How voluntary are voluntary returns?

Webber, Frances

doi:10.1177/0306396810396606

Cited by 100 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…24 Unlike repatriation facilitated by UNHCR, OBI in Israel was helping a relatively small number repatriate, and so had significant resources to interview each refugee individually, to ensure they were not coerced into returning. 21 Blitz, Sales, and Marzano 2005;Harold-Bond 1989;Webber 2011. 22 Carr 2014Stefanovic, Loizides, and Parsons 2015;UNHCR 2010.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Refugee Repatriation and the Problem of Consent

Gerver¹

2016

Brit. J. Polit. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past decade, millions of refugees have fled their countries of origin and asked for asylum abroad. Some of these refugees do not receive asylum, but are not deported. Instead they are detained, or denied basic rights of residency, some forced into enclosed camps. Hoping to escape such conditions, they wish to return to unsafe countries, and ask for help from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. In such cases, should NGOs and the UN assist refugees to return? Drawing on original data gathered in South Sudan, and existing data from around the world, I argue that they should assist with return if certain conditions are met. First, the UN and NGOs must try to put an end to coercive conditions before helping with return. Secondly, helping with return must not encourage the government to expand the use of coercive policies to encourage more to return. Finally, NGOs and the UN must ensure that refugees are fully informed of the risks of returning. Organizations must either conduct research in countries of origin or lobby the government to allow refugees to visit their countries of origin before making a final decision.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Refugee Repatriation and the Problem of Consent

Gerver¹

2016

Brit. J. Polit. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nor is it clear that these basic services will be available after return. Although it has been noted that returnees “often possess…family, clan and community networks which can be activated once they have returned” (Crisp, : 172), Webber's () overview of United Kingdom AVR schemes emphasizes both coercion and the lack of knowledge on conditions after return, which may or may not include helpful “family, clan and community networks”.…”

Section: A Theoretical Analysis: the Ethics Of Repatriation Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the case of repatriation, it is not enough to argue that repatriation should be facilitated because returnees “often possess…family, clan and community networks” (Crisp, ). There must be accurate information on the outcome of return, as Webber showed was severely missing in most repatriation schemes from the UK (Webber, ).…”

Section: A Theoretical Analysis: the Ethics Of Repatriation Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Conclusions regarding South Sudanese repatriation, with CIMI repatriation as a control, cannot be extrapolated to other cases of repatriation from other countries. Nonetheless, this comparative approach within one country, similar to the approach taken by Webber (), who compared repatriation policies within the UK, allowed for within‐case control (Munck, : 117). This is because the policy towards South Sudanese could be compared with policies for other asylum seekers in Israel, where many of the same variables – such as no access to basic services and fear of deportation and xenaphobic attacks – were also present, but where the independent variable of interest, a repatriation policy focusing on voluntariness, was not present.…”

Section: The Practical Impacts Of Blocking “Involuntary” Repatriationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, if refugees are returning home because they do not have access to basic services, rights, and physical integrity, then their return is not voluntary, according to a number of scholars (Webber, ; Blitz et al., ). Indeed, UNHCR writes that

[r]epatriation is not voluntary when host country authorities deprive refugees of any real freedom of choice through outright coercion ormeasures such as, for example, reducing essential services [and] encouraging anti‐refugee sentiment on the part of the local population…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Is Preventing Coerced Repatriation Ethical and Possible? The Case ofNGORepatriation of South Sudanese in Israel

Gerver

2013

International Migration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“Voluntary repatriation” to a country of origin may be necessary to restore refugees' rights, when only a country of origin will provide rights associated with citizenship. Yet, if refugees are returning because they do not have access to basic rights in a host country, their return is not voluntary according to UNHCR guidelines (1996). There is a tension between facilitating repatriation to restore rights, and ensuring that repatriation is voluntary. This article will first draw on arguments from moral philosophy to suggest an alternative policy to current UNHCR guidelines. Following this normative analysis, the article hypothesizes that, on an empirical level, a repatriation policy that attempts to only facilitate repatriation that is not coerced, out of concern for voluntariness alone, may fail both to prevent coerced returns and to restore right through repatriation. This hypothesis was then tested in the case of South Sudanese repatriation from Israel between 2009‐2012.

show abstract

What drives ‘soft deportation’? Understanding the rise in Assisted Voluntary Return among rejected asylum seekers in the Netherlands

Leerkes

Os²,

Boersema³

2017

Population Space and Place

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

States experience difficulties in realizing the return of rejected asylum seekers, but migration control policies are becoming increasingly sophisticated. Against this background, we consider explanations for the increase in Assisted Voluntary Return from the Netherlands in the 2005–2011 period. Both macro‐level factors (source country societal conditions and characteristics of the Dutch “deportation regime”) and individual‐level factors (applicants' demographic characteristics and variation in status determination time) are examined. The study, which is based on a unique multilevel dataset (N = 15,682) with data from governmental and other sources (including International Organisation for Migration), is the first to quantitatively test assumed Assisted Voluntary Return determinants and contributes to the study of policy effects in migration studies. We find that states are capable of increasing return rates by expanding the use of “hard” and “soft” power. We propose the term “soft deportation” as a way to go beyond the dichotomy of “voluntary” and “forced” return.

show abstract

How voluntary are voluntary returns?

Cited by 100 publications

References 0 publications

Refugee Repatriation and the Problem of Consent

Refugee Repatriation and the Problem of Consent

Is Preventing Coerced Repatriation Ethical and Possible? The Case ofNGORepatriation of South Sudanese in Israel

What drives ‘soft deportation’? Understanding the rise in Assisted Voluntary Return among rejected asylum seekers in the Netherlands

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About