Resolving refugee disputes

The role played by mediators

The ability of refugees to govern themselves are too often underestimated or undermined by external actors.

We found, in fact, that refugee-led resolution systems were indispensable in the camps.

Being accessible and, most importantly, familiar to the refugees, the refugee leaders provided an important forum where cases – such as the payment of dowry and divorce, fighting and minor thefts – could be mediated and solved.

There were, however, also some downsides. Refugee leaders, for example, tended to go beyond their authority. They sometimes tried to resolve conflicts that were too serious to handle without the involvement of the Ugandan authorities, such as rape cases.

Another problem was that, given the patchwork of how things are regulated, refugee leaders were sometimes put in a difficult position when it came to making decisions. Which practices had been applied in the past? Which solutions were accepted in the new environment?

We found that refugees recognised and respected Ugandan law. But a number of South Sudanese practices and values, were considered too important to let go of particularly as most refugees envisaged ‘going home’ at some point. For example, they may cross the border into South Sudan to enact customs that are strictly monitored in the Ugandan settlements, such as early age marriages.

We found that they were imperfect in other ways too. Similar to other informal justice systems, they are dominated by men, with little or no representation of women and young people. Also, verdicts are focused on the security and interests of the community as a whole, instead of individual victims. This raises questions about their legitimacy.

Next steps

The refugee leaders playing a mediating role were also not funded. Formal representatives work on a voluntary basis, barely able to take care of themselves.

Given the indispensable nature of their mediation work, we argue it is crucial that refugees leaders are better supported in their role. Concretely, official authorities, such as the Ugandan government, UN refugee agency and implementing partners could foresee more training in resolution techniques and host state law.

Fundamentally, refugee leaders complained that they are only seen as ‘beneficiaries’, instead of stakeholders. Including community leaders into dialogues with the official authorities would enhance understanding at both sides. It would provide refugees with a better understanding of host state law and camp regulations. But more importantly, it would clarify underlying dynamics in dispute resolution for the agencies as well.

****

Sarah Vancluysen is PhD researcher – Development Studies, University of Antwerp and Bert Ingelaere is Assistant Professor , University of Antwerp

Source:theconversation