Forced Migration in the OIC Member Countries:

Policy Framework Adopted by Host Countries

180

frameworks for non-refugee forced migrants, such as those whose asylum claims have been

rejected but are unable to return home, often leaves these individuals highly vulnerable

without access to assistance or, at times, legal status.

While basic protection from refoulement is often available to non-refugee forced migrants via

states’ obligations under the Convention Against Torture or regional frameworks such as the

OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa, the rights and

benefits granted to those who receive other forms of status are usually lower than those for

refugees. Asylum seekers who are waiting to have their claims to refugee protection

recognized by the hosting state are also subject to different and often lesser legal frameworks

and rights.

2. Access to protection, legal status, and core rights depends not just on where you

are but also who you are, even within the same country.

Policies and legal frameworks can also vary for individuals

with the same protection needs

within one hosting country. The clearest example is the difference in assistance or recognition

accorded to Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) and recognized refugees, who at times co-

exist in the same asylum country. IDPs who have been forced to relocate to another part of

their home country may face many of the same challenges as refugees in accessing housing or

the labor market, particularly where there are linguistic or cultural differences between those

who have been displaced and the host community. Some countries, such as Uganda, have

written specific protections and supports for IDPs into legislation—and some regional

frameworks

exist that grant certain rights to IDPs—but national practice and international

assistance frameworks for IDPs are generally less well developed than those for refugees.

Perhaps more notably, differences in national protection practices can exist between

refugee

populations of different nationalities within the same country. With the exception of Sweden,

asylum regimes in all of the case study countries have provisions that differ for certain

nationalities. In some cases, such as Morocco, Turkey, or Uganda, deviations from the standard

process were implemented specifically for particular flows.

In Uganda, some nationalities

have been granted refugee status on a prima facie

basis because they entered as a part of a

mass influx, while others were provided with individual status determinations. In Turkey and

Morocco, the government has made a special process for Syrian refugees while normal

procedures continue to apply to most other refugee groups.

In other countries, the differences in approach have rather been driven by a much more ad

hoc approach to protection policy. Lacking a general asylum law, Jordan has instead granted

slightly different rights and benefits to each new population that has sought refuge in the

country. In many cases, these divergences in status among nationalities have been driven by

historical, political, or cultural relationships between the country of origin and country of

asylum that have predisposed governments to be more or less open to the population in

question. Refugees from Syria and Iraq, countries with which Jordan has had long-standing

trade and migration relationships, were initially welcomed generously and provided with

support, such as subsidized access to education and health care, not available to other refugee

groups. While such ties can benefit refugees fortunate enough to be of a preferred nationality,

ad hoc policies will inevitably leave other refugee groups in a more vulnerable position.

For example, the AU Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa.

See Turkey, Morocco, and Uganda sections in Chapter 3.