The three durable solutions (resettlement, local integration, and repatriation) are out of reach to most refugees. Even when they are offered, they are often watered down or repackaged, so that their durability has been undermined. This paper examines their contemporary role and framing and proposes an urgent recalibration of our understanding of the solutions based around three interlinked elements. First, to recover the core function of all three durable solutions, namely the (re)gaining of citizenship; in order, second, to shift the conversation away from assumptions about the sedentary nature of durable solutions; which, third, draws out a greater understanding of the potential collaboration and connections between these traditional solutions and ground-level solutions that refugees create for themselves. We argue that not only are each of these elements important in and of themselves, but they also need to be viewed as indivisible.

This book offers an original and unique perspective on refugee hosting in Southern Africa, through a comparative analysis of the politics surrounding the welcome afforded to refugees in Zambia and South Africa. While state-based reception is frequently framed as one-off moments, such as registration, the book’s new refugee reception framework demonstrates how reception is a complex and ongoing process of negotiations between refugees and the state.

The central argument of this paper is that interventions of humanitarian organizations at the Zimbabwe–South Africa border reveal the importance placed on making very clear distinctions between those needing protection and those who do not. This is the case even in times wherein migrants have other protection needs that fall outside these boundaries or intersect with those of others. These boundaries are retained in the stable definitions of migrant in/vulnerability that have been legitimized by the increased emphasis of two separate frameworks: one, the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration (GCM) for managing migration and the other, the Global Compact on Refugees (GCR) that determines a set of stable norms for international refugee protection. These mandates are also connected to other tidy, established identities of vulnerability that pertain to gender, health, legal standing, and persecution. In contexts marked by conflicting and overlapping experiences for persons on the move, and mixed migration flows, these ideas are unstable as a way of governing migration. This is because they can also reproduce and intensify social divisions that may lead to inconsistencies and unethical practices in international protection and migration governance for irregular migrants, as well as failures to respond to “the ‘social life’ of vulnerability.” We propose this novel concept in the paper to capture and reimagine the limits and possibilities for protection.

Post-Apartheid South Africa retains a national refugee reception system comprising of several key pieces of institutional architecture. Yet, since being established in the mid-1990s, the national refugee reception system, as overseen by the Department of Home Affairs (DHA), has been plagued by allegations of corruption, serious legal and procedural flaws in the application of the law, and the implementation of increasingly regressive national policies that breach international law, undermining the core principles of refugee protection. This article asks what impact the overarching management of refugee affairs being under the control of DHA has had on individual institutions. Ultimately, what emerges is a government department that from day one has been able to exert its influence over all aspects of refugee affairs, either through key pieces of institutional architecture, or by responding to perceived setbacks through multiple policy amendments. The result is a national system that creates barriers that prevent asylum-seekers and refugees from gaining access to the interior and leaves most forced migrants in the country struggling to access basic rights. Equally, the mounting importance of the judiciary and civil society as the only de jure and de facto custodians of refugee protection in the country becomes explicit.

The Global Compact for Migration and the Global Compact on Refugees are based on binding international law instruments whose provisions they complement with “best practice” standards related to the treatment of refugees and other migrants. Although the Compacts are non-binding, they provide for review mechanisms to promote compliance with Compact standards. Such oversight is important to achieve progress in implementing the Compacts' commitments. Yet, the current top-down and State-led review process does not offer an efficient platform for identifying cases of non-adherence to Compact standards. This article uses a case study approach to highlight instances of non-compliance with Compact standards in Canada, South Africa, and the European Union. We use a functionalist method of comparison to analyze State practice in these three regions in relation to (i) use of immigration detention and (ii) access to the asylum procedure, with access to healthcare as a cross-cutting issue. The article discusses how the Compacts' review mechanisms could be improved and their added value in terms of their impact on domestic migration policies. It argues that both Compact review and implementation can be improved through increased civil society participation.

Local integration has long been seen as the "forgotten" durable solution to refugee displacement evidenced by the reluctance of governments across the world to accord refugees a new citizenship. This article goes further. It argues that local integration as a durable solution has not been merely forgotten, but deliberately avoided at a national, regional and international level. As a result, its veracity as a realistic durable solution for the majority of refugees is now in question. The article examines ways in which states seek to evade local integration. It begins by investigating the multiple tactics used by wealthier governments to elude responsibility both at a national level and through the influence they exert over global refugee responses. It then explores how countries hosting the greatest numbers of refugees, with a specific focus on Africa, have allowed significant numbers of refugees into their territory but have then maintained a short-term approach that has, in practice, blocked local integration as a durable solution. We argue that a mix of global, national, and local processes and forces have effectively conspired to diminish local integration as a durable solution to the point that it has all but vanished from the political arena. The implications for refugee populations of these processes and forces - talked of collectively as the politics of evasion - are profound. While refugees continue to find ways to negotiate their own access to communities and labour markets, this is often done against national, regional, and international policies rather than with them. Ultimately, by highlighting its value as a durable solution, while showing that there is almost uniform acceptance by states and international organisations working on protection concerns that it is no longer politically viable, this article hopes to restart an urgent conversation about the value of local integration and how it can be reinvigorated.

On behalf of the editorial team at the Refugee Survey Quarterly,1 we are proud to present a Special Collection of research on the theme of internal displacement in Africa. Each of the five articles in this journal issue provides a distinct contemporary perspective on how internal displacement, and the response to it by governments, agencies, and local political and economic actors, plays out on the African continent. Moreover, to shed new light on this phenomenon, the collection of articles brings together a range of different disciplinary views, encompassing analyses from the standpoint of law, governance, economics, health, and social and political science. We are delighted to be able to offer a platform to publish these new analytical contributions to the study of internal displacement from researchers working in and on Africa. Internal displacement represents an important topic in the field of forced displacement research. In numerical terms alone,...

The Covid-19 pandemic provides a stark reminder of the political tensions associated with the field of immigration and health, highlighting the central role that nationalism, racism and xenophobia play in determining responses to communicable diseases. The blurring of global health, immigration governance, and the global health security agendas has long been recognised. However, an improved understanding of the politics influencing these entanglements, specifically within the context of the Covid-19 response in low- and middle-income country contexts, is urgently needed. This includes - but is not limited to - the immediate concerns surrounding inclusive social, political and medical responses to Covid-19; vaccine nationalism - at both global and national levels; and calls for 'vaccine passports'. To this end, we draw on the Southern African Development Community (SADC) context - one associated with high levels of diverse population movements and a large burden of communicable diseases - to explore responses to Covid-19. We unpack tensions surrounding the management of migration and the ways in which sovereignty impacts attempts at building regional, coordinated responses to migration and health, and consider how this affects progress towards global health targets. With an initial focus on South Africa, we build on previous work exploring the blurring of global health, immigration governance, and the global health security agendas in SADC, and draw from ongoing research on the governance of migration and health within the region. This includes current and evolving research exploring migration and Covid-19, initiated in March 2020 when the first cases of Covid-19 were identified in Southern Africa. The aim is for these findings to catalyse a new and evolving researh agenda to inform the development and implementation of appropriate pandemic responses in a region associated with some of the highest levels of inequality globally. To this end, an evolving research agenda should be responsive to current needs. We suggest that, in SADC, priority research should focus on improving our understanding of (1) the political factors influencing the (dis)connections between migration and health governance structures in the context of Covid-19, and how to overcome these in the context of a pandemic; and (2) the motivations for and implications of a 'vaccine passport' system on movement within and beyond the SADC region. This requires a reactive, cross-disciplinary, regional research network. In a context where funding for research is increasingly inaccessible, this requires innovative, informal, collaborative engagement.

Since negotiations began in 2015 on the two Global Compacts on Migration and Refugees, many within academia have felt uncomfortable engaging with the processes. This reflects a general weariness around new international cooperation agreements, the perceived control over the two processes by key international agencies, and an apparent lack of postcolonial voices in the drafting and consultation stages. However, with both Compacts now adopted, there has been a marked increase in engagement within academia and policy circles. This postscript to the special issue reflects on the discussions presented in the essays and the Compacts more broadly. The focus is on two main themes that emerge when reading this special issue: (1) forms of protection; and (2) the concept of mixed migration. This essay finds that within both these two themes, attention continues to focus on protection and movement between states, rather than between regions. As such, it remains uncertain how the Compacts will be able to shift the dominance of self-serving policies imposed by the Global North. Nevertheless, the essay concludes by attempting to find some glimmers of optimism. Currently, there exists the political space (however slight) for various actors to try and utilize the Compacts to improve protection and opportunities for migrants who adopt mobility strategies – particularly for those who choose to move between global regions in this postcolonial era.