6. INSTITUTIONAL ACTORS
The leading actors in this process are the governments of the industrialised world through intergovernmental bodies and supra-national agreements. The European Union is a major player together with the Inter-governmental Consultations on Asylum Refugee and Migration Policies in Europe, North America and Australia which comprise the main industrialised countries and the UNHCR. In addition international non-governmental organisations (INGOs) and NGOs attempt to influence the agenda and play an important role in the field; it is pointed out that NGOs now collectively transfer more resources to Southern countries than the world bank (Mertus 1998).The United Nation Security Council is called upon; NATO takes it upon itself to intervene militarily but also provides humanitarian assistance.

UNHCR has become embroiled in controversies and its relationship to governments and donors countries has been the target of sharp criticisms. In some cases, the agency has been supported for extending its concern to new categories of persons and mutating from a refugee organisation to a broad based humanitarian refugee agency. For instance UNHCR monitoring of internally displaced persons and returnees has sometimes been perceived as a positive extension of its mandate and an innovative change in the regime through providing some degree of assurance and safety (Roberts 1998). Another prevalent view opposed to the latter is that the protection mandate of UNHCR is undermined by the pressures of its expanded humanitarian assistance role (Rudge 1998,) or even that its humanitarian responsibilities and its protection mandate are potentially incompatible (Goodwin-Gill 1999). UNHCR has also been accused of legitimating and furthering the agenda of industrialised states in the pursuance of their interests through prioritising concepts such as in-country protection, the right to remain, repatriation (Chimmi 1998). New UNHCR concerns embrace substantial numbers (13M), who are not refugees but Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs), returnees, war affected populations in former Yugoslavia, relocated population in the Russian Federation, and stateless people (Roberts 1998) Uprooted populations, displaced people, involuntary migrants are the new terms used which tend to replace the concept of refugee (Joly and Suhrke 1997)

In Europe policy decisions are informed and governed through inter-governmental agreements Schengen, Dublin and also the numerous EU resolutions and conclusions. The main seat of regime formulation is the EU which sets up models and attracts in its wake non-EU members in Europe. Despite and perhaps thanks to the measures introduced and encouraged by those agreements, individual governments have more discretion on decisions determining status as they enjoy greater flexibility vis-à-vis the Geneva Convention. Harmonisation of policies is the main trend. Intense co-ordination and information sharing is taking place at EU level. However this harmonisation process does not apply to all areas concerning asylum and refugees; up until now it has hardly touched the question of non-Convention refugees and of refugee settlement. It is my view that harmonisation measures so far have been a concerted effort to clip the wings of the Geneva Convention in the EU to re-instate governmental and inter-governmental discretion over the acceptance of refugees.

Nevertheless other actors are debating and disputing the agenda. The UNHCR enjoys an enhanced role in Europe, but runs the risk of becoming part of the new agenda led by the EU. Other bodies although less influential, are taking an active part in the debate on refugees: the European Parliament, the European Commission, the CSCE, the Council of Europe, ECRE and other NGOs.Finally, this phenomenon encompasses the whole of Europe as Central and Eastern European countries are eager to join the acquis communautaire on asylum.

back