Treading a Fine Line: “Voluntary Repatriation” between being a Durable Solution for Refugees in Theory and a Way to Circumvent Non-refoulement in Practice

Upon drafting the 1951 convention relating to the status of refugees, it was expressly stated that refugees’ protection is temporary, and that called for a need for solutions that is “durable” in a sense that it will end the refugee status.

The term Repatriation in refugee law means to return to the country of origin that one fled from in the first place. It has been massively contested that repatriation is the preferable solution to end refugee crisis, and it from the beginning it has been situated at the top of the hierarchy of durable solutions and promoted as such. But of course, in order for such repatriation to be rendered “durable”, it came with a prerequisite, repatriation has to be voluntary and not forced, and it has to be carried out in a way that guarantees the refugees’ safety and dignity.

In practice, this solution had proven to be far less straight-forward and far more complex. In this essay, I would to like to argue that the insistence of the voluntary characteristic of repatriation and it being preferred than integration and resettlement stems actually not for the perspective of refugee protection but rather it serves as an elaborate scheme to circumvent the obligatory principle of non-refoulement in a way that serves the interests of related states and their sovereignty considerations in a way that eviscerated voluntary repatriation from its protection purpose. I argue that the extremely politicized nature of how voluntary repatriation is being practiced makes it tantamount to refoulement, and only if the table are turned and repatriation is to come from below, through meaningful inclusion of refugees in discussions and facilitation of return it can serve as true durable solution and achieve the protection level it promises.