American University Law Review
October, 1999
COMMENT
Internal Displacement: Is Prevention Through Accountability
Possible?
A Kosovo Case Study
Carlyn M. Carey*
INTRODUCTION
The phenomenon of internal displacement has reached crisis proportions. Internally displaced persons, according to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, are persons who have been forced to flee from their homes suddenly or unexpectedly in large numbers, as a result of armed conflict, internal strife, systematic violations of human rights or natural or man-made disasters; and who are within the territory of their own country. Although this definition has existed since 1992, it cannot be found in any internationally-binding treaty. Currently, internal conflict is credited as the principle cause of the displacement of an estimated 10,000 people daily. Burundi, Rwanda, the Sudan, Sri Lanka, Columbia, Tajikistan, and former republics of the Soviet Union, such as Azerbaijan and Chechnya, are just a few of the countries with internally displaced persons. Despite the global prevalence of internal displacement, international efforts that have attempted to assist displaced persons have been conducted, for the most part, on an ad hoc basis entirely focused on providing humanitarian relief, rather than legal protection of human rights.
Why should the international community respond at all? Aside from a sense of moral obligation, internal displacement causes internal instability, which could spill across borders, causing a domino-effect of regional instability. The internally displaced often do not receive protection or assistance from the international community because they physically remain within the domestic jurisdiction of their nation and foreign sovereigns are reluctant to intervene in these internal matters. Indeed, many times they do not receive protection or assistance from their own government, particularly when government action is the source of their displacement. On multiple occasions, the United Nations Security Council has justified international involvement primarily based on the risk that an internal, refugee-creating environment will create a stream of refugees seeking safe haven outside of their nations borders. Since the end of the Cold War, the decreasing hospitality of some countries to accept refugees combined with the increasingly strict entry requirements have served as catalysts for the study and development of effective methods to prevent displacement. Until such prevention occurs, displaced persons, who are not granted the hospitality of a border country, are forced to remain internally displaced within their home country.
Internally displaced persons are not included in the body of laws that protect refugees. International laws that allegedly prohibit internal displacement have never been enforced. Recent examples of internal displacement prove that these laws lack effective implementation.
One example of displacement occurred within the former Yugoslavia during 1998. Attempting to quell an armed insurgence in the province of Kosovo, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), led by President Slobodan Milosevic, used Ministry and special police forces to attack Kosovar villages in which suspected rebels resided. Fearing government attack, tens of thousands of Kosovars fled their homes and were forced to live outdoors without shelter and away from their villages.
Prior legal commentary has focused on the legal status, humanitarian needs, and protection of human rights of persons after they have been displaced. This Comment does not address the legal protection of the needs of persons already displaced, nor does it discuss State responsibility for internal displacement. Instead, this Comment considers whether deterrence of individual criminal violations of international law can prevent internal displacement. In other words, would holding leaders such as President Slobodan Milosevic criminally liable for underhanded attempts to remove citizens of a particular ethnic group prevent internal displacement in the future.
Part I of this Comment recounts the events leading up to the 1998 internal displacement crisis in Kosovo and the United Nations response to that crisis. This case study does not include events in Yugoslavia beyond the first brokered cease fire between the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) and Yugoslav forces in the Fall of 1998. Such events not included are the involvement of NATO military forces and the Serbs commission of atrocities in March, 1999. Part II explains the international laws applicable to internal displacement and how the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (Tribunal) has an unprecedented opportunity to reinforce and to promote international humanitarian law and human rights by holding individuals criminally responsible for internal displacement. Part III analyzes the laws regarding internal displacement and whether the Tribunal could utilize them, while acknowledging that certain problems exist that hinder such utilization. This Comment concludes that existing international laws prohibiting internal displacement cannot be used successfully by the Tribunal to hold individuals criminally liable.
* Senior Projects Editor, American University Law Review; J.D. Candidate, May 2000, American University, Washington College of Law. I wish to thank my husband, Brian, for his constant support. I would also like to thank Professor Paul Williams for reading early drafts and providing insightful and thoughtful feedback.
 Washington College of Law - 4801 Massachusetts Avenue, NW - Washington, DC 20016 - 202-274-4000 |
|