Paper details

Paper authors	Sodip Roy
In panel on	‘Real’ Humanitarian Governance: Accountability, Advocacy, and Alternatives
Paper presenter(s) will be presenting	In-Person / Online

Abstract

Growing of agencies is obvious to refugees in protracted situations because of circulation of powers among different actors in the camp. Particularly in the case of the Rohingya refugee situation, they have been conducting many camp activities under the humanitarian banner. Humanitarian organizations empower refugees to some extent as a governance technique. In hindsight, this study examines how the refugee agency is accommodated in-camp localization process. The long-term ethnographic fieldwork in the Rohingya camp resolves that refugees’ agency does not bare of dependency syndrome. Youth and community leaders demonstrate their capacity well in the small-scale community-led projects but they have no experience of performing in bigger responsibilities in the camps. Under-representation and undermining of their agency reinforce the colonial hegemony of the humanitarian government. Abrupt fund crisis neither leaves any scope to humanitarian organizations to ‘ethical exit’ considering agency of refugee nor for the host country to reorganize the camp governance. Eventually, it is the refugee who remain bare life and lose their lives. While the international refugee regime (IRR) fails to classical durable solutions and responsibility to protect (r2p), localizations cannot be a solution to the Rohingya refugee crisis. The study’s findings regarding localization process of Rohingya response served as impetus for consideration of agency of the refugee.

Back