International Law and Policy.

Posted in 1TVFA Posts, 2Featured Articles, DJILP Staff, Stacy HarperComments (0)

Children of Syria

Lost Futures – The Children of Syria

As many, if not all of you, know, the conflict in Syria continues to rage on, affecting thousands in Syria and the surrounding areas. What started out as a desire to move towards democracy in a peaceful fashion has turned into a bloody and unrelenting war that only continues to get worse. In fact, the Syrian government has recently been accused of using chemical weapons in its attacks against rebels causing dire effects on the local population. However, amongst all the atrocities one tends to forget or overlook the most devastated victims of this two-year conflict: the Syrian children.

Children of Syria

The Children of Syria – In Dire Need of Help
(HuffPo)

During all times of war, children usually bear the brunt of the negative consequences. The conflict in Syria has been no exception. The Save the Children foundation recently released a report that claims nearly two million children in Syria are currently endangered by the ongoing conflict. More than 500,000 of those currently affected in Syria are under the age of 5. Access to basic healthcare and education has also been severely limited, threatening the futures of these children. Furthermore, dismal living conditions have led to widespread disease and hunger among these children without a steady source of help to turn to. With at least 1 of every 5 schools in Syria destroyed, homes in ruins, and shelters quickly filling to capacity, it is not hard to see that hope for these children and the situation in general is dwindling.

The consequences are not simply physical, either. The Save the Children report notes at least 3 in 4 children have experienced death of a close friend or relative, leading to startling psychological consequences, such as extreme withdrawn or aggressive behavior. Furthermore, these children are being forced to endure other atrocities such as sexual violence, torture, and forced recruitment into the armed forces. This is only antagonized by the fact that many of these children have been displaced from their homes, separated from their families, and forced to find refuge in neighboring countries. How can one expect these children to lead a decent, semi-normal life when they are constantly exposed to these horrors?

Many of the countries that are taking in these refugees are struggling with the task. Jordan, a refuge for more than a half million Syrians, has recently been forced to open up a second refugee camp in Mrajeeb al-Fhood as the influx of Syrian refugees into the country continues to grow everyday. This means it might be even more difficult for the refugees, especially children, to get access to basic resources. While Jordan is actually able to provide these refugees with shelter, other countries lack the resources to do so. Currently, there are no UN-funded refugee camps in Lebanon, where some 400,000 Syrian refugees have fled. Adding to their suffering, these refugees must fear for their relatives still living in Syria, as their act of leaving the war-torn country has put them at great risk of execution and torture by the government. Many children, who escaped to the safety of countries such as Egypt or Iraq, will most likely never see their families who are still trapped inside Syria again.

Not all hope is lost, however. The sobering realities described above have prompted generous action. Governments of various nations have pledged funds to help child refugees who have been forced into surrounding countries. Recently, the government of Japan contributed $1.5 million to the United Nation Children’s Fund (UNICEF) to help the child refugees in Iraq. This money will go to basic sanitation, healthcare and education services. Also, the Mrajeeb al-Fhood refugee camp mentioned above is funded by the United Arab Emirates. Furthermore, the UN itself has taken extraordinary measures to ensure that the Syrian child refugees receive basic amenities. The World Food Programme (WFP), a project recently launched by the UN, provides refugee children with meals that support good nutrition and health. Along with the meals, the WFP has also set up programs to encourage children to continue their education, though they are displaced and have suffered much hardship.

The aid currently being provided is a promising start to providing hope for these children. However, not enough is being done. While many countries are making valiant efforts to help these children, UNICEF warns that those currently trapped in Syria are in danger of becoming a “lost generation,” as there is a severe lack of funding. Key agencies and life-saving aid may have to be halted, leaving those children in and around Syria without any help. UNICEF notes that it might not be able to provide Syrian children and their families with clean drinking water in the near future. The conflict seems so far away in our minds; however, we must remember those who have lost their futures because of this senseless violence.

If you would like to donate to the cause of these children, please visit this link: http://www.unicef.org.uk/landing-pages/donate-syria/.

 Bailey Woods is a 2L and a Candidacy Editor on the Denver Journal of International Law & Policy

Posted in 1TVFA Posts, 2Featured Articles, Bailey Woods, DJILP StaffComments (0)

Sources: The Jakarta Post, The New York Times, al Jazeera, BBC

News Post: Famine and Fighting in Somalia

Sources: The Jakarta Post, The New York Times, al Jazeera, BBC

Sources: The Jakarta Post, The New York Times, al Jazeera, BBC

A report released by the UN’s Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs on September 2nd provides a bleak outlook for Somalians facing famine and disease. According to the Somalia Food Security Nutritional Analysis Unit, all regions in the southern area of the country may soon face famine as the situation continues to worsen.

The UN report comes nearly two months after Antonio Guterres, head of the UN refugee agency, described the problems as the “worst humanitarian disaster in the world.” Mr. Guterres appealed for world support to alleviate the suffering of people in the region after visiting the Dadaab refugee camp in Kenya, which was home to more than 380,000 displaced refugees as of July, with thousands more showing up each week. Thousands more are crossing the border into Ethiopia each day, many having walked for several days. The UN estimates that up to 50% of children arriving at the camps are malnourished.

The famine is largely the result of the worst drought in Somalia in sixty years, with conditions further exacerbated by violence and political strife within the country. Relief efforts by the Somali government, the UN, and other aid groups have been complicated, and sometimes made impossible, by civil war within the nation and restricted access to some of the hardest hit areas. The al-Shabab militia, an armed Somali Islamist rebel organization with ties to al-Qaeda, has forced out many western aid organizations and blocked routes of displaced travelers seeking relief in the capital city, Mogadishu. “It is safe to say that many people are going to die as a result of little or no access [for aid groups],” says Eric James of the American Refugee Committee.

Over 12 million people throughout the Horn of Africa are affected by the drought and in need of assistance.

The leader of al-Shabab has announced, however, that the organization will continue to launch attacks on government troops and foreign peacekeepers and continue to constrain movement of those seeking to flee areas under the group’s control. Al-Shabab has also ignored pleas from Somali Prime Minister Abdiweli Mohammed Ali to stop engaging in conflicts with regional clans in central Somalia, where a recent clash resulted in at least thirty deaths with another 100 injured.

Further complicating relief efforts by Western organizations looking to help in the area is the US government’s classification of al-Shabab as a terrorist group in 2008. Such a classification makes it a crime to provide material assistance to the group, which aid officials claim has a chilling effect on relief organizations who are fearful of legal trouble resulting from aid money finding its way into al-Shabab hands.

Posted in 1TVFA Posts, DJILP StaffComments (1)


University of Denver Sturm College of Law
Visit the DJILP Newsroom

Posts by Date

July 2017
M T W T F S S
« Jun    
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  
Resources