Abstract
The approach of both domestic Georgian authorities and international organisations to solving the displacement crisis created by the 2008 Russia–Georgia conflict charted a new path.1 It was radically different than approaches taken in the early 1990s when Georgia was faced with mass displacements following the secessionist conflicts in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. In particular, the expectation that a prompt return to homes of origin would be the preferred durable solution to the displacement was quickly abandoned for a sizeable number of internally displaced persons (IDPs) forced to leave their homes during the 2008 conflict. In its place, the two other theoretically accepted – but much less widely used – durable solutions to displacement (local integration and resettlement) have been embraced with unprecedented speed and vigour, with both funding and logistical support in place to implement such plans.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
23. See E. Rosand (1997) ‘The Right to Return Under International Law Following Mass Displacement: The Bosnia Precedent?’, Michigan Journal of International Law, 19, 1121. See also discussions of the right of return in K. Lawand (1996) ‘The Right to Return of Palestinians under International Law’, International Journal of Refugee Law, 8, 532; and E. Rosand (2000) ‘The Kosovo Crisis: Implications of the Right to Return’, Berkeley Journal of International Law, 18, 229.
27. As Zetter and others have noted, refugees are far more likely to return home spontaneously than in organised programmes, see R. Zetter (1994) ‘The Greek-Cypriot Refugees: Perceptions of Return under Conditions of Protracted Exile’, International Migration Review, 28, 307.
31. See, for example, J. Milner (2005) ‘Resettlement’, ‘Burden Sharing’, ‘Refugee Warriors’ and ‘The Comprehensive Plan of Action’ in M.J. Gibney and R. Hansen (eds) Immigration and Asylum: From 1900 to the Present (Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-Clio).
35. G. Paglione (2008) ‘Individual Property Restitution: From Deng to Pinheiro – and the Challenges Ahead’, International Journal of Refugee Law, 20, 3, 405.
42. The significance of the attainment of ownership rights is much debated in international development circles, but one significant camp holds that ownership is key to development and self-sufficiency. See, for example, H. de Soto (2000) The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else (London: Transworld).
44. See, for example, B. Zeynalova, ‘New Homes for 52 IDP Families’ (28 June 2007) Norwegian Refugee Council, online: http://www.nrc.no/?did=9183464. The heavily-criticised Rwandan experience of imidigudu in the 1990s should also be mentioned here as a much less successful example, although that programme stretched far beyond the creation of settlements for refugees into a full-blown recreation of the Rwandan rural landscape. See, for example, D. Hilhorst and M. van Leeuwen (2000) ‘Emergency and Development: The Case of Imidugudu, Villagization in Rwanda’, Journal of Refugee Studies, 13, 3, 264–280.
52. S. Chesterman (2008) ‘An International Rule of Law’, American Journal of Comparative Law, 56, 342.
Editor information
Copyright information
© 2010 Anneke Smit
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Smit, A. (2010). A ‘Sea of Tiny Houses’: Novel Approaches to Ending Forced Displacement Following the 2008 Russia–Georgia Conflict. In: Green, J.A., Waters, C.P.M. (eds) Conflict in the Caucasus. Euro-Asian Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230292413_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230292413_7
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-31691-5
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-29241-3
eBook Packages: Palgrave Economics & Finance CollectionEconomics and Finance (R0)