The Transformative Potential of a Vulnerability Focus in Basic Assistance Policies: A Study on UNHCR and IOM in Sudan

Hele tekst

(1)THE TRANSFORMATIVE POTENTIAL OF A VULNERABILITY FOCUS IN BASIC ASSISTANCE POLICIES.

(2) School of Human Rights Research Series, Volume 92 A commercial edition of this dissertation will be published by Intersentia under ISBN 978-1-83970-039-2 The titles published in this series are listed at the end of this volume. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in an automated data system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical or photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission from the author/publisher..

(3) The Transformative Potential of a Vulnerability Focus in Basic Assistance Policies A Study on UNHCR and IOM in Sudan PhD thesis to obtain the degree of PhD at the University of Groningen on the authority of the Rector Magnificus Prof. C. Wijmenga and in accordance with the decision by the College of Deans. This thesis will be defended in public on Thursday 22 October 2020 at 11.00 hours by. Veronika Lydia Birgit Flegar born on 15 June 1989 in Stuttgart, Germany.

(4) Supervisors Prof. G.J. Vonk Prof. B.C.A. Toebes. Co-supervisor Dr. V.M. Bex-Reimert. Assessment Committee Prof. M.L.M. Hertogh Prof. H.B. Winter Prof. T. Mattsson.

(5) To Anne-Katrin Feigl (1989-2019).

(6)

(7) PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The five years during which I worked on this research, and especially the two years I spent in Sudan, were quite a journey. They allowed me to not only theorise about, but also to experience, feel and see vulnerability and resilience from up close. Precarity, disenfranchisement and very raw human suffering remain wide-spread in Sudan: whether it is the devastated refugees and other migrants that came to visit UNHCR and IOM during my research at these organisations, the displaced and/or disabled persons whom I encountered begging on the streets of Khartoum or the Sudanese protestors and political activists who had been suffering under a repressive regime for decades. Their faces told stories of devastation, but I simultaneously felt like a veil of collective denial had settled upon Sudan: people were careful in voicing any potentially critical opinions and passively underwent sandstorms, floods, incredible heat and draught, political repression and a deteriorating economic crisis that caused currency, bread and fuel shortages. People waited for hours, often even overnight, to receive fuel – apparently without ever complaining openly. Initially, it was hard for me to understand this, what to me seemed like, apathy and I was somewhat disappointed that only very few people would dare to speak up and even fewer would be willing to take action. How wrong this initial impression was. In 2019, Sudan witnessed the largest revolution in its history, which toppled long-term president-dictator Omar Al-Bashir on 11 April 2019. I remain deeply humbled by all the Sudanese who found the bravery and strength to stand up, unite and peacefully fight for justice, freedom and democracy. The passion, conviction and determination of the progressive voices in Sudan remains truly inspiring and has shown me what resilience really means. Mobilising and uniting peaceful protestors throughout a hugely divided and dispersed country, maintaining momentum for this movement throughout more than six months despite all government attempts to shut it down, holding a non-stop sit-in protest on a major road in front of the army headquarters for several weeks before and all throughout Ramadan during at least 45°C, recovering and drawing strength from continuous and horrible atrocities committed by military and paramilitary forces and organising large-scale demonstrations and strikes during a complete internet blockout are only some of the incredible examples of this resilience. Although the present study is not about these protests or about Sudan as such, I think it is safe to say that the Sudanese are some of the most resilient people on earth. Whether it is in the many small-scale community initiatives among citizens and non-. Intersentia. vii.

(8) Preface and Acknowledgements. citizens throughout Sudan, the cross-border solidarity of people with similar progressive hopes in countries like Algeria and Syria, or the Sudanese diaspora’s strong involvement in, and rooting for, a democratic transition in Sudan: all of these examples reveal how vulnerability, migration, resilience and development are closely intertwined. I have been lucky and remain incredibly grateful to have shared parts of this journey on vulnerability and resilience with a lot of amazing people (not all of whom I can name here). First and foremost, I would like to extend my heartfelt gratitude to my supervisors Prof. Gijsbert Vonk, Prof. Brigit Toebes and Dr. Viola Bex-Reimert for your great support and trust. The freedom you granted me to venture along unusual paths and to uncommon places ensured that I could keep my motivation till the end. Your thoughtful and well-dosed comments and advice provided me with encouragement at cross-roads and in difficult times. Although we sometimes spoke different academic ‘languages’, your diverse backgrounds and passions really helped me to identify and define my own interests. I will particularly cherish the memories of our informal meetings, be it at your homes, for lunch or for drinks: especially after I had moved away from Groningen these moments ensured that I still felt welcome and at home ‘up in the north’. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the members of my assessment committee, Prof. Heinrich Winter, Prof. Marc Hertogh and Prof. Titti Mattsson, for their thoughtful review and approval of this thesis. My sincere appreciation also goes to Prof. Monika Baár for encouraging me to pursue a PhD in the first place. Your belief in my work, your inspiring intellectual and practical guidance in pursuing an academic career and your willingness to support me in any way possible contributed a great deal to the completion of this project. Many thanks also for having had the honour of being a part of your team at Leiden University! You remain a constant source of inspiration to push the boundaries of disciplines, topics and my own knowledge. Plus, I am forever grateful for your unconscious help in meeting my future husband Bas. A special thank you also to my colleagues at the Department of Constitutional Law, Administrative Law and Public Administration and at the Department of Transboundary Legal Studies at the University of Groningen as well as at the Institute for History at Leiden University for the inspiring conversations and happy moments. Your interest in my experiences in Sudan and Bangladesh as well as in my research (despite me only being around every so often) always gave me a feeling of belonging that helped me to continue with this project. This is all the more true for the laughs, talks and dinners with my dear friends and colleagues of the original ‘Food and wine club!!’ Lottie, Ira, Lucia, Marlies, Erna, Heyd, Katrina and Eva. I am endlessly grateful for the great support, friendship and positivity of my paranymphs Heyd Más and Louisa Firnenburg. The deep conversations with both of you throughout the past five years were a great source of intellectual inspiration and personal strength that really helped me to shape this project – and your enthusiasm about my defence really dragged me through these last months!. viii. Intersentia.

(9) Preface and Acknowledgements. I would also like to thank the institutions who hosted me or granted me access to their work as well as the researchers whom I met and who shared their thoughts during conferences and individual meetings. A special thanks to the employees of UNHCR and IOM in Khartoum for granting me access, letting me participate and sharing their insights and ideas on basic assistance to non-citizens. A big thank you also to all my friends and colleagues in Sudan, at Ahfad University, UNDP and beyond, without whom my stay in Sudan would not have been the same. Many thanks also to the inspiring people who were working at, or visiting, Lund University and Malmö University during my research period in Sweden and especially Prof. Titti Mattson for the warm welcome, encouragement and intellectual exchanges that kickstarted the analysis of my case studies and helped me to see light at the end of the tunnel. Many thanks also to my new colleagues at the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Bangladesh and to my friends in Dhaka for supporting me throughout the final stage of this project. You showed me that there is a life and whole new world out there beyond my PhD. I owe an extraordinary amount of gratitude to all my friends and family (and especially Svenja) for your patience, interest, encouragement and welcome distractions throughout the past five years. I could not have done it without you! A special thanks for giving me a temporary home or supporting me in innumerous other ways to Ingrid and Egbert, Louisa, Eva, Lottie, Dorien, Lucia, Katrina, Melissa and Daan. A very special thanks goes to my parents for raising me as a responsible and free person, for granting me every opportunity to broaden my horizon and for fostering in me a curious and restless mind that would venture out to discover the world. I also owe so much gratitude to my husband Bas: your incredible patience, your pep talks, your critical questions and reviews as well as your unconditional love really kept me going. The thought of the incredible life we built together and continue to build every day encourages me to be resilient – to get up in the morning, smile at the world and fall asleep grateful for every moment I am allowed to experience. Lastly, I would like to thank Anne and dedicate this book to her. More than a year later, I still don’t have words for the sorrow your sudden death has caused to your family and to everyone who knew you. I remain forever grateful for your contribution to this research as well as for the friendship, laughter and sunshine that you brought into my life and into the world of so many people. Without you, my stay in Sudan would not have been the same and I will always remember your enthusiasm, dedication and pragmatism. You had an incredible gift to stay positive, focused and humble despite all adversities (and adversities there were many in Sudan). I hope that the conclusions of this research would be in your interest and can contribute to one of the causes that you cared about most – the protection of vulnerable migrants. Veronika Flegar, July 2020 Dhaka, Bangladesh. Intersentia. ix.

(10)

(11) CONTENTS Preface and Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii List of Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxiii List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxv List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxvii Chapter 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 1.4. 1.5. 1.6.. The Increased Focus on, but Disputable Value of, Vulnerability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Human Rights in the Migration Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 The Field-Level Basic Assistance Provision by International Organisations . . . . . 6 Sociology of Human Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Epistemology of Critical Pragmatism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Research Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1.6.1. Research Aim and Central Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1.6.2. Data Collection and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1.6.3. Delimitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 1.7. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 1.7.1. Normative and Empirical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 1.7.2. Transformative Potential and Substantive Equality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 1.7.3. Vulnerability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 1.7.4. Migration Context, Non-Citizens and Potential Beneficiaries . . . . . . . . . 17 1.7.5. Basic Assistance Policies, Basic Assistance Providers and Policy Implementers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 1.7.6. Policy Practice, Vulnerability Assessment Process and Policy Design and Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 1.7.7. Administrative Dilemmas and Contextual Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 1.8. The Structure of This Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 PART I. NORMATIVE AND EMPIRICAL THEORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Chapter 2 Normative Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 2.1. The Limits of the Universal Human Rights Ideal for Non-Citizens . . . . . . . . . . . 27. Intersentia. xi.

(12) Contents. 2.2. Conceptualising the Transformative Potential of the Vulnerability Notion for Substantive Equality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1. Mitigating Stigmatisation and Stereotyping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2. Facilitating Socio-Economic Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3. Operationalising the Two Dimensions of the Vulnerability Notion’s Transformative Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1. Stigmatisation and Stereotyping and Two Models of Administrative Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.2. Socio-Economic Participation and Two Types of Activation . . . . . . . . . . 2.4. Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30 31 33 34 35 39 42. Chapter 3 Themes and Concepts Relevant to the Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 3.1. Development of the Themes and Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. The Vulnerability Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3. Administrative Dilemmas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1. Procedural Dilemma 1: Rigidity or Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2. Procedural Dilemma 2: Feasibility or Comprehensiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.3. Procedural Dilemma 3: Risking Under- or Over-Inclusiveness . . . . . . . . 3.3.4. Other Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.5. Substantive Dilemma 1: Short-Term Relief and/or Structural Change . . 3.3.6. Substantive Dilemma 2: Control and/or Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.7. Substantive Dilemma 3: Material Needs and/or Protection Risks . . . . . . 3.3.8. Other Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4. Contextual Constraints upon Each Organisation’s Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.1. The Organisation’s Mandate and International Legal Obligations . . . . . 3.4.2. Financial and Resource Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.3. The International Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.4. The Operational Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.5. Previous Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.6. The Organisational Structure and Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5. Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 46 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 60 61 62 62 63 63. PART II. BACKGROUND TO THE CASE STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Chapter 4 Methodology, Methods and Limitations of Data Collection and Analysis . . . . . . . . . 69 4.1. Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.1. Two Collective Case Studies and the Grounded Theory Method . . . . . . 4.1.2. Generalisability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.3. Theoretical Sampling and Case Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. xii. 70 70 72 74. Intersentia.

(13) Contents. 4.2. Quality Assurance and Trustworthiness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 4.2.1. Credibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 4.2.2. Transferability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 4.2.3. Dependability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 4.2.4. Confirmability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 4.2.5. Specific Criteria for Critical-Interpretive Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 4.3. Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 4.3.1. Set-up and Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 4.3.1.1. UNHCR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 4.3.1.2. IOM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 4.3.2. Data Collection Process, Expectations and Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 4.3.2.1. UNHCR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 4.3.2.2. IOM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 4.3.3. Desk Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 4.3.4. Participant Observation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 4.3.5. Semi-Structured Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 4.4. Data Analysis based on Corbin and Strauss’ Grounded Theory Method . . . . . . . 97 4.4.1. Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 4.4.2. Coding Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 4.4.2.1. Step 1: Familiarising. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 4.4.2.2. Steps 2 and 3: Coding and Conceptualisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 4.4.3. Interpretation Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 4.5. Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 4.5.1. Practical Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 4.5.2. Data Collection Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 4.5.2.1. Participant Observation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 4.5.2.2 Semi-structured Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 4.5.3. Data Analysis Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 4.5.4. Limitations Regarding the Presentation of the Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 4.5.5. Limitations Regarding Comparability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Chapter 5 Background on the Republic of Sudan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 5.1. The Socio-Cultural, Political and Economic Context of Sudan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.1. The Socio-Cultural Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.2. The Political Situation at the Time of Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.3. The Economic Situation at the Time of Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2. Sudan and the International Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.1. Main International and Regional Human Rights or Migration Treaties and Agreements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.2. Major International Governmental Financial Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 111 111 112 114 115. Intersentia. xiii. 115 117.

(14) Contents. 5.2.3. Engagement by International Governmental and NonGovernmental Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.4. UN Treaty and Charter-based Bodies’ Recent Migration-Related Human Rights Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3. The Migration Situation in Sudan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.1. Sudan as a Transit Country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.2. Migration Law and Policy in Sudan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.2.1. Refugee Status, Encampment and Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.2.2. ‘Round-ups’, Detention and Deportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.3. Other Human Rights Issues Regarding Non-Citizens in Khartoum . . 5.3.3.1. General Living Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.3.2. Trafficking and Smuggling Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4. Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 119 119 121 121 123 123 124 125 125 126 127. PART III. CASE 1: ASSESSING AND ADDRESSING VULNERABILITY AT UNHCR KHARTOUM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Chapter 6 Background on UNHCR in Sudan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 6.1. UNHCR Operation in Sudan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.1. Size and Structure of the Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.2. Key Priorities and Budget of UNHCR in Sudan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.3. Donors and Partners of UNHCR Sudan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.4. Recent Impediments for UNHCR’s Work in Sudan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2. Vulnerability and UNHCR’s Cash-based Interventions in Sudan. . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.1. General Scope and Objective of the Cash-based Interventions Programme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.2. Target Group and Implementing Agency for Multipurpose Cash Grants in Khartoum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.3. Amount and Duration of Multipurpose Cash Grants in Khartoum . . . 6.3. The Policy Process Underlying the Vulnerability Assessment for Basic Assistance at UNHCR Khartoum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.1. Feedback Loop between Vulnerability Assessment Design and Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.2. The Role of Headquarters in the Vulnerability Assessment Design and Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. xiv. 133 133 133 134 135 136 136 137 138 139 139 140. Intersentia.

(15) Contents. Chapter 7 The Design of the Vulnerability Assessment for Basic Assistance at UNHCR Khartoum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 7.1. The Design of the Vulnerability Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 7.1.1. The Selection Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 7.1.2. The Vulnerability Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 7.1.3. Additional Conditions for Eligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 7.2. Administrative Dilemmas for the Vulnerability Assessment Design . . . . . . . . . 147 7.2.1. Procedural Dilemmas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 7.2.1.1. Procedural Dilemma 1: Rigidity or Flexibility?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 7.2.1.2. Procedural Dilemma 2: Feasibility or Comprehensiveness? . . . 149 7.2.1.3. Procedural Dilemma 3: Risking Under- or Over-inclusiveness? . 150 7.2.2. Substantive Dilemmas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 7.2.2.1. Substantive Dilemma 1: Short-term Relief and/or Structural Change?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 7.2.2.2. Substantive Dilemma 2: Control and/or Support? . . . . . . . . . . . 152 7.2.2.3. Substantive Dilemma 3: Material Needs and/or Protection Risks? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 7.3. Contextual Constraints for the Vulnerability Assessment Design . . . . . . . . . . . 155 7.3.1. The Role of UNHCR’s Mandate and International Legal Obligations. . . . 155 7.3.2. The Role of Financial and Resource Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 7.3.3. The Role of the International Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 7.3.4. The Role of the Operational Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 7.3.5. The Role of Previous Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 7.3.6. The Role of the Organisational Structure and Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 7.4. Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 Chapter 8 The Implementation of the Vulnerability Assessment for Basic Assistance at UNHCR Khartoum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 8.1. The Implementation of the Vulnerability Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1.1. The Selection Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1.1.1. Stage 1: Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1.1.2. Stage 2: Referral to the Case Worker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1.1.3. Stages 3 and 4: Case Worker Submissions and IRC Decisions in 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Deferrals and Resubmissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rejections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Intersentia. 164 164 165 166 166 168 169. xv.

(16) Contents. 8.1.2.. The Interpretation of the Vulnerability Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 8.1.2.1. Case Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 Most Common Vulnerability Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 Overlaps and Controversies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 Gaps and Desired Additional Vulnerability Criteria . . . . . . . . . 173 8.1.2.2. IRC Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 Most Common Vulnerability Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 Overlaps and Controversies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 Gaps and Desired Additional Vulnerability Criteria . . . . . . . . . 178 8.1.3. Additional Conditions for Eligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 8.1.3.1. Case Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 Compounding Vulnerability Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 Inability to Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 Other Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 8.1.3.2. IRC Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 Compounding Vulnerability Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 Inability to Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 Other Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 8.2. Administrative Dilemmas for the Vulnerability Assessment Implementation . . . 184 8.2.1. Procedural Dilemmas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 8.2.1.1. Procedural Dilemma 1: Rigidity or Flexibility?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 Case Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 IRC Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 8.2.1.2. Procedural Dilemma 2: Feasibility or Comprehensiveness? . . . 187 Case Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 IRC Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 8.2.1.3. Procedural Dilemma 3: Risking Under- or Over-inclusiveness? . 189 Case Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 IRC Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 8.2.1.4. Other Issues: The Interaction Between Case Workers and Beneficiaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 Race, Nationality and/or Culture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 Assertiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 Empathy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 The Questions Being Asked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 Language Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 8.2.2. Substantive Dilemmas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 8.2.2.1. Substantive Dilemma 1: Short-term Relief and/or Structural Change?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 Case Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 IRC Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198. xvi. Intersentia.

(17) Contents. 8.2.2.2.. Substantive Dilemma 2: Control and/or Support? . . . . . . . . . . . 199 Case Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 IRC Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 8.2.2.3. Substantive Dilemma 3: Material Needs and/or Protection Risks? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 Case Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 IRC Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 8.2.2.4. Other Issues: Dependency and Self-Reliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 Case Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 IRC Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 8.3. Contextual Constraints for the Vulnerability Assessment Implementation . . . 211 8.3.1. The Role of UNHCR’s Mandate and International Legal Obligations. . . . 211 8.3.1.1. Case Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 8.3.1.2. IRC Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212 8.3.2. The Role of Financial and Resource Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 8.3.2.1. Case Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 8.3.2.2. IRC Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214 8.3.3. The Role of the International Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214 8.3.3.1. Case Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214 8.3.3.2. IRC Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 8.3.4. The Role of the Operational Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218 8.3.4.1. Case Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218 Challenges for UNHCR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218 Challenges for Potential Beneficiaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 8.3.4.2. IRC Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 Challenges for UNHCR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 Challenges for Potential Beneficiaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 8.3.5. The Role of Previous Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 8.3.5.1. Case Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 8.3.5.2. IRC Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 8.3.6. The Role of the Organisational Structure and Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 8.3.6.1. Case Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 Management and Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 Time Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 8.3.6.2. IRC Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 Staff Turnover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 8.4. Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 Intersentia. xvii.

(18) Contents. Chapter 9 The Transformative Potential of a Vulnerability Focus in Case Study 1 . . . . . . . . . . 237 9.1. Mitigating Stigmatisation and Stereotyping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238 9.1.1. Rigidity or Flexibility? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 9.1.2. Feasibility or Comprehensiveness? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 9.1.3. Risking Under- or Over-Inclusiveness? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242 9.1.4. Interpersonal Dynamics in the Case Worker-Beneficiary Interaction . . . 244 9.1.4.1. Perception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244 9.1.4.2. Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 9.1.5. Final Note and Policy Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248 9.2. Facilitating Socio-Economic Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 9.2.1. Short-Term Relief and/or Structural Change? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 9.2.2. Control and/or Support? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252 9.2.3. Material Needs and/or Protection Risks? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 9.2.4. Activation Ideal and Responsibilisation Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 9.2.5. Final Note and Policy Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 9.3. The Role of Contextual Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258 9.3.1. For the Administrative Justice Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259 9.3.1.1. Financial and Resource Constraints and the International Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259 9.3.1.2. Previous Experiences and the Organisational Structure and Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260 9.3.2. For the Activation Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 9.3.2.1. Financial and Resource Constraints and the International Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262 9.3.2.2. The Operational Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262 9.4. Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 PART IV. CASE 2: ASSESSING AND ADDRESSING VULNERABILITY AT IOM KHARTOUM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 Chapter 10 Background on IOM in Sudan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 10.1. IOM Mission in Sudan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.1.1. Size and Structure of the Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.1.2. Key Priorities and Budget of IOM in Sudan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.1.3. Donors and Partners of IOM Sudan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.1.4. Recent Impediments for IOM’s Work in Sudan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2. Vulnerability and IOM’s Migrant Resource and Response Centre (MRRC) in Sudan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2.1. General Scope and Objective of the MRRC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. xviii. 269 269 270 270 271 272 272. Intersentia.

(19) Contents. 10.2.2. Target Group and Implementing Agency of the MRRC in Khartoum . . . 273 10.2.3. Amount and Duration of Assistance at the MRRC in Khartoum . . . . . 273 10.3. The Policy Process Underlying the Vulnerability Assessments at the MRRC in Khartoum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274 10.3.1. Feedback Loop between Vulnerability Assessment Design and Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274 10.3.2. The Role of Headquarters in the Vulnerability Assessment Design and Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 Chapter 11 The Design of the Vulnerability Assessments for Basic Assistance at IOM Khartoum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 11.1. The Design of the Vulnerability Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278 11.1.1. The Outreach and Selection Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278 11.1.1.1. Stage 1: Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279 11.1.1.2. Stage 2: Screening of Potential Beneficiaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280 11.1.1.3. Stages 3 and 4: Further Assessment and Assistance . . . . . . . . . . 280 11.1.2. The Main Eligibility and Vulnerability Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281 11.1.2.1. The Vulnerability Screening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282 11.1.2.2. The Vulnerability-focused Prioritisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 11.2. Administrative Dilemmas for the Vulnerability Assessment Design . . . . . . . . . 285 11.2.1. Procedural Dilemmas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286 11.2.1.1. Procedural Dilemma 1: Rigidity or Flexibility?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286 11.2.1.2. Procedural Dilemma 2: Feasibility or Comprehensiveness? . . . 288 11.2.1.3. Procedural Dilemma 3: Risking Under- or Over-inclusiveness? . 290 11.2.1.4. Other Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292 Suggestions for Balancing Rigidity and Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . 292 Suggestions for Balancing the Risks of Over- and UnderInclusiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293 The Importance of a Welcoming Atmosphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294 11.2.2. Substantive Dilemmas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296 11.2.2.1. Substantive Dilemma 1: Short-term Relief and/or Structural Change?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296 11.2.2.2. Substantive Dilemma 2: Control and/or Support? . . . . . . . . . . . 299 11.2.2.3. Substantive Dilemma 3: Material Needs and/or Protection Risks? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301 11.2.2.4. Other Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303 Dependency and Self-Reliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303 Benefits of a Community Focus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305 Risks of a Community Focus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307. Intersentia. xix.

(20) Contents. 11.3. Contextual Constraints for the Vulnerability Assessment Design . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3.1. The Role of IOM’s Mandate and International Legal Obligations . . . . . 11.3.2. The Role of Financial and Resource Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3.3. The Role of the International Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3.4. The Role of the Operational Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3.4.1. Challenges for IOM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3.4.2. Challenges for Potential Beneficiaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3.5. The Role of Previous Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3.6. The Role of the Organisational Structure and Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4. Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 309 309 310 312 316 316 318 320 321 322. Chapter 12 The Implementation of the Vulnerability Assessments for Basic Assistance at IOM Khartoum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325 12.1. The Implementation of the Vulnerability Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326 12.1.1. The Outreach and Selection Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326 12.1.1.1. Stage 1: Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326 12.1.1.2. Stage 2: Screening of Potential Beneficiaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327 12.1.1.3. Stages 3 and 4: Further Assessment and Assistance . . . . . . . . . . 329 12.1.2. The Interpretation of Main Eligibility and Vulnerability Criteria . . . . . 329 12.1.2.1. The Vulnerability Screening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330 12.1.2.2. The Vulnerability-focused Prioritisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331 12.1.2.3. Overlaps, Controversies or Gaps in the Vulnerability Criteria . . . 332 12.2. Administrative Dilemmas for the Vulnerability Assessment Implementation . . . 332 12.2.1. Procedural Dilemmas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333 12.2.1.1. Procedural Dilemma 1: Rigidity or Flexibility?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333 12.2.1.2. Procedural Dilemma 2: Feasibility or Comprehensiveness? . . . 334 12.2.1.3. Procedural Dilemma 3: Risking Under- or Over-inclusiveness? . 335 12.2.1.4. Other Issues: The Interaction Between Case Workers and Beneficiaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337 Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337 Race, Nationality and/or Culture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338 ‘Readiness to Listen’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339 Language Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340 Welcoming Atmosphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340 12.2.2. Substantive Dilemmas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341 12.2.2.1. Substantive Dilemma 1: Short-term Relief and/or Structural Change?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341 12.2.2.2. Substantive Dilemma 2: Control and/or Support? . . . . . . . . . . . 343 12.2.2.3. Substantive Dilemma 3: Material Needs and/or Protection Risks? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345 12.2.2.4. Other Issues: Dependency and Self-Reliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347 xx. Intersentia.

(21) Contents. 12.3. Contextual Constraints for the Vulnerability Assessment Implementation . . . 12.3.1. The Role of IOM’s Mandate and its International Legal Obligations . . 12.3.2. The Role of Financial and Resource Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.3.3. The Role of the International Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.3.4. The Role of the Operational Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.3.4.1. Challenges for IOM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.3.4.2. Challenges for Potential Beneficiaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.3.5. The Role of Previous Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.3.6. The Role of the Organisational Structure and Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.3.6.1. Flexibility and Organisational Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.3.6.2. Skills Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.3.6.3. Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.3.6.4. Respect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.4. Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 348 349 349 350 352 352 353 355 357 357 358 358 359 359. Chapter 13 The Transformative Potential of a Vulnerability Focus in Case Study 2 . . . . . . . . . . 361 13.1. Mitigating Stigmatisation and Stereotyping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362 13.1.1. Rigidity or Flexibility? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363 13.1.2. Feasibility or Comprehensiveness? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364 13.1.3. Risking Under- or Over-Inclusiveness? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366 13.1.4. Interpersonal Dynamics in the Case Worker-Beneficiary Interaction . . . 368 13.1.4.1. Perception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368 13.1.4.2. Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369 13.1.5. Final Note and Policy Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371 13.2. Facilitating Socio-Economic Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373 13.2.1. Short-Term Relief and/or Structural Change? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373 13.2.2. Control and/or Support? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375 13.2.3. Material Needs and/or Protection Risks? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376 13.2.4. Activation Ideal and Empowerment Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 378 13.2.5. Final Note and Policy Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380 13.3. The Role of Contextual Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382 13.3.1. For the Administrative Justice Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382 13.3.1.1. Financial and Resource Constraints and the International Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383 13.3.1.2. Previous Experiences and the Organisational Structure and Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 384 13.3.2. For the Activation Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385 13.3.2.1. Financial and Resource Constraints and the International Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385 13.3.2.2. The Operational Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386 13.4. Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386 Intersentia. xxi.

(22) Contents. PART V. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387 Chapter 14 Final Discussion and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 389 14.1. Normative Ideal and Policy Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 389 14.1.1. Desirability of the Approaches Adopted in the Two Case Studies . . . . . 389 14.1.2. Feasibility of the Transformative Potential of Vulnerability. . . . . . . . . . 391 14.1.3. Understanding the Difference in Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 392 14.2. Beyond the Two Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393 14.2.1. Generalisability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393 14.2.2. Limitations of the Present Study’s Conceptualisations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395 14.2.3. Specific Issues Regarding the Administrative Dilemmas . . . . . . . . . . . . 396 14.2.3.1. Mitigating Stigmatisation and Stereotyping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396 14.2.3.2. Facilitating Socio-Economic Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397 14.3. Towards Substantive Equality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398 14.3.1. Key Characteristics of Professional Individual Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . 399 14.3.2. Key Characteristics of Community-Focused Empowerment . . . . . . . . . 402 14.3.3. Remaining Risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403 14.3.4. The Importance of a Combined Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406 14.4. Contribution to Normative Debates on Vulnerability in Human Rights Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407 14.4.1. Vulnerability and the Human Embodiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 408 14.4.2. The Limits of Universal and Group-based Vulnerability Approaches . . . 409 14.4.3. Social Embeddedness and Relational Vulnerability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411 14.5. Beyond Human Rights? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413 14.6. Policy and Research Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414 14.6.1. Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415 14.6.2. Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 416 14.7. Final Remarks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Samenvatting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . About the Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. xxii. 419 435 449 461. Intersentia.

(23) LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS * AVRR COR DSA EU GIZ HQ IDP ILO IOM NGO PSS PoC RCS SDG SDG (S)GBV SNC SOPs UN UAM UMC UNDP UNHCR UNICEF UNAMID UNISFA VoT WFP. * 1 2. Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration Commission(er) for Refugees1 Daily Subsistence Allowance European Union German Organisation for International Development Cooperation Headquarters Internally Displaced Person International Labour Organisation International Organisation for Migration Non-Governmental Organisation Psychosocial Support Person(s) of concern (to UNHCR) Refugee Counselling Services Sustainable Development Goal2 Sudanese Pound (Sexual and) Gender-based Violence Special Needs Codes Standard Operating Procedures United Nations Unaccompanied Minor(s) Unaccompanied Migrant Child United Nations Development Programme United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees United Nations Children’s Fund United Nations African Union Mission in Darfur United Nations Interim Security Force for Abyei (UNISFA) Victim of Trafficking World Food Programme. Most abbreviations are used by respondents and are not deliberate choices of this thesis. The overview excludes obvious abbreviations like HIV/AIDS, ID, TV, VIP, ATM, GDP and TB. Both terms, ‘commission‘ and ‘commissioner‘, were used by stakeholders in Sudan. Mentioned only once by a respondent.. Intersentia. xxiii.

(24)

(25) LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Table 2: Operationalisation of the Two Dimensions of the Vulnerability Notion’s Transformative Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Table 3: Shenton’s 14 Criteria for Credibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Table 4: Respondents at UNHCR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Table 5: Respondents at IOM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Table 6: Vulnerability Criteria and Definitions for Basic Assistance at UNHCR Khartoum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 Table 7: 2017 IRC Eligibility Decisions for Basic Assistance at UNHCR Khartoum 167 Table 8: Perceptions about Material Needs and Protection Risks among Policy Implementers at UNHCR Khartoum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254 Table 9: Vulnerability Criteria for AVRR at IOM Khartoum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 Table 10: Potential Beneficiaries by Age and Gender at MRRC Khartoum (January – June 2018). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328 Table 11: Potential Beneficiaries by Nationality at MRRC Khartoum (January – June 2018). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328 Table 12: Perceptions about Material Needs and Protection Risks among Policy Implementers at IOM Khartoum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377. Intersentia. xxv.

(26)

(27) LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Vulnerability Assessment Process for Basic Assistance at UNHCR Khartoum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Figure 2: Vulnerability Assessment Process for Basic Assistance at IOM Khartoum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279 Figure 3: Typology of Relational Vulnerability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411. Intersentia. xxvii.

(28)

(29) CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION This study investigates the transformative potential of a vulnerability focus in basic assistance policies.1 It includes two case studies on such policies, both set in Khartoum, Sudan. The first case study focuses on the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) while the second case study centres on the International Organisation for Migration (IOM). The analysis concentrates on basic assistance providers, i.e. on the case workers and their direct superiors who design and implement the respective basic assistance policies. This opening chapter outlines the research topic and approach of this study. It starts with an overview of the relevance and focus of this research (1.1 – 1.3). Subsequently, the chapter explains the study’s embeddedness in the sociology of human rights (1.4) and its epistemological standpoint of critical pragmatism (1.5). The chapter then proceeds to present the research approach (1.6) and ends with a section on key terminology choices (1.7) and an overview of the structure of the book (1.8).. 1.1. THE INCR EASED FOCUS ON, BUT DISPUTABLE VALUE OF, VULNER ABILITY ‘Vulnerability’ seems to have become a buzz-word in law and policy and some even speak of “[a] vulnerability zeitgeist”.2 The term serves as a tool for understanding and addressing social problems and “now stretches into so many governance areas it is difficult to keep track, permeating policy matters ranging from violence against women to volcanoes”.3 Despite – or perhaps because of – this multifaceted use, vulnerability is not a clear-cut or neutral concept. Rather, the notion of vulnerability brings with it a variety of different connotations and dilemmas that often remain obscured.4 This obscurity around the notion’s content, choices and context raises the question whether and to what extent the increased attention to vulnerability is desirable from a human. 1 2 3 4. See Section 1.1 on what this study understands as ‘transformative potential‘. Kate Brown, ‘The Governance of Vulnerability: Regulation, Support and Social Divisions in Action’ [2017] 37(11/12) International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 667–668. Brown (2017), 667–668. See, e.g., Catherine Elizabeth Brown, The Concept of Vulnerability and its Use in the Care and Control of Young People (PhD Thesis, University of Leeds 2013).. Intersentia. 1.

(30) Chapter 1. Introduction. rights perspective: does a vulnerability focus ensure or endanger the realisation of universal human rights? Previous authors appear to be somewhat divided on this issue. Proponents of increased attention to vulnerability are generally inclined to view the notion as beneficial for the realisation of universal human rights.5 They argue that, by focusing on humans as embodied and socially embedded, the vulnerability notion emphasises the ‘human’, rather than the ‘rights’, element of the human rights paradigm.6 The notion thereby underlines that human rights are not merely the rights of individual persons, but also entail a social dimension that is crucial to understand and address. A focus on vulnerability is said to draw attention to the social and societal structures that can aggravate or mitigate disadvantage, marginalisation and exclusion.7 This is what the present study views as the essence of the vulnerability notion’s alleged ‘transformative potential’. From this perspective, a focus on vulnerability is ‘transformative’ because it can help to direct human rights towards a process of realising substantive equality, i.e. towards being “responsive to those who are disadvantaged, demeaned, excluded, or ignored”.8. 5. 6. 7 8. 2. See, e.g., Alexander Morawa, ‘Vulnerability as a Concept of International Human Rights Law’ [2003] 6(2) Journal of International Relations and Development 150; Brian Turner, Vulnerability and Human Rights (Pennsylvania State University Press 2006); Martha Fineman, ‘The Vulnerable Subject: Anchoring Equality in the Human Condition’ [2008] 20(1) Yale Journal of Law and Feminism 1–23; Audrey Chapman and Benjamin Carbonetti, ‘Human Rights Protections for Vulnerable and Disadvantaged Groups: The Contributions of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’, [2011] 33 Human Rights Quarterly 682–732; Martha Fineman and Anna Grear (eds.), Reflections on a New Ethical Foundation for Law and Politics (Ashgate 2013); Lourdes Peroni and Alexandra Timmer, ‘Vulnerable Groups: The Promise of an Emerging Concept in European Human Rights Convention Law’ [2013] 11(4) International Journal of Constitutional Law 1056–1085. Romina Sijniensky, ‘From the Non-Discrimination Clause to the Concept of Vulnerability in International Human Rights Law’ in Yves Haeck et al. (eds.), The Realisation of Human Rights: When Theory Meets Practice (Intersentia 2013) 259–272; Sylvie da Lomba, ‘Vulnerability, Irregular Migrants’ HealthRelated Rights and the European Court of Human Rights’ [2014] 21(4) European Journal of Health Law 360. Ursula Brandl and Philip Czech, ‘General and Specific Vulnerability of Protection-Seekers in the EU: Is there and Adequate Response to their Needs?’ in Franscesca Ippolito and Sara Iglesias Sánchez (eds.), Protecting Vulnerable Groups: The European Human Rights Framework (Hart 2015) 247–270; Veronika Flegar, ‘Vulnerability and the Principle of Non-refoulement in the European Court of Human Rights: Towards and Increased Scope of Protection for Persons Fleeing from Extreme Poverty?’ [2016] 8(2) Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice 148–169. Veronika Flegar and Marie Veys, ‘De Europese Verplichtingen voor Procedurele Waarborgen in de Asielprocedure en de Nederlandse Implementatie vanuit Kwetsbaarheidsperspectief’ [2017] 2(11) Journaal Vreemdelingenrecht 28–49; Veronika Flegar and Emma Iedema, ‘The Use of the ‘Vulnerability’ Label by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women: Protecting or Stigmatising Women and Girls in the Forced Migration Context?’, [2019] 1 Brill Open Law 1–41. Martha Fineman, ‘Equality, Autonomy, and the Vulnerable Subject in Law and Politics’, in: Fineman and Grear (2013), 13. Compare also, e.g., Turner (2006); Fineman (2008); Fineman and Grear (2013); Catriona Mackenzie, ‘The Importance of Relational Autonomy and Capabilities for an Ethics of Vulnerability’ in Catriona Mackenzie, Wendy Rogers and Susan Dodds (eds.), Vulnerability: New Essays in Ethics and Feminist Philosophy (Oxford University Press 2013) 33–59. Fineman (2008), 1. Sandra Fredman, ‘Revisiting Substantive Equality’ [2016] 14(3) International Journal of Constitutional Law 713. Compare also, e.g. Fineman (2008); Fineman and Grear (2013). See also Section 1.7.2 and Chapter 2 for an elaboration of the study’s understanding of the vulnerability notion’s transformative potential for substantive equality. Intersentia.

(31) Chapter 1. Introduction. Other authors, however, caution against an over-enthusiastic embrace of the vulnerability notion. These authors argue, for instance, that a vulnerability focus in specific laws or policies can serve both (re-)distributive and social control-focused governing efforts and that it can be instrumentalised for both socialist (redistributive) and conservative (restrictive) interests.9 Depending on how the notion is understood and employed, vulnerability can therefore support emancipation as well as paternalism.10 This suggests that an increased focus on vulnerability is not necessarily beneficial for the realisation of universal human rights.11 Instead, the vulnerability notion’s alleged transformative potential for substantive equality depends on how, and in what context, specific policies focus on vulnerability.12 These diverging normative perspectives on the desirability of an increased focus on vulnerability suggest that there might be a conflict between what is perceived as desirable in normative human rights theory and what is perceived as actually feasible in policy practice.13 This raises the question of whether and to what extent the notion of vulnerability in normative theory and the practical focus on vulnerability in specific policies might complement or contradict each other. To shed light on this question, the present study explores how vulnerability is understood and why it is understood that way in the design and implementation of two specific policies. To do so, the study focuses on two dimensions of the vulnerability notion’s alleged transformative potential (outlined in more detail in Chapter 2): 1) the potential to mitigate stigmatisation and stereotyping and 2) the potential to facilitate socioeconomic participation. How can a vulnerability focus in specific policies contribute to these two dimensions of the alleged transformative potential of the vulnerability notion?. 1.2. HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE MIGR ATION CONTEXT14 Due to time and resource constraints, this study does not focus on all policy areas and purposes in which vulnerability could contribute to substantive equality but limits itself 9. 10 11 12. 13 14. Sean Coyle, ‘Vulnerability and the Liberal Order’ in: Fineman and Grear (2013) 70. Compare also, e.g., Brown (2013); Nina Kohn, ‘Vulnerability Theory and the Role of Government’ [2014] 26 Yale Journal of Law and Feminism 1–27; Hazel Biggs and Caroline Jones, ‘Legally Vulnerable’ in Michael Freeman, Sarah Hawkes and Belinda Bennett (eds.), Law and Global Health: Current Legal Issues Volume 16 (Oxford University Press 2014), 133–148. Compare, e.g., Kate Brown, ‘’Vulnerability’: Handle with Care’ [2011] 5(3) Ethics and Social Welfare, 315–316 and Peroni and Timmer (2013) 1072–1073. On the desirability of different types of care/emancipation and control/paternalism see, e.g., Michael Barnett, ‘Paternalism and Global Governance‘ [2015] 31(1) Social Philosophy and Policy 216–243. Kate Brown, Kathryn Ecclestone and Nick Emmel, ‘The Many Faces of Vulnerability’ [2017] 16(3) Social Policy and Society 505. Compare also, e.g. Shelley Bielefeld, ‘Cashless Welfare Transfers for ‘Vulnerable’ Welfare Recipients: Law, Ethics and Vulnerability’ [2018] 26(2) Feminist Legal Studies 1–23. For this study’s understanding of ‘policy practice’ see Section 1.7.6. Th is study understands ‘migration context’ as the physical, legal and/or policy space in which noncitizens fi nd themselves and in which a large variety of different (governmental as well as non-. Intersentia. 3.

(32) Chapter 1. Introduction. to the vulnerability focus in basic assistance policies for non-citizens.15 This section outlines the considerations underlying this choice. A prominent feature of today’s globalizing world is the large number of people on the move and the difficulties involved in managing these movements in a just and humane manner. This is likely to remain a challenge for the near future: the amount, size and complexity of humanitarian crises around the world is considerable and the number of persons who fled their countries of nationality as a result of such crises (refugees and asylum seekers) had reached 30.2 million by the end of 2019.16 On top of this, an increasing number of people are, encouraged by economic opportunities and technological advancements, temporarily or permanently residing outside their country of nationality.17 When abroad, these persons – non-citizens – can usually not rely on the full scope of the rights to which they are entitled as citizens of their country of nationality. Effectively, they therefore largely depend on the protection and assistance provided by their country of residence and/or by the international community. Many of these noncitizens enjoy extensive social, civil and political rights and liberties in their countries of residence. Yet, others end up in precarious situations in which even their most basic human rights are not being realised. This underlines that human rights are not equally realised for all human beings. From a human rights perspective, this is problematic since human rights are, at least in theory, deemed universal and thus as equally applicable to all human beings regardless of nationality, legal status or place of residence. The preamble of the Universal Declaration for Human Rights (UDHR), for instance, recognises that “the inherent dignity and […] the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world” and Article 2 UDHR on the principle of non-discrimination emphasises that “[e]veryone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration”.18 Furthermore, the (partial) non-realisation of the human rights of non-citizens in precarious situations contradicts the broad, but well-established, substantive equality principle in human rights theory. This substantive. 15 16. 17 18. 4. governmental) actors engage with, restrict or assist these non-citizens. See Section 1.7.4 for this study’s defi nition of non-citizens. See Section 1.7.4 for this study’s defi nition of non-citizens and Section 1.7.5 for this study’s defi nition of basic assistance policies. UNHCR, ‘Figures at a Glance’ <https://www.unhcr.org/ph/figures-at-a-glance> accessed 13 July 2020. Th is number does not include internally displaced persons (IDPs) who amounted to 45.7 million at the end of 2019 and Venezuelans displaced abroad who amounted to 3.6 million at the end of 2019. See, e.g., IOM, World Migration Report 2020 (IOM 2019) <https://publications.iom.int/books/worldmigration-report-2020> accessed 21 March 2020, 10. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted 10 December 1948) UN General Assembly Resolution 217 A(III) art 2. On the principle of non-discrimination compare also, e.g., Wouter Vandenhole, Nondiscrimination and Equality in the View of the UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies (Intersentia 2005). Cited in Veronika Flegar, ‘The Principle of Non-discrimination: An Empty Promise for the Preventive Health Care of Asylum Seekers and Undocumented Migrants?’ [2015] 3(2) Groningen Journal of International Law 85–101. Intersentia.

No results found