The European Union, Council of Europe and OSCE have addressed, either directly or indirectly, the issue of internal displacement. The EU Stabilisation and Association Process in South Eastern Europe has created incentives in those areas to respect the rule of law and protection of human rights, including in relation to displaced persons; amounting to over one million in the region. The Stability Pact has undertaken a number of initiatives to resolve the issue of displacement in the region; the Council of Europe and OSCE have contributed to the regional dialogue on IDPs. The OSCE in its Helsinki Commitments of 1992 recognised the need for international co-operation on the issue of displacement, and welcomed international efforts to ensure the protection of such persons. The European Convention on Human Rights (1950) provides human right protection to individuals internally displaced in signatory States

The drafting of the UN Guiding Principles was preceded by general recognition within the international community of the difficulties faced by IDPs who may not be adequately protected by international human rights law. IDPs are distinct from refugees because they have not left their State of nationality or residence, and therefore do not fall within the remit of 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. This may be one factor which has contributed to the lack of urgency and commitment to the plight of IDPs, in comparison to that afforded to refugees, despite them being the fastest-growing group of displaced persons in the world. Confusion that has arisen about the distinction between refugees and IDPs may also have contributed to the specific protection needs of this group remaining inadequately addressed. The United Nations High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR) stated in 2000 that it sought a greater engagement with IDPs as it has “an interest in the protection and welfare of persons who have been displaced by persecution, situations of general violence, conflict or massive violation of human rights”, despite the fact that as a group they clearly fall outside the UNHCR mandate.

In the past, the human rights considerations related to the plight of IDPs would have remained firmly within the realms of national sovereignty. National States themselves may be particularly sensitive about international interference in the treatment of the internally displaced, not least where they are responsible for causing or not seeking to prevent internal displacement. Consequently, the now widely held view that individual human rights go beyond the interests of national sovereignty still remains contentious.

Analysis provided by Anisa Niaz, LLM (Public Law), United Kingdom.