Internal Flight, Relocation, and Protection Alternative - Term Paper Example

Internal Flight/Relocation/Protection Alternative Before taking on the case of a Polish citizen who desires to be a refugee in Australia, aspects regarding the internal flight or relocation alternative must be discussed to understand how such a complex procedure works in the international community. The perception of internal flight alternative is generally seen in the form of having domestic protection (Marx 1). Applicable test necessitates an agreement where facts are provided to prove that the appraisal presented within the internal jurisdiction of the country of origin is available and if the claimant can be relocated to live there safely at present and in the near future (Marx 1). In order to gain the benefit of the internal flight alternative, there are steps and procedures that must be followed. A test or examination will be done on a case-to-case basis where the basic human rights of the claimant are supposedly the primary objective in granting a refugee status. Currently, there is no common approach for various decision-makers to determine a claimant’s refugee status because of differing applications that usually arises within and across territorial jurisdictions (The UN Refugee Agency 1). The theory of the internal flight or relocation alternative is not an autonomous standard of the refugee law. Neither is it a test for determining refugee status. The Article 1A (2) of the 1951 Convention defines a convention refugee as one who meets the standards stated within the Convention. Such criteria must be understood in the context of: liberal and humanitarian spirit that is in agreement with its common meaning and in light of the goals of the 1951 Convention (The UN Refugee Agency 1). There are actually many ideas of internal flight or relocation alternative. All of which do not in any way contradict each other because the main definition is a holistic test of interconnected fundamentals. The interrelation and significance of said elements are aptly determined based on the individual facts of each case. Moreover, international law does not require persecuted or threatened individuals to exhaust all their options within their own countries of origin before seeking out asylum. Hence, asylum must not be the last resort if a person feels threatened by the state or any individual or organization aside from the state. The IFA concept must not be utilize in any way to “deny access to any refugee status determination procedures. All personal circumstances of individual nature and the conditions of the country or territory being proposed for relocation should be given due consideration (The UN Refugee Agency 2). In the 1951 Convention, the process of holistic assessment for the internal flight alternative does not mean that the fear of persecution or threat extends to the entire territory of the claimant’s country of origin (The UN Refugee Agency 3). It then pertains to the fact that the relocation alternative is considered within a specific part or location only of the claimant’s country where the person being persecuted is expected to be able to establish himself or herself; and live normally without being hounded by fear. As such the intended relocation site should be identified, likewise giving the claimant adequate time to reply (The UN Refugee Agency 3). The holistic assessment is made up of two analyses: 1) the relevance analysis and the 2) reasonable analysis. The relevance analysis mainly consists of questions pertaining to the relocation area and the identity of the persecutor; whereas the reasonable analysis for the most part considers the ability of the claimant to lead a normal life in the area of proposed relocation (The UN Refugee Agency 3). Relatively the internal flight alternative (IFA) has procedural issues that must be taken into account, which generally deals with the terms of: a) burden of proof, b) accelerated or admissibility procedure, and c) country of origin information (The UN Refugee Agency 7-8). To simplify, the burden of proof states that it normally lies on the shoulder of the claimant to produce relevant references and evidences regarding his or her cause. On the other hand, the accelerated or admissibility procedures entail that the process of internal flight alternative cannot be hastened since the procedure necessitates careful and meticulous examination in nature. As for the country of origin information – it incorporates assessment on the individual’s personal circumstances and facts about his or her country of origin. Current information and research about the country is done extensively since it is considered necessary for the examination or test process. The value of such information in some instances may be limited, attributable to the reality that there may be sudden changes in the safety of the relocation area; which was once thought to be safe previously. Thus, any sudden change may not have been included at the time the claim is being reviewed and in process (The UN Refugee Agency 8). Taking all the information discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the case of a Polish citizen who is now in Adelaide cannot seek refugee status in Australia. While it is true that she should not exhaust all her options before seeking asylum elsewhere, there are many facts that must be primarily established in this case. On the onset, she must be made to understand the definition of a refugee which is explained under Article 1(2) of the 1951 Convention that is stated as follows: “every person who, owing to external aggression, occupation, foreign domination or events seriously disturbing public order in either part or the whole of his country of origin or nationality, is compelled to leave his place of habitual residence in order to seek refuge in another place outside his country of origin or nationality” (The UN Refugee Agency 2). First and foremost, the internal flight or relocation alternative of the 1951 Convention does not imply that the “fear of being persecuted need always extend to the whole territory of the refugee’s country of origin” (The UN Refugee Agency 3) meaning that the idea of the IFA pertains to a specific location within the Polish citizen’s own country where the fear of persecution cannot be extended or implemented. However, if the agent of persecution is the state of Poland, it goes true that the governing authorities can act throughout the country and effect the persecution wherever she may be in the country of origin. It must be considered that the terms of going into an internal flight alternative should be awarded on the basis that the claimant can live a normal life within the proposed relocation area. Therefore, if she will be unable to establish herself and lead a normal life in the likes of having her own job and living like any ordinary citizen without any fear, then such an area cannot be considered as a relocation sight for her. Secondly, if the agent of persecution is not the state, the main investigation must include facts about why such persecution is on the move. This will call for examining the motive behind the persecution, the capability of the persecutor to track down the claimant in the area of relocation and the available net of security that is within the relocated area. The inquest will likewise go deeper in probing whether the State is able to provide adequate protection and whether it is willing to provide the needed security to safeguard the claimant from harm (The UN Refugee Agency 4). If the state (Poland) is unwilling or cannot provide the needed protection, it can be deduced that the State can no longer exercise its authority within parts of the country and that it cannot extend protection within other locations of its jurisdiction as well which will force the claimant to seek asylum outside her country of origin (The UN Refugee Agency 4).. Third, considering the aspect that she cannot live in Poland she has the right to seek refuge in another country that will accommodate her refugee status. Seeking asylum outside the country of origin makes the Polish citizen an “internally displace person” because in terms of international humanitarian rights, she has the right to “seek and enjoy asylum in other countries without prejudice” (The UN Refugee Agency 7). Although she has the right to seek refugee status in Australia, the proposed area of her current relocation as per reasonable analysis may require her to present why Australia is more suitable to her living conditions than other European countries that are part of the European Union or EU. To even things out the relevance analysis of her situation on why she should not be granted asylum in Australia must be done. As an asylum-seeker she must be able to state with due reasons why Great Britain or Ireland is not a practical, legal and safely accessible relocation place. Also she must also be able to prove who is the agent of persecution, is it the State of Poland or is it a non-State agent? After being able to pinpoint the agent of persecution, related facts must be established on whether it is possible that said persecution agent can reach her in Great Britain and not in Australia, thereby exposing her to risk and harm (The UN Refugee Agency 3). As part of the procedural issues of the 1951 Convention, the Polish citizen must likewise undergo the rules of procedural fairness aside from the reasonable and relevance analyses; which requires that she is given due notice of her claim stating that an investigation is under process. Within this course of action, she will be permitted to give counter arguments as to why the proposed location (Great Britain or Ireland) “is not relevant in the case” and if it is relevant, “that the proposed area would be unreasonable” (The UN Refugee Agency 8). All in all, the concept of internal flight alternative necessitates full consideration of all aspects surrounding the case of an individual. It is a process that requires full examination on why a proposed relocation site can and cannot be recommended based on its suitableness on the asylum-seeker’s circumstance. References Marx, Reinhard. 2002. The Criteria of Applying the “Internal Flight Alternative” Test in National Refugee Status Determination Procedures. 26 June 2009. The UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR). 2003. Guidelines on International Protection: “Internal Flight or Relocation Alternative” within the Context of Article 1A (2) of the 1951 Convention and/or 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. 23 June 2009. Read More