Exploring the negotiation histories, execution and outcomes of the Cessation Clauses for Eritrean refugees in Sudan and Rwandan refugees in Uganda
This project explores the negotiation histories, execution and outcomes of the Cessation Clauses for Eritrean refugees in Sudan and Rwandan refugees in Uganda. It seeks to explain the gap between countries of origin, countries of asylum and UNHCR agreeing to apply the ‘ceased circumstances’ Cessation Clause to these particular caseloads of refugees, and the very different localised politics of implementation that has played out on the ground. Included within this research agenda are explanations of when and why the pursuit of durable solutions segues in to the cancellation of refugee status en masse, and what the desired outcomes of this shift in focus are. It argues that we cannot understand the paradoxical outcomes of either of these instances of the Cessation Clause’s invocation without a much greater theoretical engagement within refugee studies with two main questions. Firstly, how do actors interpret and manipulate words and meanings during negotiations? And secondly, what is the significance of this behaviour for how outcomes are determined, and how cooperation is achieved in pursuit of them?