New Issues in Refugee Research

NEW ISSUES IN REFUGEE RESEARCH Research Paper No. 129 Refugee policy in Eurasia: The CIS Conference and EU Enlargement Process 1996-2005 Luise Druke Center for International Studies, Program on Human Rights and Justice Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) E-mail: ldruke@mit.edu, luise.druke@post.harvard.edu August 2006 Policy Development and Evaluation Service Policy Development and Evaluation Service United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees CP 2500, 1211 Geneva 2 Switzerland E-mail: hqep00@unhcr.org, Web Site: www.unhcr.org ABSTRACT This research found that significant progress has been made overall in developing a refugee policy in Eurasia (which was defined in this study as the countries comprising the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS): Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Russia and Ukraine/Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan; and the Central European countries of Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Romania, Poland, Slovak Republic and Slovenia). In Central Europe, the EU integration process was found to be the main engine for the refugee policy development (a condition for EU membership), though the situation with regard to its implementation was less impressive. However, as these countries are all EU Member States, (following Bulgaria and Romania’s entry in January 2007), they are evolving into the common European asylum space, which is meant, among others, to uphold at least minimum standards of refugee protection. The research also highlighted how institutions and implementation matter. For example, the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg could play an increasing role in upholding basic protection standards upon referrals to it from national courts in EU Member States under Article 234 of the Treaty of Rome 1957, as amended by the Amsterdam and subsequent texts, in order to provide judicial protection and to clarify the scope and meaning of European law in numerous areas, including asylum. Prospects for functioning refugee policies are bleaker in the CIS countries, which are not part of the EU harmonization process. Despite some notable successes as well as greatly varying results achieved through the CIS Conference, most CIS countries have not yet bridged critical gaps in regards to legislative and administrative frameworks, humanitarian status, documentation and integration of refugees, or raised public awareness to reduce xenophobia, discrimination, and intolerance. However, the seven Eastern European countries of the CIS (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Belarus, Moldova, Russia, Ukraine) are at least members of the European Human Rights Convention, which, if applied adequately, supports refugees’ need for protection. In Central Asia, European judicial protection is not applicable. Despite the ratification of the international refugee standards in four of the five Central Asian countries (Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan), the post September 11 climate tends to take precedence over refugees’ need for protection. Nevertheless, these countries, with the notable exception of Uzbekistan, at least made initially encouraging efforts in developing and implementing refugee policies and discussed these issues in international fora. These papers provide a means for UNHCR staff, consultants, interns and associates, as well as external researchers, to publish the preliminary results of their research on refugee-related issues. The papers do not represent the official views of UNHCR. They are also available online under ‘publications’ at <www.unhcr.org>. ISSN 1020-7473. Refugee policy in Eurasia The CIS Conference and EU Enlargement Process Insights from the Regional Conference to Address the Problems of Refugees, Displaced Persons, Other Forms of Involuntary Displacement and Returnees in the Countries of the CIS and Relevant Neighbouring States, and the EU Enlargement Process: 1996-2005 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 2 1. INTRODUCTION 3 2. EASTERN EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA WITH FOCUS ON TAJIKISTAN 8 2.1. CIS Conference process and related activities, 1996 13 2.2. Assessment Report and Prolongation of the CIS Conference Process in 2000 26 2.3. Final CIS Conference meeting in 2005 and results, leading to a framework for Euro –Asia co-operation on migration, asylum and displacement 34 2.4. Case study: Restitution of housing and property for returnees in Tajikistan 38 3. CENTRAL EUROPE: FOCUS ON THE EU INTEGRATION PROCESS & BULGARIA49 3.1. EU accession as the main motor in developing refugee policies 51 3.2. External impact of the EU harmonization on emerging refugee regimes in Bulgaria 57 3.3. Case study: Refugee protection and integration policy in Bulgaria 62 4. CONCLUDING REMARKS 69 5. ANNEXES 73 5.1. Table on ratifications of selected conventions on human rights and refugees 73 5.2. Situation of Implementation of Refugee Policy in Eurasia 74 5.2.1. Central Europe 74 5.2.2. Eastern Europe 80 5.2.3. Central Asia 83 5. 3. Interviews and contacts 86 5.4. Selected bibliography and references 91 5.5. Statistics 107 6. Documents of the Concluding Session of the CIS Conference Process, October 2005 114 6.1. Selected Key documents of the 1996-2005 CIS Conference Process 114 6.2. Excerpts: Report to the UN Secretary-General on the CIS Conference 114 6.3. Opening Statement by the Director of the Bureau for Europe 115 6.4. Closing Statement by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees 118 6.5. Final Statement 120 6.6. The way ahead for a flexible framework on migration and asylum 131 6.7. Participants of the concluding Session of the CIS Conference in Geneva 133 6.8. Identifying Gaps in Protection Capacity, CIS Countries, Bureau Europe, 2005 139 7. Map: Countries studied in EURASIA, UNHCR 2006 Global Appeal, p. 293, source: http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/opendoc.pdf?tbl=PUBL&id=43706eee0 182 Acknowledgements: I would like to thank the UN High Commissioner for Refugees for the opportunity to serve as UNHCR Research Scholar, after completing my assignment as Head of the UNHCR Office in Kazakhstan in late 1999/early 2000. Attached to the HEI Geneva (Graduate Institute of International Studies, Program for the Study of International Organizations (PSIO) I wish to thank Prof. Vera Gowlland-Debbas and Dr. Daniel Warner as well as from Erika Feller, UN Assistant High Commissioner for Refugees (Protection) and colleagues in the UNHCR Department of International Protection for their advice and support. This work was planned to be completed in 2000 when the CIS Conference Process was expected to conclude. However, in July 2000, after the decision to continue the CIS Conference Process, the research time frame was adapted, in order to complete this study after its conclusion, which was in October 2005. For the sake of completeness the most relevant texts prepared in the context of this final conference are reproduced in the appendices. I would also like to thank the Center for International Studies and its Program on Human Rights and Justice at MIT for the opportunity to serve as a Fellow and to complete this ten-year research project on refugee policy in Eurasia1, of which earlier versions were presented as work in progress since 20002. My sincere appreciation goes to everyone who contributed in one way or another to the CIS Conference and the EU Enlargement process and provided input, namely colleagues in Geneva and in the field. Particular recognition goes to Sharon Russell, Senior MIT Research Scholar and Tai van TA, Senior Harvard Law School Scholar for their advice during the past twenty years, to Pirkko Kourula, Director, UNHCR Bureau for Europe and colleagues concerned, especially to Bohdan Nahajlo, Nicole Delaney, and Rahouane Nouicer, UNHCR Bureau for CASWANAME for their input and reviewing parts of the paper. Thanks to those who generously offered time and insights in interviews, mentioned in the annex and especially to Jeff Crisp and Sue Mulcock for editorial assistance and support. Luise Druke 3 1 Eurasia is understood here, as the countries of Eastern Europe and Central Asia (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Russia and Ukraine/Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan) and Central Europe (namely Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Romania, Poland, Slovak Republic, Slovenia). This Paper examines refugee regional approaches within the context of the CIS Conference and the EU Enlargement processes and complements the Working Paper 120 of 2006 on the “Comprehensive Plan of Action: Insights from CIREFCA and the Indochinese CPA”. 2 Earlier versions of this work in progress were presented as follows: - "Housing and Property Restitution for Returnees in Tajikistan in the 1990s", in: Refugee Survey Quarterly, Vol.19, Nr. 3, 2000, UNHCR Centre for Documentation and Research, Oxford University Press, pp. 113-129, -"Capacity and Institution Building in the CIS in Refugee and Human Rights Protection with Emphasis on Central Asia and Kazakhstan", in: Revue québécoise de droit international, Volume 13.2, 2000, pp. 99-143, - “Developing national refugee regimes in Post-communist countries” Presentation, Nov. 2003, Harvard University, -"Refugee Regimes in post-Communist Countries", in: Series on Refugee and Migration Studies, From Ethnicity to Migration, ed. Anna Krasteva, NBU, Vol. 1, New Bulgarian University, October 2004 (in Bulgarian). - “Refugee Policy in Eurasia and Neighbouring Countries: 1995-2005”Presentation at the 6th Annual Conference of The Central Eurasian Studies Society” (CESS)

Load more