Management of Conflict-Induced Internally Displaced Persons in a "Post-Conflict" Context

(1)

Management of Conflict-Induced

Internally Displaced Persons in a

"Post-Conflict" Context

- A Comparative Case Study of Uganda and South Sudan

Author: Lovisa van Deetjen Supervisor: Lennart Wohlgemuth Examiner: Susanne Alldén Dept: Peace and Development Level: Undergraduate

(2)

Acknowledgements

(3)

Abstract

Internal displacement is one of the most significant challenges in the world today, and violence, conflict, and climate-related disasters have engendered millions of internally displaced persons (IDPs) on the globe. Despite this, the IDP-population is a marginalised group on the international agenda and stay primarily under governmental protection and assistance. This makes the adequacy and durability of solutions and governmental management of IDPs crucial. The number of IDPs continues to rise every year, and many nations have evident difficulties in IDP-management, negatively affecting prospects for sustainable peace. Previous research has primarily focused on singular aspects of IDPs and solutions of such. Less has been written in terms of a broader and more comprehensive understanding of government management of internal displacement. Several scholars, researchers, and experts have stressed the urgency to pay more attention to the issue and consider IDPs a concern beyond humanitarian responsibility.

This study seeks to increase the understanding of governmental management of IDPs from a broader and more holistic point of view. This by comparing two cases that have faced high numbers of IDPs in a "post-conflict" context (Uganda and South Sudan) and applying the Inter-Agency Standing Committee Framework on Durable Solutions for IDPs as a guide and analytical tool for comparison. The study finds that the governments have managed the situation with similarities and dissimilarities but have both faced difficulties in providing durable solutions and adequate response to IDPs' plight. Accentuated is also the insufficiency of establishing national instruments covering durable solutions when the political will or national capacity is absent. Reflected in the IDP-situations and trajectories examined, the primary obstacles for adequate response and management have been solely or a combination of such. The study also accentuates the interconnection of IDP-management and peace processes. For peace to be sustainable, and for solutions for IDPs to be durable, simultaneous progress of peace processes and IDP-management is crucial.

Key Words: Internally displaced persons, Durable solutions, Government management,

(4)

List of Abbreviations

CHA – Cessation of Hostilities Agreement

EHAP – Emergency Action Plan for Humanitarian Assistance in Northern Uganda FoM – Freedom of movement

HLP – Housing, land, and property

IASC – Inter-Agency Standing Committee IDPs – Internally displaced persons

JMC – Joint Monitoring Committee LRA – Lord Resistance Army

NDS – South Sudan National Development Strategy NMR/A – National Resistance Movement/Army

OCHA – United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs POC – Protection of Civilians

PRDP – Peace, Recovery, and Development Plan for Northern Uganda

RTGoNU – Revitalised Transitional Government of National Unity of the Republic of South Sudan

S/GBV – Sexual/and Gender-Based Violence

SPLM/A – Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army

SPLM/A-IO – Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army-Internal Opposition SSNFDP – South Sudan National Framework for the Return, Resettlement and Reintegration of Displaced Persons

TGoNU – Transitional Government of the National Unity of the Republic of South Sudan

UNHCR – United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees UPDF – Uganda People's Defence Force

(6)

1. Introduction

Violence, conflict, and climate-related disasters have forcibly driven people all over the world to flee their area of settlement or country of origin, resulting in displacement of millions of people (Koch, 2020:5; UNHCR, 2020a:6-8). The number of people displaced has almost doubled in the last decade. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) reported that by the end of 2019, a total number of 79,5 million people were forcibly displaced worldwide (UNHCR, 2020a). Out of these, 26 million people were refugees, i.e. people seeking refuge outside their country of origin, and 45.7 million were internally displaced persons (IDPs), i.e. people seeking refuge within their country of origin (UNHCR, 2020b; 2020c). The last decade has comprised increased difficulties for refugees to return and for IDPs to resettle and reintegrate. According to the UNHCR report on forced displacement in 2019, the world has gone from being "a

decade of solutions to a decade of new and protracted displacement." (UNHCR,

2020a:12).

The total number of IDPs in the world has never been higher. In 2019, IDPs covered the largest proportion of newly displaced persons, accounting for 8,6 million compared to 2,4 million refugees (UNHCR, 2020a:8). Despite this, IDPs have been marginalised on the international agenda, and the security and developmental effects from internal displacement have been underestimated by the international community (Koch, 2020:5-6). Despite facing similar challenges and threats and hence similar needs as refugees, IDPs lack equal international protection instruments (Ibid.). They stay primarily under the protection and assistance of their government and are, therefore, under the same jurisdiction as other citizens. If governments are the reason for displacement or are unwilling or unable to manage the situation, IDPs risk being significantly ignored or face protracted marginalisation (UNHCR, 2020b; Cohen, 2004:459; Bariagaber, 2006:11).

(7)

(Kälin and Entwisle, 2017:28; IASC, 2010:1). The increasing numbers of IDPs and the higher risk for post-conflict peace to fail if the needs and interests of people affected by displacement are not accounted for, accentuate the need to pay more attention to the issue (Kälin and Entwisle, 2017:28). The all-time high number of IDPs in the world is a consequence of new displacement resulting from ongoing crises and lack of adequate solutions for IDPs (Koch, 2020:6). However, internal displacement cannot be entirely blamed on conflicts and disasters. Instead, the issue is part of deeper political distortions. Short-term difficulties contribute to long-term issues when governments do not meet their obligations towards their population (Koch, 2020:6). The Global Report on International Displacement 2020 accentuates that the missing piece in internal displacement management is often the lack of political commitment (IDMC, 2020b:70).

1.1 Research Problem and Relevance

Internal displacement is one of the most significant challenges of our time. The UN Security-General's High-Level Panel on Internal Displacement established in January 2020 has urged an increased focus on the issue (United Nations, 2020b). This since conflict is one of the main drivers of internal displacement, and internal displacement is per se a threat to peace prospects. If peace is to be sustainable and the following decade is to be "a decade of solutions" instead of continuing on the path of being "a decade of

new and protracted displacement." (UNHCR, 2020a:12), it is highly relevant to look

further into governmental management of IDPs. It is vital that governments acknowledge their IDPs' plight and that their actions are adequate (IDMC, 2020b:70). Protracted and new internal displacement is not only detrimental for civilians and peace processes. When large groups of a population lack access to civil rights for an extended period, it has adverse and destabilising effects on the economic and political development which negatively affects the whole nation (Koch, 2020:6).

(8)

are relevant since internal displacement is not a single humanitarian, human rights, peacebuilding, or development issue and is not a phenomenon compound by only one or two challenges or required solutions (Ibid.:28-29). To better understand government management and course of action, it is relevant to look at the multifaceted challenges and required solutions for IDPs. Thus, this study will try to provide further understandings of government management and course of action dealing with IDPs. It will make an effort to give better insight into challenges and obstacles, shortcoming and limitations experienced in dealing with IDP-challenges in a "post-conflict" context. It will provide an understanding of why different governments respond or do not respond to the plight of IDPs in terms of prioritisation, focus, and durable solutions in such a fragile and challenging context. Increasing the understanding is of relevance for future management and thus prospects for IDPs and durable peace on the globe today. The results will also provide information on where further research is required.

1.2 Objective and Research Questions

The objective of this study is to provide a broader and more holistic understanding of how different governments have managed their IDP-situation in terms of durable solutions in a "post-conflict" context. This will be done by a comparative case-study of Uganda and South Sudan. The relevance of the chosen cases is presented in the methodology chapter. The following questions have been developed to meet the research objective:

• How do specific instruments targeting IDPs (if any) cover durable solutions? • To what extent does the respective management provide prospects for durable

solutions for IDPs?

(9)

1.3 Analytical and Methodological Framework

The analytical framework chosen for this study is the 'Inter-Agency Standing Committee Framework on Durable Solutions for Internally Displaced People' (IASC Framework). It is a framework developed by experts in the field through years of research. It is chosen since it provides clear criteria and research-focus on durable solutions for IDPs (IASC, 2010:v-2). There are eight criteria of the framework that will be further presented in the analytical framework chapter and is utilised in the research through an abductive approach, i.e. used as a lens. However, only the first four of the eight criteria are chosen for this study and only some aspects of those criteria are used when looking into and comparing each government's management. This is primarily due to the time and scope limit of this study but also due to the objective of giving a holistic understanding and making a comparison trough questions that are not too contextually determined by using a structured, focused comparison method. The methodology is further based on a qualitative desk-study approach applying a multiple case-study. The results are based on secondary sources from NGOs, international organisations or institutions, and respective governments. Different secondary sources are used to avoid shortcomings in terms of validity. It is suitable to research the topic through secondary sources and by this method due to the research objective, and the focus on more than one or two challenges and required solutions for IDPs (Bryman, 2016:309). In-depth information on the framework and the methodology will be further presented in chapter three and four.

1.4 Disposition

(10)

of the study by presenting answers to the research questions and gives suggestions on where further research is required.

2. Literature Review

Compared to 'refugees' which was already internationally recognised in the 1950s, the phenomenon 'IDPs' did not gain attention on the international agenda until the end of the Cold War, and through the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement in 1998 (Stavropoulou, 1998; Cohen, 2004). Since the 1990s, much has successively been written about internal displacement. The Guiding Principle was affirmed by the World Summit in 2005, and despite not legally binding, it has been a foundation for national and regional programs, laws, and policies targeting IDPs throughout the years (Koch, 2020; Cohen, 2004). Roberta Cohen, a leading expert on internally displaced persons, and Francis M. Deng, the first Representative of the UN Secretary-General on the Human Rights on IDPs, were early to accentuate IDPs as significantly vulnerable and the need to make IDPs an international concern. They have been accompanied by others, continuously arguing that IDPs are vulnerable with special needs that distinguish them from the general population (Cohen and Deng, 1998; Stavropoulou, 1998; Mooney, 2005; Martin, 2006).

The focus on internal displacement drivers has expanded from primarily focusing on conflict and violence to include disaster and climate-related displacement, significantly since the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004 (OHCHR, 2005). The discourse has also expanded in terms of concern, from considered a primarily humanitarian responsibility to be included in human rights, development, and peacebuilding discourses (Fagen, 2009; Koch, 2020; Vernon, O'Callaghan and Holloway, 2020). Anne Koch, a researcher at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, advocates for this discourse expansion by arguing that "If internal displacement becomes protracted, it is insufficient

to cover only the basic material needs of those affected. In addition, access to education, livelihood opportunities, and political participation must be a priority." (Koch, 2020:6).

(11)

decent living conditions make people less conflict resilient. Provision of such needs is considered vital for post-conflict peace to be durable (Vernon, O'Callaghan and Holloway, 2020:2-3). Thus, IDPs are necessary to include in different nexuses (Koch, 2020).

International agencies such as the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the Internal Displacement Monitor Centre (IDMC) have also increased the focus on IDPs. They are playing crucial roles in collecting qualitative and quantitative data to map and evaluate IDPs challenges and movements on the globe (André et al., 2019). The lack of adequate data on IDPs and their trajectories are some of the most prominent research and development challenges today and require increased national monitoring instruments and data collection (Ibid.). The UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), the Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner (OHCHR), and the Brookings Institution have for a long time also played crucial roles in addressing the necessity to provide conditions for durable solutions (UNHCR, 2020a; Brookings Institution, 2007). Additional to the Guiding Principle established in 1998, other national and regional instruments and frameworks have been developed throughout the years. The Brookings Institution has developed different key-documents and frameworks (inter alia the IASC Framework) addressing internal displacement problems and the requirement of national responsibility for durable solutions (IDMC, 2020a). Other types of instruments and documents, such as the Great Lakes IDP Protocol and the Kampala Convention (i.e. the African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa) have been regionally developed and address the national responsibility of managing IDPs and their plight, particularly in Africa (IDMC, 2020a). The 2019 African Report on Internal Displacement does, however, emphasise that developed frameworks and instruments focusing on IDPs tend to be of little use if governments lack capacity or political will to implement them (IDMC, 2019:31).

(12)

setting. Most of the literature focuses primarily on one or two challenges IDPs face in isolated contexts. Nevertheless, a broader region- and country-based research focusing on laws do exist. In terms of a governmental management-comparison, a study conducted by Eweka Osagioduwa and Olusegun Toluwanimi Oluwakorede (2016) compared the management of IDPs in Nigeria and Cameroon through quantitative research based on surveys. Another study conducted by Friedarike Santner (2013) compared the national strategy plans of IDPs in Uganda and Colombia through qualitative research with semi-structured interviews. However, less has been done in terms of providing a holistic understanding of IDP-management in a post-conflict context and nothing has so far been studied in terms of comparing Uganda and South Sudan government management of IDPs in relation to durable solutions which this study will do.

3. Analytical Framework

This chapter presents the analytical framework operating both as a guide throughout the study and as an analytical lens when comparing internal displacement management. The following sections presents the framework, the criteria it consists of, and how the framework will be used in the study.

3.1 The Inter-Agency Standing Committee Framework

(13)

analytical tool since it guides how to achieve durable solutions (IASC, 2010:v-2) and

"monitor[s] the extent to which governments fulfil their responsibility to find durable solutions for IDPs" (Brookings Institution, 2007:5). It is a suitable framework for

structuring the findings and use as a lens when comparing the cases in the analysis.

According to the framework, durable solutions are achieved "when IDPs no longer have

specific assistance and protection needs that are linked to their displacement and such persons can enjoy their human rights without discrimination resulting from their displacement." (IASC, 2010:5). The national government holds the leading responsibility

for establishing conditions that enable durable solutions for IDPs. External humanitarian and development actors do only operate as support. The framework is structured by eight criteria determining to what extent IDPs have achieved durable solutions, being the following: 1) safety and security; 2) adequate standard of living; 3) access to livelihoods; 4) restoration of housing, land, and property; 5) access to documentation; 6) family reunification; 7) participation in public affairs; and 8) access to effective remedies and justice. Number one to four is general criteria, and number five to eight are criteria that might be necessary to enable determined by the IDP-context. Some criteria, such as number two, three and four, are also interlinked and affect each other due to overlapping to a large extent (Ibid.:8, 15, 27, 38). It is crucial to provide conditions that enable durable solutions from the beginning of a displacement crisis (Kivelä et al., 2018:25). The criteria are grounded in an understanding that IDPs are not to be discriminated based on their internal displacement and the importance of voluntary and informed decision making and participation of IDPs. Further, communities that take on IDPs are not to be forgotten or overlooked if having similar needs as IDPs (IASC, 2010: 15,27). Acknowledging the host communities and their needs are important for sustainable peace. This due to the risk of making the affected communities feel forgotten if only IDPs' needs are prioritised, thus fuelling friction negative for peacebuilding (Vernon, O'Callaghan and Holloway, 2020:2).

(14)

that can, in medium terms, be hard to achieve due to the complexity of internal displacement and should therefore preferably be seen as benchmarks of the progress towards durable solutions (IASC, 2010:27).

3.1.1 Safety and Security

Safety and security refer toprotection provided by the government from threats leading to the initial displacement and threats that may generate new displacements, e.g. violence (Ibid.:27, 30). Absolute security and safety are in many cases rather a utopian endeavour than entirely achievable, yet, in general, IDPs shall have the same accessibility to local and national protection mechanisms as other people living in the same area. They are to be protected from, inter alia, attacks, mines, small arms, and violence upon their (re)settlement. IDPs’ specific protection needs such as susceptibility to exploitation, sexual violence, and abuse of women and children must also be addressed by the authorities. Included in this criterion is also the possibility of freedom of movement (FoM) (Ibid.:29-31).

3.1.2 Adequate Standard of Living

(15)

3.1.3 Access to Livelihoods

Access to livelihoods refers tothe availability of employment and livelihood that allow the basic socio-economic needs, i.e. the adequate standard of living, to be fully met. Employment and livelihood must allow such needs to be met when public welfare programs do not fulfil them. It may not be possible to ensure that all IDPs are resuming the livelihood they once had or are gaining employment due to the challenging situation reintegration often occurs, i.e. conditions of high unemployment and unstable economies. However, IDPs should not face any obstacles that inhibit their livelihood- and employment accessibility compared to other residents. IDPs should also be supported to obtain new professional knowledge, gain new skills and adapt to alternative livelihoods if necessary (Ibid.:34).

3.1.4 Restoration of Housing, Land, and Property

(16)

3.1.5 Access to Documentation

Access to personal documentation such as a birth certificate or other documents necessary for accessing public service, voting, and reclaiming property is also necessary. It is the responsibility of the authorities to provide new documents or replace lost documents. The right to obtain documents should be equal between women and men. Women should also be able to acquire documents in their own names, and children should be able to obtain documents if separated and unaccompanied (Ibid.:38-39).

3.1.6 Family Reunification

Family reunification refers to the accessibility to reunite with family members if desired. The reunification should take place as soon as possible, especially when the most vulnerable IDPs such as children and elderly are a part of the reunification. However, the reunification must be ensuring a child's best, meaning that an assessment of risk exposure of such process is required. It is the responsibility of the authorities to support a child in terms of protection until reunification has been achieved. It is also necessary to provide adequate tracing of missing relatives as early as possible (Ibid.:40-41).

3.1.7 Participation in Public Affairs

Participation in public affairs refers to the ability to participate in public affairs such as taking part in community affairs, voting, running for election, and working in any public service sector. This without discrimination and on the same grounds as other citizens. In cases where many IDPs have not yet returned, implement voter registration and education programs in areas where IDPs are living might be necessary (Ibid.:41-42).

3.1.8 Access to Effective Remedies and Justice

(17)

effective access to justice; adequate, effective and prompt reparation for harm suffered; and access to relevant information concerning violations and reparation mechanisms."

(Ibid.:42-43). Securing these rights may be significant for durables solutions and are essential components for stability and sustainable peace. When such rights are not accessible or secured, it may generate new displacement, be detrimental for reconciliation processes, or engender a protracted feeling of injustice, which may undermine durable solution prospects and possibilities. The government is responsible for crimes taking place outside its initial control (such as disasters or violations committed by non-state actors). International support to provide this criterion might be required, but the national authorities are holding the primary responsibility for the provision (Ibid.:43-46).

3.2 Use of Framework

(18)

In terms of the safety and security criterion, the variables chosen and used to structure the findings and compare in the analysis are the following: physical protection from violence and access to protection mechanisms; protection from sexual violence and exploitation of women and children; and FoM. In terms of adequate living standards, the variables are access to shelter and housing; food and clean water; health care, medical service and post-sexual violence care; sanitation; and education. In terms of access to

livelihood, the variables are the availability of employment and livelihood. In terms of restoration of HLP, the variables are the right to restitution and compensation of HLP.

Furthermore, the framework advocates for external humanitarian and development support when governments lack capacity or malfunction to enable durable solutions for IDPs. Thus, it is of relevance to include external actors in the study. This is done by focusing on the United Nations' support, primarily due to its involvement in both cases and not losing focus on government management. Acknowledgement of host communities will also be included since it is a crucial aspect in IDP-management. The provision of the criteria or prospects of durable solutions for IDPs are simply determined by looking at the IDP-situation, the trajectory of governmental actions, and changes in the total number of IDPs within the chosen timeframes in the respective country. Due to the requirement of rather seeing these criteria as benchmarks towards durable solutions and the lack of adequate data monitoring and evaluating the situation of IDPs in many countries, more specified determination of the prospects or fulfilment of the criteria and related aspects is difficult. This limitation is accounted for when drawing conclusions in this thesis.

4. Methodology

(19)

data has been collected contribute to enhanced research reliability (Creswell and Creswell, 2018:275).

4.1 Qualitative Case Study

The research methodology chosen for this thesis is a qualitative case study using abductive reasoning and secondary sources for data collection and interpretation. This is suitable due to the attempt to better understand IDP-management of different governments within a specific timeframe and due to the objective of covering more than only one or two aspects of durable solutions for IDPs (Bryman, 2016:63, 319). Further reasoning of the methodological choices is presented in the sections below.

4.2 Abductive Reasoning

Abductive reasoning can be explained as interpreting what is studied by using a frame that contributes to a new insight into the phenomenon. The findings are not concluded into solely false or true and hence, does not result in a definite conclusion. Instead, the findings result in one of many possible outcomes. Compared to an inductive approach aiming to validate an already existing theory and a deductive approach primary used for theory development, abductive reasoning is most relevant when doing case-studies due to its ability to provide a better understanding of a case (Danermark et al., 2002:89-92; Bryman, 2016:16).

4.3 Multiple-Case Study and Structured, Focused Comparison

(20)

established general questions that mirror the research objective and where the same questions are asked through both cases to ensure comparability of the data collected. It is

focused by only dealing with specific aspects of the cases examined (George and Bennett,

2005:67, 86). The aspects, i.e. variables used to structure the findings and guide the comparison in the analysis have been presented in section 3.2 in the framework chapter.

4.4 Choice of Cases

The choice of specific cases to compare can be based on different criteria. In this thesis, the criteria are similarities rather than differences since it provides a more open-ended approach for case selection and is, thus, not influenced by the researcher's interests (Bryman, 2016:68; George and Bennett 2005:85). The similarities of the cases (Uganda and South Sudan) are the primary driver of internal displacement (conflict), the high and similar number of IDPs (almost 2 million) at the time of a signed ceasefire- or peace-agreement in the respective country, and the geographic location. They are also chosen due to the interest in looking at a country that previously experienced IDP-difficulties and a country dealing with the issue today and compare their trajectory and management. The study will look at approximately five years, from the mid of 2006 to 2011 in Uganda and from the mid of 2015 to 2020 in South Sudan and compare the governmental course of action. Each case's five-year period take ground in the cases' peace- or ceasefire agreement in 2006 and 2015, establishing the "post-conflict" context.

4.5 Sources

(21)

fully determine when using one type of sources. Thus, to avoid the risk of issues of representativeness, bias and shortcomings in terms of validity, different sources from different organisations, institutions, databases and thus perspectives have been used to triangulate the data (Creswell and Creswell, 2018:274).

The main sources used in the study are annual and general reports and articles primarily conducted from a number of databases being the following: the World Bank Group and United Nations agencies such as the UNHCR and the IASC. The Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC), i.e. the leading global information and analysis source on internal displacement. The Global Protection Cluster, i.e. a network of many different organisations, focused on humanitarian crisis protection. The Brookings Institution, i.e. an independent research organisation that provides high-quality research and recommendation for policymakers. The Humanitarian Practice Network (HPN) under the Overseas Development Institute (ODI), i.e. a network of articles and reports authored by policymakers, field workers and managers in the humanitarian sector, and the Conciliation Resources, i.e. an independent peacebuilding organisation. Governmental documents from Uganda and South Sudan in the form of ceasefire- and peace agreements and national policies and strategies specifically targeting or covering a clear focus of IDPs have also been used as sources. Further, publications from well-known experts within the internal displacement field, e.g. Roberta Cohen, Walter Kälin, Susan Martin, and Erin Mooney, have also been used, together with African scholars, e.g., Ogenga Otunnu and Okello Luicima to include non-western perspectives.

4.6 Ethical Consideration

(22)

4.7 Limitations and Delimitations

(23)

5. Findings

This chapter endeavours to give an overview and a background of the main drivers of internal displacement and the specific national instrument targeting IDPs in the respective case. Further, it presents the governments' management of IDPs structured by the chosen durable solutions-criteria.

5.1 Uganda

Uganda is a landlocked country located in the East African region and has experienced many challenges in dealing with internal displacement since a civil-war outbreak in 1986. The following sections give a background of the drivers of internal displacement and an understanding of the IDP-situation in the country characterising the period between 2006-2011. Further outlined is what the Ugandan government has done (in broad terms) to acknowledge and manage the situation in relation to durable solutions and response of the plight of IDPs.

5.1.1 Background and IDP-profile

(24)

In 2002, the government expanded the Uganda People's Defence Force (UPDF) and ordered a military offensive to LRA. This was costly in terms of social aspects, causing extensive displacement. The hard-power approach had reversed effect than the intended alleviation and led to increased displacement and LRA-threats (Dolan, 2010:8). Forced displacement was also a consequence of the government strategy to coercively relocate civilians into so-called 'protected villages' to prevent LRA-recruitment. The number of IDPs increased from 400,000 people to over 1,5, and the 'villages' failed to protect displaced civilians (Otunnu, 2002:10; Dolan, 2010:8). Instead, they aggravated IDPs' vulnerability and marginalisation, politically and socially (Mukwana and Ridderbos, 2008:21). In 2003, Uganda was designated as one of the world's worst humanitarian crises, and the UNHCR made IDPs a prioritisation by including them under their mandate. The UN also supported the Ugandan government in establishing the ever first 'National Policy for Internally Displaced Persons' (hereafter referred to as 'UNPIDP') (Otunnu, 2002:13; Dolan, 2010:9).

The UNPIDP was established to guide governmental institutions and supporting actors. It stated that IDPs should not be discriminated based on their internal displacement and enjoy the same rights and freedom as any other citizen. It covered many of the criteria of durable solutions, such as security, freedom of movement, identification, property rights, and basic needs like food, water, shelter, education, and health (DDPR, 2004: iii, vi). The government also clearly committed to promote durable solutions and assist the progress of IDPs self-chosen return, resettlement, integration, and reintegration (Ibid.:vi, 1).

(25)

now over twenty-year-long conflict (United Nations Peacemaker, 2008; IASC, 2006:2; Dunovant, 2016:28; Schomerus and Ogwaro, 2010:10, 13). Nevertheless, despite no final peace agreement, the CHA and progress in the peace negotiations in Juba contributed to considerable security improvements and a reduction from almost 2 million IDPs to a return of the majority (IDMC, 2006:iii-iv; Schomerus and Ogwaro, 2010:13). By 2011, the estimated numbers of IDPs were down to 30,000 (IDMC, 2020e). Ogenga Otunnu accentuated, already in 2002, the need to consider the conflict as an issue beyond humanitarian concern. As he argues "[The conflict] has many dimensions: political,

social, economic and humanitarian. As such, durable solutions will need to respond to all of these challenges." (Otunnu, 2002:13).

IDPs in Uganda did face protection shortages during many phases of the prolonged conflict. Protection from violence was acknowledged in the UNPIDP accentuating the government's responsibility (through military and police) to protect IDPs from violence in the form of armed attacks, mines, and arbitrary displacement (DDPR, 2004:19-22). However, the 2004 UNPIDP had not yet been implemented, primarily due to inadequate political commitment and lack of will to provide resources. Thus, protection of IDPs was still limited in many areas in the north (IDMC, 2006:vii, 9). To improve implementation of the policy and facilitate full protection of IDPs, the government had arranged a Workshop in July 2006. The workshop highlighted that security had improved in some parts of the country. This was arguably due to the increased military assistance in many camps. Nevertheless, human rights abuses were still extensive which initiated an expansion of responsibility to protect IDPs from solely the UPDF and police to other actors, e.g. the judiciary (Ibid.;v, 22; Brookings Institution, 2006:5, 9-10).

(26)

2006:5-6). FoM had long been restrained by curfews but was more relaxed in late 2006 and officially removed in 2008 due to the expansion of protection in areas outside the camps (IDMC, 2006:vi-vii; 2008:93). Further, the Emergency Action Plan for Humanitarian Assistance in Northern Uganda (EHAP) established in 2006 contributed to the start of a restoration of the police force undermined by conflict and displacement. It generated an expansion of police stations and personnel in the north supporting return and resettlement-processes (GoU, 2007:42). The improved security conditions and progress in the peace negotiations in Juba motivated IDPs to begin returning (UNHCR, 2008:39). The movement was also influenced by Museveni's abrupt announcement that all IDP-camps were closing by the end of 2006. IDPs were, thus, ordered to begin returning, assisted by governmental resettlement officers and the UNHCR (IDMC, 2006:vii; DDPR, 2004:21; HPN, 2006:4).

More IDPs had moved closer to their place of origin or fully returned by the end of 2007 (GoU, 2007:58, 63). The government expanded the protection initiatives and endeavour further by replacing the EHAP with the Peace, Recovery, and Development Plan for Northern Uganda (PRDP) in 2008, aiming to support the transition from humanitarian assistance to recovery and development. The government also ratified the 'Pact on Security, Stability and Development in the Great Lakes Region' the same year, making Uganda obligated by law to provide special protection and assistance for IDPs (UNHCR, 2010:86). Additionally, the government hosted an African Union meeting in Kampala in October 2009, resulting in the Kampala Convention on IDP-protection and assistance. The convention has, however, not yet been incorporated into national law (IDMC, 2019:12).

(27)

during the whole return and resettlement process was included in the plan (GoU, 2007:32, 43, 51, 63). By September 2008, up to 900,000 IDPs had returned home and 460,000 IDPs had moved to transit sites. Nevertheless, lack of resources constrained a full re-establishment of the police in the north, and security threats such as crime, mines, and Sexual and Gender-Based Violence (SGBV) were still evident (IDMC, 2008:75, 82-82, 94). The latter had been a large-scale problem in and outside camps for a long time, committed by both LRA and UPDF (IDMC, 2006:9-10, 26). SGBV was often related to lack of protection in areas outside camps where women and girls searched for essentials, e.g. food and firewood. The susceptibility of SGBV and HIV/AIDS had increased as a result of the protection village settlements (Mulumba, 2011:107). The UNPIDP stated the need to prevent and protect the most vulnerable IDPs from sexual violence and other exploitation forms, and provide special health care related to SGBV (DDPR, 2004:21). Further, the 2006-Workshop emphasised this as an extensive problem, and the PRDP-plan urged for a dire need of a change of the atrocities committed by the UPDF and police (IDMC, 2006:26, Brookings Institution, 2006:6; GoU, 2007:42). The problem was, thus, to a large extent, acknowledged and addressed by the government. Nevertheless, an extensive 'protection gap' of women and girls and problems of impunity of such atrocities persisted in northern Uganda. It continued being a widespread issue throughout the post-agreement period (IDMC, 2006:26).

(28)

5.1.3 Standards of Living, Livelihood, and Housing, Land and Property

Lack of protection of IDPs was not the only challenge the Ugandan government faced in the post-agreement period. Living standards for IDPs in and outside camps had been inadequate since 2002 and continued being a challenge in the aftermath of the CHA-agreement.

The UNPIDP covered the right to adequate living standards, i.e. food security, shelter, education, water and sanitation, health and specific healthcare in terms of sexual abuse and reproduction. This was clearly stated and endeavoured to be provided for both during camp-settlement and in return- and resettlement processes. It also covered the need to equally provide for, include, and avoid any contribution of negative impacts on host communities in the process (DDPR, 2004:26-31). Nevertheless, the government lacked implementation initiatives of the policy (as earlier emphasised) and thus received increased international pressure to address the displacement in the north. It responded by establishing the Joint Monitoring Committee (JMC) in 2006, which was responsible for implementing the EHAP-plan in LRA-affected areas. However, the JMC was quickly questioned in terms of legitimacy and accountability (Brookings Institution, 2006:3; IDMC, 2006:iv, 9). It had been established without including consultation with IDPs, being a continuing issue in government initiatives despite stated as a requirement in the UNPIDP. Additionally, it was accused of being established only to give an illusion of governmental response in the north (IDMC, 2006:iv-v, vii; DDPR, 2004). The EHAP-plan advocated for improving conditions and the return of IDPs, yet, the JMC and its work were criticised of failing to fulfil its commitment and generate better conditions in the north (GoU, 2007:58; HPN, 2006:2).

(29)

Group, 2007:253-254; Berg, 2011: 136). Together with ongoing violence, it resulted in very high mortality rates, particularly among children in camps (HPN, 2006:6, 10; GoU, 2007:61). Restrictions of FoM did also have adverse effects on IDPs' living conditions inside camps inhibiting them from livelihood activities to secure food access (Mulumba, 2011:111). The 2006-Workshop and the 2008 PRDP-plan emphasised the need of increased humanitarian assistance and social services to facilitate access to water, sanitation, health, and education, yet the governmental support was continuously inadequate (Brookings Institution, 2006:14, 19; GoU, 2007:61-62; Berg, 2011:136).

The UN had supported many IDPs in Uganda since 2006 through other cluster strategies focused on health, water, sanitation and early recovery. These clusters operated until most camps were closed the following years. However, the clusters were criticised by UN staff themselves, arguing that it had not improved humanitarian assistance. Instead, the approach was considered a shortcut for the government to continue being passive in management (IDMC, 2006:vi; Berg, 2011:132, 148-149). Additionally, Uganda had experienced increased levels of economic growth since the 1980s and was therefore considered lacking political will rather than national capacity in managing the IDP-situation in the country (IDMC, 2006:vi; 2012:3; World Bank Group, 2007:253-254).

(30)

(31)

5.2 South Sudan

South Sudan is also a landlocked country on the African continent. It is known as the world's youngest country since the independence from Sudan in 2011 and has faced many challenges of dealing with internal displacement since a civil war outbreak in 2013. The following sections give a background of the drivers of internal displacement and provide an understanding of the IDP-situation in the country characterising the period between 2015-2020. Further outlined is what the South Sudanese government has done (in broad terms) to acknowledge and manage the situation in relation to durable solutions and response of the plight of IDPs.

5.2.1 Background and IDP-profile

South Sudan has a history of prolonged conflicts before independence but has suffered severely since the civil war outbreak in December 2013. The conflict was primarily based on power struggle and internal political dispute causing ethnic instrumentalization and a government breakdown. The main stakeholders became the president Salva Kiir supported by government forces (SPLM/A), and the ex-vice-president Riek Machar backed by the split-off group SPLM/A-Internal Opposition (SPLM/A-IO). The conflict was detrimental to political, economic, and social infrastructures and generated many IDPs. Civilians became an explicit target of violence, and 7,5 million people are still today in dire need of social and humanitarian support. Already in 2014, the crisis in South Sudan was declared as a level-three emergency, i.e. the most severe emergency there can be (Sida, 2020:1-2; IDMC, 2014:2, 8).

(32)

spread the violence into previously unaffected areas. The already unstable economy crashed, and government opposition expanded through new armed- and split off-groups. The civil war evolved from being primarily between the two political parties to include further political fragmentation and be used as a tool for people to highlight economic, political, and social grievances (Sida, 2020:2; IDMC, 2014:1; Sydney, 2019:9). Since the civil war outbreak, the number of IDPs had increased from only a couple of hundred thousand to reaching over millions (IDMC, 2014:1; 2020d). Almost 1,9 million people were conflict-induced IDPs in 2017, and the government established the National Framework for the Return, Resettlement and Reintegration of Displaced Persons (hereafter referred to as 'SSNFDP') (IDMC, 2020d).

The SSNFDP was established as a tool to address and resolve internal displacement. It accentuated the governmental responsibility of dealing with IDPs and the need to assist, protect, and find durable solutions for them without discrimination (MHADM, 2017:3, 16). The framework covered many of the durable solution criteria, including security, safety, and FoM, adequate living standards, and access to employment and livelihoods. Further, it argued that if durable solutions would be possible, cooperation between humanitarian, protection, early recovery, and development agencies and activities was required (Ibid.:8-9). It also accentuated the necessity to assist host communities and the importance of political commitment for successful implementation (Ibid.:3, 10).

(33)

Despite the slow progress of the peace process and the new government formation as well as challenges in terms of humanitarian assistance and security (due to inter-communal violence and the COVID-19 pandemic), the 2018-power-sharing agreement has been an important milestone for peace to begin being restored in South Sudan (United Nations, 2020a; IDMC, 2020c:10-11; Sydney, 2019:9).Furthermore, displacement in South Sudan has not only been related to a history of conflict. It has also been a result of underdevelopment and natural disasters in the form of seasonal flooding. In 2019, large parts of South Sudan experienced the worst seasonal flooding in 30 years which had detrimental effects on the self-sustaining agriculture and pastoralist sector, i.e. the primary livelihood source for a majority (Sydney, 2019:7). The longstanding instability, violence, flooding, and development challenges have simultaneously been drivers of displacement and instability in the country. Socio-economic marginalisation and a non-inclusive government have also worsened the situation and aggravated the humanitarian crisis. Despite a reduction in total IDPs since 2017, many people are still suffering due to their displacement. In August 2019, approximately 1,5 million people were still internally displaced, and the numbers increased to over 1,67 million by 2020 (Sida, 2020:1-2; IDMC, 2014:1; IOM, 2020:2). South Sudan has also received an increased return of refugees, expanding the requirement of providing durable solutions to forestall new displacement (OCHA, 2018:22).

(34)

principles relating to humanitarian assistance and reconstruction. Among many things, the TGoNU was assigned responsibility to institute programs for "relief, protection,

repatriation, resettlement, reintegration and rehabilitation" of IDPs (United Nations

Peacemaker, 2015:27). The agreement clearly stated that displaced people have the right to safely return home or to areas of their choice while being provided with physical, psychological, and legal protection (Ibid.). This was also included in the revitalised peace agreement in 2018 (Peace Agreement Database, 2018:39). In the aftermath of the 2015-agreement, people started to return home with prospects of an end of the civil war. However, lack of will to resolve the political tensions led to, as earlier emphasised, the violation of the agreement the following year, and the protection issue became even more extensive due to the spread of violence to previously unaffected areas. (Sydney, 2019:11; IDMC, 2014:1).

The international community quickly became the main stakeholder in responding to IDPs' plight due to the South Sudanese government's incapacity to fulfil their obligations. The UN has assisted IDPs through its different clusters. The so-called 'Protection of Civilians' sites (POC sites) emerging at the six United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) bases have provided essential protection but have quickly become overcrowded and only been able to include a smaller per cent of the internally displaced in the country (Sydney, 2019:11; IDMC, 2014:1). The clusters are still operating in the country today, focusing specifically on protecting children, GBV, mine action, and HLP (OCHA, 2019b:74). IDPs outside POC sites have sought protection in urban areas or sub-areas and have lacked humanitarian assistance and security to a greater extent than IDPs in POC sites. IDPs have also been forced to leave POC sites involuntarily due to rising insecurity without other alternatives or information on the conditions in their area of origin (World Bank Group, 2019b:25; MHADM,2017: 5; Iwuoha and Nwagu 2019:173).

(35)

resettlement. It covered security aspects such as protection from mines, facilitation of FoM and protection in return and resettlement areas. It emphasised the urgency to resolve the IDP-situation and the importance it would have for peace to be achieved (MHADM, 2017:3,5, 9, 13-14). The revitalised peace agreement in 2018 contributed to more stability and a reduction of attacks in the following years which in turn, facilitated a return of approximately 500,000 IDPs between 2018-2020 (IOM, 2020: 2; OCHA, 2019b:3). In 2018, the National Development Strategy (NDS) was established and replaced the '2011-2013 South Sudan Development Plan' that had faced implementation issues until 2016 when it was expired (SSNDS, 2018: 8). The NDS was to operate in a three-year period and covered IDP-related objectives. Among six interconnected priority actions in the plan, one has been to "facilitate the voluntary return and integration of displaced people" (Ibid.:19). Further, the government began formulating a national IDP-law known as the 'Protection and Assistance to Internally Displaced Persons Act 2019'. This initiative aimed to incorporate the Guiding Principles and the Kampala Conventions domestically, which in turn contributed to ratification of the Kampala Convention in 2019. These actions have been considered proof of further acknowledgement of government obligation to manage the IDP-situation (Beyani, Kulang, and Mwebi, 2020:64). However, the drafted IDP-law is still being reviewed, and the Kampala Convention has not yet been incorporated into national law (IDMC, 2019:12).

Hence, despite governmental initiatives to take responsibility for IDPs in the post-agreement period, the actual response to IDPs' protection- and assistance needs have been minimal. The already weak economy was more shattered by the conflict. The lack of crucial infrastructure has limited the government's capacity to implement national instruments, consequently lacking the capacity to provide protection and other criteria (Sida, 2020:7). Further, many IDPs living in POC sites did not trust the 2018-agreement and hesitated to return. Support for many people who decided to return had also not been adequately met, making people less motivated to move (Sydney 2019: 5,9).

(36)

displaced. Nevertheless, protection from atrocities related to SGBV and other types of exploitation of women and children has been extremely scant. In December 2017, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reported that women and children were specific targets of SGBV, child marriage, and separation from families. Thus, making protection from threats in the context of most vulnerable IDPs even more vital (World Bank Group, 2019b:25; OCHA, 2017:4, 22). Since women and children tend to be more vulnerable to such atrocities when lacking shelter or social support networks, SGBV has been more prevalent due to the extreme insecurity of food, water, and famine conditions (IDMC, 2018:8-9; OCHA, 2017:22; 2018c:22, 26; 2019a:54, 57; 2019b:4). The SSNFDP accentuated the need to support GBV-survivors and emphasises the specific health needs of SGBV-victims but lacked a focus on prevention initiatives of such atrocities (MHADM, 2017:22-23). The lack of implementation and governmental support has made the most vulnerable IDPs dependent on external assistance and protection from such atrocities (Sida, 2020:7). The UN has given support and continuously aims to prevent and protect women and children from SGBV and other forms of abuse through education initiatives among military, police forces and others in camps (OCHA, 2019b: 94).

(37)

5.2.3 Standards of Living, Livelihood, and Housing, Land and Property

While the primary concern has been considered lack of security, the humanitarian conditions of many IDPs have been extremely substandard. Lack of basic needs and inadequate living standards provide threats to IDPs' physical and psychological safety and is, as emphasised, per se an evident driver of insecurity and violence. Thus, the country's humanitarian crisis has been an interlinked challenge for the South Sudanese government and has been inevitably crucial to address and manage in a post-agreement period (IDMC, 2018:8-9, 22; OCHA, 2019a:57).

(38)

The right to adequate living standards, including shelter or housing, access to food, water, health care, and education are mentioned in the SSNFDP. Nevertheless, only as an overall objective without specifications of how or when it should be provided, i.e. in camps or also in return-processes (MHADM, 2017: 9). The framework has also covered access to effective mechanisms relating to restoration or compensation of HLP, accentuating that solutions cannot be durable without access to livelihood as a fulfilled condition (MHADM, 2017:9). However, the lack of capacity to practice the objectives of the SSNFDP and manage the urgent situation has been evident. Many of South Sudan’s public and social institutions have lacked the capacity to support people in need, and South Sudan has quickly become one of the most aid-dependent countries in the world. National institutions such as the health sector and coordinating bodies for humanitarian assistance such as the Ministry of Humanitarian Affairs, and the South Sudan Relief and Recovery Commission have been very limited in functionality. Thus, the South Sudanese government has become immensely dependent on assistance from external actors and the international community, which is per se unsustainable and an obstacle towards achieving durable solutions (Sida, 2020:7).

As earlier emphasised, the UN has supported the South Sudanese population with humanitarian assistance and provision of basic needs such as water, food supply and HLP (OCHA, 2019b: 7, 24). However, the lack of support outside these sites has made many IDPs less willing to return or resettle from POC sites. The UN has also faced difficulties supporting IDPs in terms of shelter, sustainable livelihood and reintegration due to institutional and logistic obstacles (Sydney, 2019:15; Iwuoha and Nwagu, 2019:183). IDPs and refugees who have spontaneously returned home have had their properties and houses destroyed and been lacking access to HLP (Sydney, 2019: 5, 14).

(39)

Nevertheless, 7,5 million people are, as noticed earlier, in dire need of social and humanitarian support in South Sudan. Hence, IDPs have, and still are, only covering a part of people requiring governmental support. The need to respond to IDPs' plight and simultaneously work on solutions and assistance to impoverished and fragile host communities have made the IDP-situation in the country even more challenging to manage. A total return of 70% of IDPs was advocated as a goal and strategic delivery in the NDS in 2018 (SSNDS, 2018:22). Nevertheless, the heavy flooding generating more IDPs made essentials such as food even more challenging to obtain and provide for, making this target very unlikely to be endeavoured and reached during 2021 (Sida, 2020:7).

6. Analysis

This chapter will analyse the management of IDPs by comparing governments actions related to the criteria and variables covered in the findings.

6.1 Management in Terms of Providing Safety and Security

(40)

multifaceted with not only conflict as the main driver but also underdevelopment and natural disasters as evident generators for displacement. This has impacted the institutional capacity to manage the IDP-situation and the response to IDPs' plight. These characteristics provide a logical explanation of potential differences in safety and security management further analysed below.

Uganda’s management has been characterized by a prioritization of military, defence and security. Strengthening the military forces, responding to LRA-attacks and establishing villages to protect civilians against LRA-atrocities and recruitment was the primary initiative to provide security. However, the villages became more harmful than protective for civilians where many people were forcibly relocated and faced increased threats and security issues. The expansion of UPDF forces in camps was also not as successful as intended since SGBV, and other forms of violence were often related to camp-settlements and the military. Nevertheless, the security prioritization and the successive expansion of UPDF and police forces did improve the security conditions and facilitated FoM and return processes. As a result, the willingness to relocate from camps increased and many IDPs could return and resettle successively. Uganda’s focus on protection through its militarization and the different protection focuses in the EHAP and PRPD can be seen as positive outcomes on return and resettlement. Nevertheless, the management did, as has been seen, not provide sufficient protection and did, also, become a part of the violence and atrocities taking place in the north in the post-agreement period.

(41)

of return of a fraction of IDPs. Nevertheless, the crackdown in 2016 spread the violence further, and the divided government continued being a security threat towards civilians. South Sudan has both before and during the post-agreement period struggled with institutional friction and problems finding coherence in the transitional government processes. As a result, the government lacked focus and prioritization of management of IDPs and did thus not provide protection conditions to enable return and resettlement. The 2018-peace agreement was, as can be seen, more successful in stabilizing the situation, and as the findings underline, government-related violence and attacks were reduced. This can be considered one step in terms of responsibility and initiatives towards a safer and more secure environment for civilians, including IDPs. Nevertheless, only reducing government-related violence and not to do more is far from enough to be considered to take governmental responsibility and provide safety and security for IDPs.

(42)

peace process and its progress can thus be considered proving governmental commitment or the lack of it, a process where Uganda and South Sudan have differed.

Management has also been different in terms of the most vulnerable IDPs, such as women and children. SGBV, abuse and exploitation have been extensive in both countries. According to the findings, Uganda has been more evident in recognizing and acknowledging the existence and magnitude of violence against women and children. This through its different national instruments developed. However, the protection from such atrocities has been very inadequate, both due to the violence committed by UPDF forces and the prolonged process of commencing the implementation of the UNPIDP, EHAP and PRDP. The widespread risk of violence against women and children and implementation-issues of the established instrument has also been problematic in South Sudan. South Sudan has been less frequent in recognizing and acknowledging SGBV as the widespread problem it has been and still is today. Further, the right to FoM and voluntarily return has also been different in Uganda and South Sudan. FoM should always be acquired, and return should be sufficiently informed and voluntarily. Nevertheless, this has been insufficient in both cases despite being clearly stated in the respective national instrument. The abrupt announcement that all IDP-camps were closing by the end of 2006 in Uganda contributed to involuntarily movement. FoM and voluntarily return were also problematic in South Sudan, primarily due to the widespread violence. Additionally, people located in POC sites were sometimes forced to leave due to increased security threats and lacked information on the security conditions at their place of origin.

(43)

6.2 Management in Terms of Providing Standards of Living, Livelihood, and Housing, Land and Property

Determined by the findings and so far emphasized in the analysis, protection initiatives of physical safety and security are crucial but requires to not undermine other equally important aspects related to durable solutions criteria. This was quickly questioned in terms of Uganda’s prioritization of strengthening the military and undermining its social dimension. Humanitarian and social services that secure essentials, such as food and shelter, are vital for protecting IDPs since they protect people from diseases, malnutrition, the susceptibility of SGBV or other hazards. Such violations- and security threats have, as noticed, been problematic in many IDP-camps and settlements simultaneously as social and basic needs have not been sufficiently met. Lacking one durable solution contributes to a scarcity of other which intensifies violence and inhibits FoM and return. It may also prolong the displacement and generate a stagnation of national or regional development which tends to undermine the national capacity to manage the situation.

(44)

of IDPs to manage but differed substantially in institutional prerequisite and demographic challenges.

(45)

7. Conclusion

The objective of this study was to give a broader and holistic, yet informative understanding of how different governments have managed their IDP-situation in terms of durable solutions in a “post-conflict” context. This chapter concludes the results of this study by connecting back to and provide answers to the research questions asked in the beginning, being the following: How do specific instruments targeting IDPs (if any) cover durable solutions? To what extent does the respective management provide prospects for durable solutions for IDPs? Are there any similarities or dissimilarities of the course of action? and, what have been the main obstacles for IDP-management? Additionally, the chapter will present where further research is required.

(46)

Answering the second research questions relating to prospects for durable solutions for IDPs provided by respective government, it seems that Uganda has enabled more solid prospects for durable solutions for IDPs than South Sudan. This in terms of protection and thus return and resettlement. In terms of the three other criteria, Uganda has developed a more significant number of instruments and strategies and has taken more evident initiatives and showed more tangible acknowledgement than South Sudan. Nevertheless, implementation in Uganda was, to a large extent, insufficient and many IDPs were thus still short of solutions in terms of adequate living standards, livelihood and HLP within the time examined. South Sudan has, as noticed, not developed the same amount of strategies focusing on internal displacement and has lacked provision in terms of durable solutions on all examined criteria. This is, as accentuated, primarily due to a difference in institutional capacity. Nevertheless, both governments have shown more commitment and acknowledgement of their responsibility in the second part of the periods examined.

(47)

The primary obstacle for proper management in Uganda was the persisting lack in terms of political will and commitment. The government showed increased effort in the second part of the period examined. Still, an evident lack of political will and reluctance to fully manage the situation and respond to IDPs' plight was noticeable. This, despite the national capacity to do more. In contrast, the main obstacle for management in South Sudan has been the extensive lack of national capacity due to dysfunctional institutions, reluctance, and incoherence in the transitional governments in 2015 and 2020 which has created an extreme dependency on aid and external support. This concludes that whether political will or capacity is insufficient, both are inevitably important to be adequate for sustainable and adequate management of IDPs. Connecting this back to what has been emphasised in the introduction and literature review and shown throughout this study, policies and national instruments are important tools for establishing conditions that enable durable solutions. However, without capacity and the political will to address the situation and take responsibility, the prospects for a nations IDPs and durable solutions to their plight can be considered poor and obscure.

Drawing more and deeper conclusion from the results of this study is difficult. As accentuated in the method chapter, the study faces limitations in generalising the result and be applicable to governmental management in universal terms. As noticed, this is because of the use of only two cases, the use of only four out of eight criteria from the framework, and the contextuality of IDP-situations and their drivers. However, what can be concluded is that the study has further accentuated the importance of considering IDPs as something incredibly multifaceted, beyond solely humanitarian concerns, and thus the necessity to be addressed and examined through comprehensive, holistic or nexus-inspired approaches or conceptualizations. Additionally, the study has shown that peace processes and its trajectory have clear impact on the IDP-management just as much as the IDP-situation is known to affect peace processes and prospect for sustainable peace.

(48)

Management of Conflict-Induced Internally Displaced Persons in a "Post-Conflict" Context