1 Centraal voor de Statistiek, Bureau, www.cbs.nl/nl-NL/menu/themas/veiligheidrecht/pubIicaties/artikelen/archief/2010/2010-3045-wm.htm.Google Scholar

2 The reference is to the IND, the Immigratie en Naturalisatie Dienst. The number of quota refugees – 2,000 in a four-year period, see para. 8 infra – does not include ad hoc admissions such as the resettlement of 3,000 refugees from the former Yugoslavia in 1992, and 4,000 Kosovar refugees in 1999 (they are not referred to as ‘quota’ but as ‘invited’ refugees), and much earlier Vietnamese boat refugees (1,118 in 1979, 930 in 1980, 831 in 1981, and 359 in 1982, Letter of the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Chairman of the Second Chamber of Parliament, 3 December 1984, TK 1984-1985 18389 no. 13 at 5). (Refugees from the former Yugoslavia and Kosovo were given temporary protection rather than asylum or the residence permit that is given to quota refugees.)Google Scholar

3 Letter of the State Secretary of Justice to the Chairman of the Second Chamber of Parliament regarding the policy framework invited refugees 2008-2011, 28 January 2008; see also the answers of the Minister of Justice to questions posed in Parliament, Answers to Parliamentary Questions to MP Fritsma regarding the selection of refugees by UNHCR, 6 January 2010 (answer 3); M. Guiaux, A.H. Uiters, H. Wubs, E.M. Th. Beenakkers, Uitgenodigde vluchtelingen, Beleid en de maatschappelijke positie in nationaal en internationaal perspectief, WODC, 2008 (hereafter: WODC, 2008) at 11. The number of 500 is considered to be too low by Vluchtelingen Werk Nederland, a Dutch NGO, which speaks of ‘symbolic burden sharing', “EU-plan opvang uitgenodigde vluchtelingen: goed initiatief!”, 2 September 2009 (www.vluchtelingenwerk.nl/actueel/eu-plan-opvang-uitgenodigde-vluchtelingen-goed-initiatief.php). More in general, the European contribution to burden sharing by means of resettlement is rather modest: only 9% in 2007, and 6.7% in 2008 of the global total of resettled refugees (about 90% of all resettled refugees are accepted by the United States, Canada, and Australia); this percentage rose to 13% in 2009 albeit not structurally: the increment was due to one-time contributions by France and Germany for Iraqi refugees, see inter alia, UN doc. EC/61/SC/CRP.11 para. 8. The European share is expected to increase by virtue of an EU resettlement scheme, see Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the Establishment of a Joint EU Resettlement Programme, COM(2009) 447 final, 2 September 2009; see also the Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending decision no. 573/2007/EC establishing the European Refugee Fund for the period 2008 to 2013 as part of the General programme ‘Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows’ and repealing Council Decision 2004/904/EC, COM(2009) 456, a decision that results in additional financial support for the resettlement of those categories of persons which are annually identified as common EU resettlement priorities (amounting to 4000 euro per effectively resettled person).Google Scholar

4 See para. 4 infra. Although the 1951 Convention was supplemented by a Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees in 1967, the substantive structure of the regime remained the same. The function of the Protocol is the removal of the temporal limitation in the definition of refugee comprised in the 1951 Convention and, along with it, abolishing the possibility of attaching a geographical limitation to the temporal one. See Art. I para. 2 as well as para. 2 on the possibility to maintain existing geographical limitations made on the basis of Art. 1B (1) sub (b) of the 1951 Convention. Turkey still maintains this geographical limitation as a result of which its obligations under the 1951 Convention do not extend to non-European refugees, on this See Zieck, M.Y.A., “UNHCR and Turkey, and Beyond: of Parallel Tracks and Symptomatic Cracks”, 22 International Journal of Refugee Law 2010, 593–622.Google Scholar

5 Throughout reference will be made to ‘burden sharing’ as the designation that is generally used despite the fact that it is not a very sympathetic one.Google Scholar

6 Art. 1, Statute of UNHCR (Annex to UN doc. A/Res/428(V)).Google Scholar

7 An alternative form of burden sharing besides resettlement as a means to physically relieve unduly heavy burdened states is targeting development assistance to those states but it is a moot point whether this kind of assistance actually qualifies as responsibility sharing. An example of this form of burden sharing are the Regional Protection Programmes of the EU, see inter alia, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on Regional Protection Programmes, COM (2005) 388 final. Resettlement, which is about moving recognized refugees to another country, should be distinguished from allocation procedures regarding the processing of asylum claims, cf. Council Regulation (EC) no. 343/2003 of 18 Feb. 2003 ('Dublin II Regulation') establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national. Such allocation procedures require states that observe their obligations in the field of international and human rights law, see the Judgement of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece (Application no. 30696/09) of 21 January 2011 in which the Court judged that removing an Afghan refugee from Belgium to Greece under the Dublin II Regulation violates Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.Google Scholar

8 UNHCR, “Frequently Asked Questions about Resettlement”, April 2011 at 1; see also the following conclusions of UNHCR's Executive Committee: no. 22 (1981) sub IV (1), (3); no. 67 (1991); no. 79 (1996) sub (s); no. 85 (2001) sub (jj); no. 90 (2001) sub (k); no. 99 (2004) sub (x), and UNHCR's Agenda for Protection (UN doc. (UN doc. A/AC.96/965/Add.1)) Goal 3 sub (1) (Better responsibility sharing to shoulder the burden of first asylum countries) and sub (6) (Resettlement as a burden sharing tool).Google Scholar

9 “no country is legally obliged to resettle refugees”, UNHCR Resettlement Handbook. November 2004, Ch. 1 at 3: UNHCR, “Frequently Asked Questions about Resettlement”, April 2011 at 1.Google Scholar

10 UNHCR Resettlement Handbook, Ch. 4, November 2004 at 4. For the applicable criteria, see n. 48 infra.Google Scholar

11 Nagy, B., “Article 30”, in A. Zimmermann (ed.), Commentary on the 1951 Convention relating on the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, 2011, 1227-1241: “If resettlement is seen as a durable solution which in essence ends the refugee status and leads to another entitlement to remain on the territory of the resettlement State (immigration, eventually naturalization) …” (at 1231); but see para. 8 infra.Google Scholar

12 See Zieck, M.Y.A., UNHCR and Voluntary Repatriation of Refugees, A Legal Analysis, 1997 at 41, et seq.Google Scholar

13 UN doc. A/Res/8(I).Google Scholar

14 On the IRO, See Holborn, L.W., The International Refugee Organization, A Specialized Agency of the United Nations, Its History and Work, 1946-1952, 1956.Google Scholar

15 See ibid. Ch. 20 (“Resettlement”). After more than half a century, tangible traces of the IRO ‘mass resettlement’ can still be found on the internet, see e.g. the Application for Permit to Enter Australia of Albanian Mr Assim Ethemi under the care of IRO Beirut, www.vroom.naa.gov.au/print/?ID= 18875 < accessed on 8 January 2011 gt and the story of the Polish Taler family at www.josephtaler.com/the_immigrants.html (which includes a copy of a decision of the IRO special qualifications (medical) screening board) lt accessed on 8 January 2011 gt.Google Scholar

16 Vernant explains the impossibility of the “assimilation of the whole of the refugees in the countries where they are now living” by citing economic, social and Political problems, the latter due to discontent and agitation among the refugees, J. Vernant, The Refugee in the Post-War Period, Preliminary Report of a Survey of the Refugee Problem, 1951 at 21.Google Scholar

17 Preceding the war, President Roosevelt had observed that resettling millions of People was a “duty because of the pressure of need” which simultaneously offered an opportunity for taking part in the building of new communities for those who needed them: “Out of the dregs of the present disaster, we can distil some real achievements in human progress”, quoted in Holborn, 1956, op. cit. n. 14 supra at 366.Google Scholar

18 See Holborn. 1956 op. cit. n. 14 supra at 376; see also ibid. Appendix II for a few of the agreements that were concluded between the IRO and resettlement states. Remarkable are the provisions pertaining to conditions of expulsion and return to the zone of origin, cf. Article 10 of the Agreement concluded with France (Home Territory) and Algeria concerning the selection of refugees and displaced persons of 13 January 1948 (PC/LEG/9) at 613 et seq.: “Any refugee admitted into France under this Agreement, who proves to be unsuited to the French economy, may be sent back to the zone from which he came […]”; likewise Art. 9 of the Agreement concluded with Luxemburg concerning the selection of refugees and displaced persons of 9 March 1949 (IRO/LEG/GOV/11) at 638. et seq. Expulsion from the resettlement country was. however, rare. ibid. at 325.Google Scholar

19 Vernant, 1951, op. cit. n. 16 supra at 36.Google Scholar

20 IRO, The Facts About Refugees, 1948 at 17; see also Holborn, 1956, op. cit. n. 14 supra, Ch. 23 (“The Hard Core”).Google Scholar

21 UN docs. E/AC.7/SR.160 (18 August 1950) (Rochefort, France) at 26; E/AC.7/SR.166 at 13.Google Scholar

22 UN doc. E/L.81 (29 July 1950) (Rochefort, France). The representative of Mexico (De Alba) observed that the proposal had the merit of seeking to awaken a feeling of collective responsibility, UN doc. E/AC.7/SR. 166 (22 August 1950) at 13.Google Scholar

23 UN doc. E/AC.7/SR. 160 at 26.Google Scholar

24 UN docs. E/AC.7/SR/166 at 17 (Rochefort, France); A/CONF.2/SR.31 (Rochefort, France) at 29.Google Scholar

25 UN doc. E/AC.7/SR.166 at 22 (France); ECOSOC, 11^th session, 406^th meeting, para. 60 (France). It required quite some effort on the part of France to have this particular provision included in the Preamble: the proposal - in amended form, see UN doc. E/AC.7/L.71 - was rejected (UN doc. E/AC.7/SR. 167 at 9), subsequently France proposed to insert it again (UN doc. E/L.94) and it was adopted (ECOSOC, 11^th session, 406^th meeting, para. 113). At the Conference of Plenipotentiaries, the United Kingdom submitted an alternatively worded Preamble that did not contain this provision (UN doc. A/CONF.2/99), but at the request of France, it was reinserted once again, see UN doc. A/CONF.2/SR.31 (29 November 1951) at 24 et seq., and adopted, UN doc. A/CONF.2/SR.33 (30 November 1951) at 10.Google Scholar

26 UN doc. E/AC.7/SR.166 at 19 (Meagher, Canada); likewise the representatives of the United States (Henkin) and Belgium (Delhaye), see UN doc. E/AC.7/SR.167 at 9.Google Scholar

27 Worth adding is the proposal of the representative of Belgium to insert the pertinent provision in the operative part of the Convention (UN doc. E/AC.7/SR.166 at 16-17). a proposal that was not considered, most likely on account of the fact that it was never submitted in the form of a formal proposal, cf. UN doc. E/AC.7/SR.167 at 8.Google Scholar

28 On Article 35, See Zieck, M.Y.A., “Article 35 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and Article II of the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees”, in Zimmermann, 2011, op. cit. n. 11 supra, 1459-1510.Google Scholar

29 Recommendation D.Google Scholar

30 UN doc. A/CONF.2/103 (24 July 1951) (The Holy See: Draft recommendations for inclusion in the Final Act of the Conference).Google Scholar

31 UN doc. A/CONF.2/SR.34 (30 November 1951) (Msgr. Comte, The Holy See) at 4.Google Scholar

32 Ibid. (Von Trutzschler, Federal Republic of Germany) at 6.Google Scholar

33 Ibid. (Warren, United States) at 6.Google Scholar

34 Ibid. (Hoare, United Kingdom) at 7.Google Scholar

35 Text quoted above.Google Scholar

36 Recommendation D. UN doc. A/CONF.2/SR.35 (3 December 1951) at 42.Google Scholar

37 See the preambles to respectively the 1951 Convention and the Charter of the United Nations.Google Scholar

38 UN doc. E/AC.32/2 (1950) (Memorandum of the Secretary-General) at 6-7.Google Scholar

39 Hathaway, J.C., The Rights of Refugees Under International Law, 2005 at 157.Google Scholar

40 That is, early 2009, www.unhcr.org < accessed on 4 January 2011 >. (A figure that does not include the millions of Palestinian refugees under the care of UNRWA.).+(A+figure+that+does+not+include+the+millions+of+Palestinian+refugees+under+the+care+of+UNRWA.)>Google Scholar

41 In particular when it is coupled to ‘first country of asylum’ objections on the part of third states, i.e. rejecting asylum claims on the basis of the fact that protection was and is available in the first state, cf. UNHCR, Refugee Protection and Mixed-Migration: The 10-Point Plan in Action: Ch. 8 Addressing secondary movements Reference 3 - UNHCR, Secondary Refugee Movements and the Return of Asylum Seekers to Third Countries: The Meaning of Effective Protection, Feb. 2003, PPLAS/2003/01 at 18-25, and other entry barring practices.Google Scholar

42 Regardless of the fact that the opposite view had been ‘placed on record’ when the Convention was drafted: “In order to dispel any possible ambiguity and to reassure his Government, he wished to have it placed on record that the Conference was in agreement with the interpretation that the possibility of mass migrations across frontiers or of attempted mass migrations was not covered by article 33”, UN doc. A/CONF.2/SR.35 (30 November 1951) (Van Boetzelaer, The Netherlands) at 21. In the absence of objections, this interpretation was accordingly placed on record, ibid.Google Scholar

43 Cf. the following conclusions of UNHCR's Executive Committee: no. 81 (1995) sub (j); no. 1999) 87 sub (b); no. 90 (2001) sub (d); no. 93 (2002) sub (c); no. 95 (2003) sub (g); no. 99 (2004) sub (e); no. 100 (2004); no. 102 (2005) sub (k); no. 104 (2005). The figures pertain to the period 1997-2001 but may nonetheless serve to illustrate the point made; in that period, developing countries hosted two thirds of all persons of concern to UNHCR: of these, the least developed countries hosted 35% which means that those states shouldered the biggest burden in terms of GDP, UNHCR. Selected Indicators Measuring Capacity and Contributions of Host Countries. April 2002. In 2009, ten developing countries were responsible for hosting almost half of the world's refugees, UNHCR Statistical Yearbook 2009, 2010 at 23.Google Scholar

44 ‘Protracted refugee situations’ have been defined as those situations that consist of a refugee population of 25,000 persons or more who have been in exile for five years or more in developing countries, FORUM/2004/7 para. 12. Cf. Executive Committee conclusion no. 100 (2004) sub (b), (k), (l).Google Scholar

45 The term ‘planned redistribution’ is of John Hope Simpson, see his The Refugee Problem, Report of a Survey, 1939 at 530. A more recent, but less specific designation is that of ‘sharing people', See Zieck, M.Y.A., “Doomed to Fail from the Outset? UNHCR's ‘Convention Plus Initiative’ Revisited”, 21 International Journal of Refugee Law 2009, 387-420 at 404 for references.Google Scholar

46 The qualification ‘permanent’ has since 1979 given way to that of ‘durable', see UN doc. A/Res/34/60.Google Scholar

47 Art. 1, Statute.Google Scholar

48 UNHCR, “Frequently Asked Questions about Resettlement”, April 2011 at 1 and 3 respectively. In the previous version of UNHCR's “Frequently Asked Questions about Resettlement”, dating of 28 September 2009, resettlement was defined as “the transfer of refugees […] from the country in which they have sought refuge to another state that has agreed to admit them as refugees and/or to grant permanent settlement there” at 1. Specific categories of refugees at risk include women and girls, victims of sexual and gender-based violence, elderly refugees, minors, survivors of torture and violence, groups who are denied refugee status due to the fact that the country of refuge is not a party to the 1951 Convention and/or 1967 Protocol or maintains the geographical limitation as a result of which non-European refugees are not eligible for refugee status (cf. n. 4 supra), UNHCR Resettlement Handbook, Ch. 4. November 2004; UNHCR, “Frequently Asked Questions About Resettlement”, April 2011 at 4; and the following conclusions of UNHCR's Executive Committee: no. 54 (1988); no. 60 (1989) sub (c); no. 64 (1990) sub (a); no. 85 (1998) sub (jj); no. 99 (2004) sub (r); no. 105 (2006) sub (n), (p); no. 107 (2007) sub (h); no. 108 (2008) sub (o). Illustrative for the last-mentioned category is Turkey; see Zieck, 2010, loc. cit. n. 4 supra. UNHCR estimates to need 16,930 resettlement places for refugees in Turkey as one of the priority situations in which the strategic use of resettlement can enhance protection, UNHCR Projected Global Needs 2011, June 2010 at 33, 35 (on the strategic use of resettlement, see infra).Google Scholar

49 Cf. Executive Committee Conclusion no. 90 (2001) sub (j); the Declaration of the Declaration of States Parties to the 1951 Convention and/or its 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, UN doc. HCR/MMSP/2001/09, 2001, 13^th operative paragraph; and, more in general, Zieck, 1997, op. cit. n. 12 supra at 3-4, 81-82; M.Y.A. Zieck, “Voluntary Repatriation: Paradigm, Pitfalls, Progress”, 23 Refugee Survey Quarterly 2004, 33–54.Google Scholar

50 Cf. Executive Committee Conclusion no. 67 (1991) sub (g). Hathaway speaks of “the residual role now officially attributed to resettlement”, Hathaway, 2005, op. cit. n. 39 supra at 976.Google Scholar

51 Those who “unreasonably refused” to accept the proposals of the IRO for their resettlement would cease to be the concern of the IRO, see sections D sub (d), Annex I to the IRO Constitution. Declining a resettlement proposal does not figure among the cessation clauses contained in the Statute of UNHCR. Refusal may nonetheless result in no further processing for resettlement or a deferment of the case, UNHCR Resettlement Handbook, November 2004, Ch. 6 at 40.Google Scholar

52 “Particular effort should be made to avoid the perception on the part of the refugee that a choice exists in terms of prospective resettlement countries (the ‘travel agency’ syndrome)”, ibid. at 39, but see FORUM/CG/RES/05 at 5: wishes as to which country refugees prefer to be resettled to should as far as possible be taken into consideration, a recommendation that was not included in the multilateral framework of understandings on resettlement (FORUM/2004/6), a (non-binding) framework that resulted from the ‘Convention Plus’ initiative of the High Commissioner; on this initiative, see Zieck, 2009, loc, cit. n. 45 supra.Google Scholar

53 The number of resettlement places which are offered annually varies: 29,560 in 2006, 49,868 in 2007, 65,874 in 2008, 84,657 in 2009, and 72,942 in 2010, UNHCR, “Frequently Asked Questions about Resettlement”, April 2011 at 5. UNHCR estimates the number of required resettlement places for 2011 to amount to 805,000, UNHCR, “Frequently Asked Questions about Resettlement”, 28 September 2009 at 5; UNHCR News Stories, “UNHCR highlights shortage of resettlement places”, 5 July 2010. UNHCR estimates that the gap between resettlement needs and available Places will result in a shortage of 40,000 places in 2011, UNHCR Projected Global Resettlement Needs 2011, June 2010 at 1 (the figures are confusing; the figure of about 800,000 includes populations whose resettlement is envisioned over a period of several years, ibid. at 4). The shortage of 40.000 places in 2011 matches the estimate of unmet needs caused by insufficient capacity for resettlement on the part of UNHCR, ibid. at 5.Google Scholar

54 See n. 9 supra.Google Scholar

55 UNHCR indicates that (the strategic use of) resettlement – on which, see infra - is not an exclusive responsibility of UNHCR but a shared responsibility between resettlement states, countries of asylum and UNHCR, UNHCR Position Paper on the Strategic Use of Resettlement, Annual Tripartite Consultations on Resettlement, 6-8 July 2010 at 6.Google Scholar

56 Numbers declined in the wake of the large-scale resettlement of over 1.2 million Indo-Chinese refugees between 1976 and 1989, and another 49,000 on the basis of the Comprehensive Plan of Action to solve the Indo-Chinese refugee problem, See Troeller, G., “UNHCR Resettlement: Evolution and Future Direction”, 14 International Journal of Refugee Law 2002, 85-95 at 88-89: UN doc. EC/GC/02/7 para. 1; UNHCR Resettlement Handbook, November 2004, Ch. 1 at 13.Google Scholar

57 UN doc. EC/53/SC/CRP.10/Add.1 (2003), para. 6; UNHCR Position Paper on the Strategic Use of Resettlement, Annual Tripartite Consultations on Resettlement, 6-8 July 2010. It can hardly mean that the use of resettlement in the past merely benefited those whose who were resettled.Google Scholar

58 For an enumeration of benefits, see UNHCR Position Paper on the Strategic Use of Resettlement. Annual Tripartite Consultations on Resettlement, 6-8 July 2010 at 4-5.Google Scholar

59 Statement of E. Feller at the 58^th session of UNHCR's Executive Committee, 3 October 2007 available at www.unhcr.org/admin/ADMIN/4704d4t32.pdf; CCME Conference, “Towards the Common EU Resettlement Scheme – the Road Ahead”, Remarks by Erika Feller, Assistant High Commissioner – Protection, 25-28 August 2009 at 5; UNHCR Position Paper on the Strategic Use of Resettlement, Annual Tripartite Consultations on Resettlement, 6-8 July 2010 at 2.Google Scholar

60 UNHCR, “Frequently Asked Questions about Resettlement”, April 2011 at 8; UNHCR, Information Note and Recommendations, Emergency Resettlement and the Use of Temporary Evacuation Transit Facilities, Annual Tripartite Consultations on Resettlement, 6-8 July 2010 at 1.Google Scholar

61 UN doc. EC/59/SC/CRP.15 para. 8 (not infrequently more than 2 years).Google Scholar

62 See for the specific eligibility criteria, UNHCR Resettlement Handbook, Ch. 4, November 2004 at 10.Google Scholar

63 Cf. Executive Committee conclusion no. 47 (1987) sub (1).Google Scholar

64 Cf. for instance the acceptance rate of the Netherlands: 35% in 2005 and 18% in 2006, Information Note: An Overview of medical resettlement needs, and the use of the ‘Ten or More’ and “Twenty or More’ (TOM) programmes, Annual Tripartite Consultations on Resettlement, 28-30 June 2007.Google Scholar

65 Ibid.Google Scholar

66 UNHCR, Information Note and Recommendations, Emergency Resettlement and the Use of Temporary Evacuation Transit Facilities, Annual Tripartite Consultations on Resettlement, 6-8 July 2010 at 1.Google Scholar

67 Ibid. at 2; UNHCR Projected Global Resettlement Needs 2011, June 2010 at 10-11.Google Scholar

68 UNHCR, Information Note and Recommendations, Emergency Resettlement and the Use of Temporary Evacuation Transit Facilities, Annual Tripartite Consultations on Resettlement, 6-8 July 2010 at 2-3; see also UNHCR, Temporary Evacuation Transit Facilities for Onward Resettlement, Annual Tripartite Consultations on Resettlement, 28-30 June 2007.Google Scholar

69 UNHCR, Information Note and Recommendations, Emergency Resettlement and the Use of Temporary Evacuation Transit Facilities, Annual Tripartite Consultations on Resettlement, 6-8 July 2010 at 4.Google Scholar

70 Ibid. In addition, Burkina Faso provided an evacuation facility on an ad hoc basis, ibid. The ECTs are established on the basis of agreements, see e.g. the Agreement between the Government of Romania and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Organization for Migration Regarding Temporary Evacuation to Romania of Persons in Urgent Need of International Protection and their Onward Resettlement, 8 May 2008 (effective as of 21 November 2008; the centre opened three days later): a lengthy agreement which nonetheless does not contain provisions on the legal status (and entitlements) of the transit refugees: they are required to reside in the ECT, travel within Romania is subject to prior approval by the Romanian authorities, and their rights and obligations are established by Romanian law (Art. 2 para. 2): in view of the fact that Romania is a party to the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol, and the agreement explicitly indicates that it does not prejudice in any way the obligations Romania incurred under the said instruments, it would seem that refugees in the ECT are entitled to the rights prescribed in the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol.Google Scholar

71 UNHCR, Information Note and Recommendations, Emergency Resettlement and the Use of Temporary Evacuation Transit Facilities, Annual Tripartite Consultations on Resettlement, 6-8 July 2010 at 5.Google Scholar

72 Ibid. at 5-6. ‘Dossier places’ are places that are offered merely on the basis of files submitted by UNHCR rather than interviews conducted by the prospective resettlement state. In the TOM programmes, refugees are accepted on a dossier basis, but see the explicit preference of the Netherlands to select medical cases during missions, Letter of the State Secretary of Justice to the Chairman of the Second Chamber of Parliament regarding the policy framework invited refugees 2008-2011, 28 January 2008 at 2.Google Scholar

73 UNHCR, Information Note and Recommendations. Emergency Resettlement and the Use of Temporary Evacuation Transit Facilities, Annual Tripartite Consultations on Resettlement. 6-8 July 2010 at 5.Google Scholar

74 Ibid.Google Scholar

75 UNHCR Projected Global Resettlement Needs 2011, June 2010 at 1. Those 24 states are the following: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Paraguay, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, Uruguay, United States.Google Scholar

76 WODC, 2008, loc. cit. n. 3 supra at 187.Google Scholar

77 Letter of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, 3 December 1984, TK 1984-1985 18389 no. 13 at 6.Google Scholar

78 WODC, 2008, loc. cit. n. 3 supra at 13. Actual numbers (of UNHCR resettlement departures to The Netherlands) are: 479 in 2005, 327 in 2006, 425 in 2007, 580 in 2008, and 347 in 2009, UNHCR Projected Global Resettlement Needs 2011, June 2010 at 55.Google Scholar

79 Letter of the State Secretary of Justice to the Chairman of the Second Chamber of Parliament regarding the policy framework invited refugees 2008-2011, 28 January 2008; the quota has not always been used fully in the past – e.g. 438 refugees instead of 1500 in the period 1999-2001, 155 in 2002, 189 in 2003 - owing to low acceptance rates of UNHCR submissions caused by insufficient and inaccurate dossiers prepared by UNHCR, the abolishment of resettlement missions in the years 1999-2005, and failure to meeting the applicable eligibility criteria, ibid. at 3; see also WODC, 2008, op.cit. n. 3 supra at 47; Report of a written consultation, TK 2006-2007 19637 no. 1126 at 9 where the discrepancy is explained by the fact that the Netherlands judges the situation in the country of origin (not: refuge) on the basis of assessments of its Ministry of Foreign Affairs rather than proceeds from UNHCR's judgement. Since 1 January 2005, the practice of selection by means of resettlement missions has been resumed, UNHCR Resettlement Handbook, Country Chapters, The Netherlands, September 2009 at 2.Google Scholar

80 The limitation to known family members applies since 2008 following fraudulent family reunification cases; family members who are not known in advance can apply for family reunification outside the resettlement framework and the regular family reunification criteria will apply to them such as satisfying income criteria, ibid. at 7.Google Scholar

81 Cf. Executive Committee Conclusion no. 90 (2001) sub (k).Google Scholar

82 Letter of the Minister of Justice to the Chairman of the Second Chamber of Parliament regarding the use of the quota invited refugees 2008, 4 August 2009. The remaining places are used to grant resettlement places to individual cases proposed by UNHCR which are processed on a dossier basis.Google Scholar

83 UNHCR, 2008 Global Trends: Refugees, Asylum-Seekers, Returnees, Internally Displaced Persons and Stateless Persons, 16 June 2009 at 8. By comparison, Pakistan hosts 9.6 refugees per every 1000 inhabitants and Australia 1.1 refugee per 1000 inhabitants. J. Tobin, “Australia tops miser ranking on refugees”, 6 August 2010.Google Scholar

84 Letter of the State Secretary of Justice to the Chairman of the Second Chamber Parliament giving account of the 2006 resettlement policy, 28 June 2007.Google Scholar

85 Ibid.Google Scholar

86 UNHCR, 2008 Global Trends: Refugees, Asylum-Seekers, Returnees, Internally Displaced Persons and Stateless Persons, 16 June 2009 at 10. By comparison, Australia has 0.6 refugees per GDP per capita. Tobin, 2010, loc. cit. n. 83 supra.Google Scholar

87 Cf. Executive Committee Conclusions no. 90 (2001) sub (k); no. 99 (2004) sub (x).Google Scholar

88 See n. 44 and accompanying text supra. By way of illustration, in 2004, 64% of the global total number of refugees lived in protracted refugee situations; the average duration of refugee situations was 17 years in 2003, UNHCR, Towards solutions for protracted refugee situations: The role of resettlement, Annual Tripartite Consultations on Resettlement, 29 June 2007.Google Scholar

89 UNHCR, Protracted Refugee Situations, High Commissioner's Initiative, December 2008.Google Scholar

90 UNHCR, “Frequently Asked Questions about Resettlement”, 28 September 2009 at 4.Google Scholar

91 Cf. Letter of the State Secretary of Justice to the Chairman of the Second Chamber of Parliament regarding the policy framework invited refugees 2008-2011, 28 January 2008 at 2, 5. In the past this was different: the focus was on alleviating needs in certain regions as a contribution to the efforts of the international community while for individuals in emergency situations, i.e. those running the risk of refoulement, ten places were reserved, Letter of the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Chairman of the Second Chamber of Parliament, 3 December 1984, TK 1984-1985 18389 no. 13 at 6-7.Google Scholar

92 Cf. Nieuwsbericht Rijksoverheid [National news release], Photographs of State Secretary Albayrak during a working visit in Syria, Jordan and Iraq, 27 April - 1 May 2009, 2 June 2009 available at Foto's: Staatssecretaris Albayrak op werkbezoek in Syrie, Jordanie en IrakSyrië. Jordanië en Irak - 27 april - 1 mei 2009 (visit to a refugee camp in the border area between Syria and Iraq with a view to resettling 80 Iraqi refugees).Google Scholar

93 The Netherlands criteria for resettlement are based on Art. 29 of the Aliens Act 2000 and include eligibility on the basis of the 1951 Convention, Art. 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, humanitarian reasons (e.g. persons suffering from traumatic experiences, women at risk, and medical emergency cases, and (extended) family reunion). For additional criteria, see infra.Google Scholar

94 Cf. FORUM/CG/RES/04 at 7 (“the present trend of categorizing refugees into first class refugees’ and others, which turns into a fight between various resettlement countries in getting the most ‘attractive refugees'”).Google Scholar

95 UNHCR Resettlement Handbook, Country Chapters, The Netherlands, September 2009 at 4.Google Scholar

96 Letter of the Minister for Aliens Affairs and Integration, TK 2005-2006 19637 no. 1071 at 2. When this criterion was explicitly formulated in 2005, it was to be applied only to those who are admitted on the basis of humanitarian grounds (see n. 93 supra) and it would with respect to refugees apply only when there would be clear “Indications that they would not be able to integrate in Dutch society such as not being Prepared to learn Dutch, not being prepared to accept Dutch values and to integrate into Dutch society, having the intention to cause civil unrest, having militant fundamentalist convictions which can lead to unacceptable behaviour, Letter of the Minister for Aliens Affairs and Integration, TK 2005-2006 19637 no. 1071 at 2-3. In 2008, the Research Institute of the Ministry of Justice (WODC) conducted research into the integration of resettled refugees: degree of participation in the domestic labour market, education and criminality, see WODC, 2008. op. cit. n. 3 supra. See Ibid. on an elaboration of the notion ‘integration potential’ at 54.Google Scholar

97 Letter of the State Secretary of Justice to the Chairman of the Second Chamber of Parliament giving account of the 2006 resettlement policy, 28 June 2007. With respect to ‘medical cases', the leading criterion is whether the requisite treatment is not available in the country of refuge, treatment should, moreover, result in substantive improvement of the medical condition, Letter of the State Secretary of Justice to the Chairman of the Second Chamber of Parliament regarding the policy framework invited refugees 2008-2011, 28 January 2008 at 2, but see the Country Chapter on the Netherlands – the text of which has been submitted by the Netherlands – in UNHCR's Resettlement Handbook that explicitly states that the fact that medical treatment is not accessible in countries of asylum is not an argument for resettlement on medical grounds unless access is denied for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.Google Scholar

98 UNHCR Resettlement Handbook, Country Chapters, The Netherlands, September 2009 at 5 (the persons concerned are “very welcome in the Netherlands”, ibid. at 6).Google Scholar

99 Ibid. at 6.Google Scholar

100 Ibid. at 4. The decision to reject a submission is not subject to appeal, ibid. at 5. The lack of appeal is problematic per se but particularly in the light of the observation made by the leader of a Dutch selection mission to Syria in 2009 that ‘the procedure is one of invitation, and hence the choice is ours, nothing more nor less’ [“Het gaat om een uitnodigingsprocedure, dus de keuze ligt bij ons. Niets meer, niets minder”], quoted in K. Kakebeeke, E. Blankevoort, De Vluchtelingenjackpot, 2011.Google Scholar

101 UN doc. EC/59/SC/CRP.11 para. 21.Google Scholar

102 Ibid. See also UNHCR, European Council on Refugees and Exiles Biannual General Meeting, 30-31 October 2008 at 2 where “ill-defined notions of integration Potential” are stated to put at risk the very foundation upon which UNHCR's global resettlement activities are built. The use of this particular criterion is nonetheless not rejected, states are rather advised to “consider integration issues flexibly” (ibid, at 3); see also infra.Google Scholar

103 UNHCR Progress Report on Resettlement, UNHCR Standing Committee 42^nd session, 23-25 June 2008 at 4 (the qualification of ‘untouchables’ was made by the Assistant High Commissioner - Protection).Google Scholar

104 Cf UN doc. EC/GC/02/7 paras. 15 (on the importance of discouraging resort to the criterion of ‘integration potential'), 19 ('integration potential’ should not play a determining role in the consideration of resettlement applications); UN doc. EC/SCP/65 para. 12 (referring to ‘confusion’ in this respect) and para. 20 Protection should take precedence over immigration criteria”); UN doc. EC/51/SC/INF.2 para. 27 (those who have been identified as in need of resettlement “'should not be denied this possibility because of the perception of what has been called ‘integration potential’”); UN doc. A/AC.96/1038 para. 63 (merely complaining that some states make “excessive use of integration potential in their resettlement assessments”). UNHCR does note that the use of restrictive selection criteria along with length) processing times undermines the strategic use of resettlement, UN doc. EC/59/SC/CRP. 11 para. 15.Google Scholar

105 UNHCR. “Frequently Asked Questions about Resettlement”, April 2011 at 10.Google Scholar

106 See para. 3 supra. See also FORUM/2004/6 (Multilateral Framework of Understandings on Resettlement) para. 41 which too omits to refer to the rights that accrue to refugees by virtue of the 1951 Convention and/or 1967 Protocol; see also The Michigan Guidelines on Protection Elsewhere of 2 January 2007.Google Scholar

107 See quotation in para. 5 supra and accompanying footnote; see also UN doc. EC/57/SC/CRP.15 para. 4; UNHCR's Agenda for Protection (UN doc. A/AC.96/965/Add.1)), Goal 5 sub (5).Google Scholar

108 See para. 8 infra.Google Scholar

109 UNHCR Projected Global Resettlement Needs 2011, June 2010 at 35.Google Scholar

110 Even when UNHCR proposes incorporating acceptance of refugees in national migration programmes, which is just an attempt to secure more resettlement places, see UNHCR Progress Report on Resettlement, UNHCR Standing Committee, 42^nd session, 23-25 June 2008 at 3; UN doc. EC/61/SC/CRP.11 para. 20.Google Scholar

111 UNHCR, “Frequently Asked Questions about Resettlement”, April 2011 at 3.Google Scholar

112 See para. 5 supra.Google Scholar

113 WODC, 2008, op. cit. n. 3 supra at 86.Google Scholar

114 Since an application for asylum can only be lodged in the Netherlands, those who are invited to resettle in the Netherlands have to request asylum upon arrival before they can actually be admitted, but this is considered to be a mere formality, UNHCR Resettlement Handbook, Country Chapters, The Netherlands, September 2009 at 4.Google Scholar

155 Cf. S. da Lamba, “Legal Status and Refugee Integration: a UK Perspective”, 23 Journal of Refugee Studies 2010, 415-436 at 416, 425-426; UNHCR Resettlement Handbook, Country Chapters, United Kingdom, September 2007. ‘Mandate refugees', however, who are exceptionally accepted for resettlement (only if they have close ties with the UK) – they are granted entry clearance rather than being invited - are given refugee status upon arrival in the UK and presumably the same temporary leave to remain as other refugees. On mandate refugees, see UK Home Office, “Mandate Refugees” at www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/ < accessed on 19 January 2011 <; K. Bianchini, “The Mandate Refugee Program: A Critical Discussion”, 22 International Journal of Refugee Law 2010, 367–378.Google Scholar

116 UNHCR Resettlement Handbook, Country Chapters, The Netherlands, September 2009 at 4.Google Scholar

117 See n. 114 and accompanying text supra.Google Scholar

118 Cf. Case Report Judgment of the Netherlands Supreme Court of 13 April 2007, Oxford Report on International Law – ILDC 837 (NL 2007), 27 February 2009.Google Scholar

119 The permit for infinite stay is, however, subject to withdrawal on the basis of a criminal conviction for a crime that is punishable by three or more years of imprisonment, and on the basis of national security, Art. 35 para. 1 sub (b), (d), Aliens Act 2000.Google Scholar

120 Art. 1 C sub (3), 1951 Convention.Google Scholar

121 UNHCR Resettlement Handbook, November 2004, Ch. 3 at 2.Google Scholar

122 See M.Y.A. Zieck. UNHCR's Parallel Universe, Marking the Contours of a Problem, 2010.Google Scholar

123 “many States may only consider refugees determined under the 1951 Convention to be eligible for resettlement in their country”, UNHCR Resettlement Handbook, November 2004, Ch. 3 at 5; see also Troeller, 2002, loc. cit. n. 56 supra at 92-93; UN doc. EC/CG/02/7 paras. 16, 19; see also the call of the Assistant High Commissioner – Protection on states to be flexible on resettlement admissions with respect to refugees in protracted refugee situations where states “may have difficulty articulating a personalised 1951 Convention claim based on current events”, CCME Conference, ‘Towards the Common EU Resettlement Scheme – the Road Ahead', 25-28 August 2009; FORUM/2004/6 (Multilateral Framework of Understandings on Resettlement) para. 17 (recommending the selection of refugees who are of concern to UNHCR).Google Scholar

124 See M.Y.A. Zieck. “The Legal Status of Afghan Refugees in Pakistan. A Story of Eight Agreements and Two Suppressed Premises”, 20 International Journal of Refugee Law 2008, 253–273.Google Scholar

125 UNHCR Projected Global Resettlement Needs 2011, June 2010 at 28.Google Scholar

126 UNHCR slates that “resettlement is not a right of the individual”, UNHCR Resettlement Handbook, November 2004 at IV/2, Ch. 8 at 24. Perhaps it is when resettlement is taken to mean relocation with a view to securing the protection sought by those who are seeking asylum.Google Scholar

127 See n. 139 infra.Google Scholar

128 As at 23 January 2011, 144 states are party to the 1951 Convention, and 145 to the 1967 Protocol, UNTC.Google Scholar

129 The remaining rights, such as exemption from legislative reciprocity and any restrictive measures imposed on the employment of aliens become applicable after a period of three years’ residence. With respect to spontaneous arrivals who will not stay in the country of first asylum but move to a third – resettlement - state, Article 30 of the 1951 Convention - on transfer of assets – is applicable, see also Hathaway, 2005, op. cit. n. 39 supra at 963-964. This provision implies the right to actually leave the country of first asylum, a right that is not always recognized, cf. UN doc. EC/61/CRP.11 para. 11 (“there were a number of deplorable instances where refugees faced refoulement in 2009 even though they had been accepted for resettlement by a third country”), for examples, see Zieck, 2010, loc. cit. n. 4 supra at 599, 613, 617.Google Scholar

130 See para. 8 supra.Google Scholar

131 It may rely and invoke the obligation of states to cooperate with it in the exercise of its functions, Art. 35 paragraph 1, 1951 Convention, Art. II, 1967 Protocol.Google Scholar

132 The 1951 Convention is predicated on international solidarity, or the notion that states should address refugee protection collectively, Statement of the Assistant High Commissioner - Protection at the 59^th session of the Executive Committee at 8. See also the Declaration of the Declaration of States Parties to the 1951 Convention and/or its 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, UN doc. HCR/MMSP/2001/09, 2001, 8^th preamble paragraph, 12^th operative paragraph; UN doc. EC/51/SC/INF.2 para. 7. The collective concern for the problem of refugees that induced the creation of the 1951 Convention and the establishment of UNHCR has not been translated into collective responsibility for states party to the 1951 Convention (and/or 1967 Protocol) for the protection of refugees but merely into several responsibility which does, however, include the cooperation that is required to allow refugees to proceed to their resettlement state, see n. 129 supra.Google Scholar

133 To the extent that resettlement is needed on account of a failure to provide the requisite protection in the first country of asylum, invoking the collective responsibility of states party to the 1951 Convention and/or 1967 Protocol needs to be balanced by the failure of individual states party to live up to their obligations under these instruments.Google Scholar

134 According to UNHCR, the primary purpose of resettlement is the provision of individual protection for those who cannot be provided with adequate protection in the first country of asylum, UNHCR Resettlement Handbook, November 2004, Ch. 1 at 4; likewise FORUM/CG/RES/04 at 9.Google Scholar

135 UNHCR refers in this respect to resettlement in terms of “a future commensurate with fundamental human rights”, UN doc. EC/SCP/65 para. 2.Google Scholar

136 See Agenda for Protection (UN doc. A/AC.96/965/Add.1), Goal 5 sub (6); UN doc. EC/GC/02/7 paras. 5, 19.Google Scholar

137 See G.S. Goodwin-Gil, J. MacAdam, The Refugee in International Law, 2007 at 499; Zieck, 2010. loc. cit. n. 4 supra, on non-European refugees in Turkey whose protection ultimately depends on the possibility of resettlement; and the current plight of sub-Saharan refugees in Libya, see A. Guterres (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees), “Look Who is Coming to Europe”, New York Times, 9 May 2011; a few of those refugees were transferred to the ECT in Romania and will be resettled in the United States and The Netherlands, UNHCR News Stories, “Eritrean refugees arrive in Romanian emergency transit centre from Tunisia”, 20 April 2011.Google Scholar

138 See Ferris, E., “Protracted Refugee Situations, Human Rights and Civil Society”, in G. Loescher, J. Milner, E. Newman, J. Troeller, Protracted Refugee Situations, Political, Human Rights and Security Implications, 2008, 85–107.Google Scholar

139 ‘Fuzzy logic’ transcends the Boolean bivalent logic which is confined to the values true and false by allowing values in between such as very true, quite true, not very true: a multi-valued logic. Fuzzy sets are central to fuzzy logic and the durable solutions, alternatively that of resettlement, can be viewed as a fuzzy set, that is, a class with unsharp boundaries. Obviously the theoretical aspects of fuzzy sets and fuzzy logic are not used here other than the idea of a multi-valued logic that appears to make sense when certain notions - such as resettlement in particular - defy being considered and analysed in abstracto but rather appear to require a relational context which discloses dependencies that, in turn, yield differentiations that appear to be useful. For instance: in Boolean two-valued logic it would not be possible to argue that resettlement is both a permanent solution and that is it not at the same time, it would lead to a falsum (and: ex falsum sequitur quod libet). Fuzzy logic allows to validly stating that resettlement is both a permanent solution and that is not: both parts of the statement may be true to a certain degree. On ‘fuzzy sets', See Zadeh, L.A., “Fuzzy Sets”, 8 Information and Control 1965, 338-353; on ‘fuzzy logic’ See Zadeh, L.A., “Fuzzy Logic and Approximate Reasoning”, 30 synthese 1975, 407-428; see also “Understanding Fuzzy Logic: An Interview with Lotfi Zadeh”, IEE Signal Processing Magazine, May 2007. 102-105. (Fuzzy logic should be distinguished from probabilistic logic, which, unlike fuzzy logic, accommodates ignorance, that is, limited knowledge or incomplete information.)Google Scholar

140 See Art. 34, 1951 Convention.Google Scholar

141 See para. 8 supra.Google Scholar