Area Analysis: Security

Timothy King
Dr. Elizabeth Holzer
SOCI 3835 (H) Refugees and Humanitarianism
18 April 2016
Review of the mechanisms of law in the Buduburam refugee camp

The privatization of refugees human rights by UNHCR

relegates refugees to the status of persons with limited
global citizenship: one is at liberty to respect their
rights, but no political authority assumes the duty to
protect them. In other words, they do not have human
rights.
(Sagy, 2014)

1. Introduction
In 1990, the Ghanaian government appealed to the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) for financial and administrative support in receiving a
mass influx of predominantly Liberian refugees. The Buduburam refugee camp, later
renamed refugee settlement by the UNHCR as part of local integration policy making
(Holzer, 2015), was established in the Gomoa East District of the Central Region, 24
kilometers (15 miles) west of Ghanas capital: Accra. It was jointly administered by the
UNHCR and Ghanas Interior Ministry, or the Ministry of the Interior; a department of the
Ghanaian government mandated to ensure internal security, as well as the maintenance of
law and order in the country (mint.gov.gh/). Ghanaian regulations governing refugee

King 2
Area Analysis: Security
relations were largely settled by the Refugee Law of 1992 and the 1994 agreement
championed by the UNHCR in which Ghana [agreed] to follow UNHCR protocols in all
administrative activities involving refugees (Holzer, 2015). However, the practice of
staffing the titular head of the camp (officially the settlement manager and colloquially the
commandant) with a Ghanaian government official brought regulations governing that
position closer to the administration of Ghanas Interior Ministry.
By 2006, Buduburam housed nearly 45,000 refugees (UNHCR, 2006) of the Liberian
(1989-1996; 1999-2003) and Sierra Leone (1991-2001) civil wars, in addition to displaced
persons from Nigeria and Ivory Coast (Cote dIvoire), and periphery populations of Ghanaian
nationals. Liberian refugees in particular suffered protracted refugee crises due to a civil
war that [raged] for more than a decade and [displaced] more than half of the countrys
population (Holzer, 2015). They remained the predominant refugee population for the
camps duration, operating as a relatively cohesive community with extensive economic,
religious, social, and political organization (Holzer, 2013). In 2001, the UNHCR published
its global refugee statistics and some three million African refugees suffered protracted
refugee crises and were expected to continue as long-term refugees in increasingly worsening
circumstances and conditions without any immediate recourse (Crisp, 2002).
Unlike the expected image of a West African refugee camp [Buduburam] isnt the
typical refugee camp (Christian Science Monitor, 2003). Buduburam became a model
refugee camp and presented a moderate version of a harsh form of social life (Holzer,
2015). Displaced persons, although regularly discriminated against, had slid into the ranks
of the dispossessed alongside the [] members of the urban underclass in Ghana (Holzer &
Warren, 2015). Through the joint efforts of humanitarian actors, hosts, and refugee
initiatives, Buduburam became one of the largest and most thoroughly regulated political
units in the Gomoa district (Holzer & Warren, 2015). The Ghanaian authorities did little to

King 3
Area Analysis: Security
restrict the economic activities or the freedom of movement of Liberian refugees, earning
Buduburam a reputation as one of the more progressive and effective refugee camps
(Holzer, 2013). Ghana acted as a surrogate in administering refugee policy and the
implementation of social service programs funded by the UNHCR, an approach which is
becoming increasingly popular in mediating African humanitarian crises.

2. Mechanisms of law in the Buduburam refugee camp

Human rights are mostly commonly conceived as qua human rights (qua, as being)
and must be referenced against authoritative political bodies, typically nation-states or
organizations of nation-states (Walters, 1996). This citizenship-based conception and
implementation of human rights predominated until the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (UDHR) was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. The
UDHCR describes a more contemporary human rights framework that identifies the source
of rights in humanity rather than membership in a state, and it placed the responsibility to
protect rights in the hands of the international community (Sagy, 2014). It was thought that
the UDHCR solved the practical and theoretical problems of human rights faced by citizens
who are discriminated against or persecuted by their own states [] the world refugee
problem, and denizens as well as citizens (Sagy, 2014). More recently however, the
UDHR has been criticized by sociologists of human rights for presenting a human rights
discourse [that] is exclusionary in two ways: it excludes non-Western cultures and
[sociopolitical minorities (e.g., women, homosexuals)] (Sagy, 2014).
Sagy, Holzer and other sociologists of human rights have examined how human rights
are actualized in protracted refugee crises like the Buduburam refugee camp. Their findings
in summary being that: (1) the UNHCRs legal practices promoted the privatization of
human rights, (2) the refugees were simultaneously engaged with and alienated from host

King 4
Area Analysis: Security
law, and (3) the development of legal subjectivity as wards of international law (Holzer,
2013). The following discussion attempts to review of the mechanisms of law in terms of
security physical security and access to justice observed in the Buduburam refugee camp.

2.1. Privatization of human rights (to physical security and access to justice)
The Buduburam refugee camp did not notably experience incursions from
combatants in the Liberian civil war [] in part because [Ghana and Liberia] do not
share a border (Holzer, 2013). Ex-combatants were demilitarized and at least
partially reintegrated. Liberian former child soldiers expressed fear of retribution as
war criminals either from fellow refugees in Ghana or the Liberian government and
many had experienced some type of threat from a victim or attempts of military rerecruitment by mercenaries of foreign wars (Woodward et al., 2009). However,
there is little evidence of active combatants or armed elements within the camp, due
in part to the placement of the UNHCR regional hub in Ghana for several years
[which] led to more generous resettlement programs than elsewhere in West Africa
and the renewed possibility of repatriation following the end of the Liberian civil war
in 2003 (Holzer, 2013). UNHCR programs for repatriation, resettlement in developed
countries, and local integration (against Ghanas policies) would later become a point
of contention among Buduburams refugees and perhaps the only source of disorder
(host states often consider political activism to be a security threat).
Security initiatives were implemented by refugee-run organizations in part
supported by the UNHCR (e.g., NWT and ADC), and Ghanaian actors (Ghana Police
Service). Ghanaian authorities distrusted Liberian refugees; refugees are often seen
as a security threat to the host country [and] have constantly been branded by both the
camp management and the police as security threats in the camp (Tanle, 2013). The

King 5
Area Analysis: Security
State of Ghana established a police station to to provide security to the refugees and
also enforce the rules and regulations placed on refugee behavior (Tanle, 2013) and
employed a total of seven personnel for a population of 45,000 refugees (Sagy,
2014). Ghanaian authorities were not only unable to assume the difficult and costly
responsibility for protecting the physical security of refugees, they were also
unwilling (Sagy, 2014). Police corruption was already an issue in Ghana and gained
nationalist bias in Buduburam: a common refrain among Liberians is: the police
dont serve our interests [] they speak their Twi together and come to an agreement
to the detriment of the Liberian claimant (Holzer, 2015). On the matter of the poor
security, a Liberian refugee has reported that the most painful thing is that sometimes
when you call the police to come to your aid when you are in trouble, they will ask
you to go and solve your own problems (Tanle, 2013). Buduburam had become a
refuge for deviant behavior due, at least in part, to the ineffective and unwilling
police.
In addition to host legal institutions, the UNHCR uses security packages a
cluster of security measures applied to specific refugee camps (Sagy, 2014) to
monitor security in camps: (1) Peace Education Programmes (PEP) that discouraged
refugees from approaching host legal authorities, (2) claims that reporting to host
legal authorities would threaten prospects of resettlement, (3) educating refugees to
grant human rights to one another, (4) establishment of the Neighborhood Watch
Team (NWT), (5) subsequent mismanagement and disregard for refugee-run
organizations (e.g., NWT and Arbitration and Discipline Committee [ADC]), and
finally (6) substituting education for protection. The UNHCR recognized the need to
extend responsibility [for protecting the physical security of refugees] beyond the host
state, it stressed that its own role was secondary, although its legal practices

King 6
Area Analysis: Security
essentially blocked refugees access to justice [and transferred] the responsibility for
the protection of refugees physical security onto the refugees themselves (Sagy,
2014). Solutions offered by the UNHCR located the problem in the refugees
themselves and not in the conflicts that created massive displacements or in their
ineffective security packages. The Buduburam refugee camp was considered to be
located in its host state, Ghana, but under UNHCRs control. Sagys findings from
Buduburam [show] that UNHCR is reluctant to assume the difficult and costly
responsibility [of] protecting the physical security of refugees, and foists this
responsibility onto the refugees in a process termed: privatization of human rights.

2.2. Emergence of wards of international law

The Buduburam refugees, unlike other disempowered populations, are
encouraged to take responsibility for human rights by not claiming them from the
government and solving problems on their own (Sagy, 2014). As discussed in earlier
sections, UNHCR served as the primary importer of law in Buduburam and
cultivated an understanding of refugees as legal subjects and transgressions as
violations of the law (Holzer, 2013) and human rights. The legal frame became
increasingly restrictive and the UNHCR became increasingly punitive in their
response to refugee noncompliance [] a pattern of rising mistrust that [weakened]
the relationships between the UNHCR and refugees (Holzer, 2013). The legal field
of Buduburam led refugees to claim international law in the Concerned Women social
protests (2007-2008); the protesters anchored their claim to rights in a special
relationship to the international community (Holzer, 2013) and expected the UHCR
and international community to enforce measures for refugee protection and aid. The

King 7
Area Analysis: Security
protests ultimately failed and were met with harsh treatment from the Ghanaian police
and UNHCR: host states often consider political activism to be a security threat.

Annotated References
1. Crisp, Jeff. No Solution in Sight: the Problem of Protracted Refugee Situations in
Africa. Working Papers (CCIS, UCSD) 68: 1-30 (2003). Web.
The author, Jeff Crsip, has held senior positions with UNHCR (Head of Policy
Development and Evaluation) and related NGOs (e.g., Refugees International, Global
Commission on International Migration). Crisp has worked extensively with
humanitarian operations and published on issues of refugee and forced migration.
Given his position in the UNHCR, it is likely he is biased towards supporting its
refugee polices despite criticisms of efficacy.

2. Holzer, Elizabeth. What Happens to Law in a Refugee Camp? Law & Society Review
47(4): 837-872 (2013). Web.
The author, Elizabeth Holzer, is currently an assistant professor of
sociology and human rights with the University of Connecticut, Department
of Sociology. Holzer conducted fieldwork in the Buduburam refugee camp
(March Apirl 2006; September 2007 August 2008; June July 2011) to
study the ways that [the refugees] made sense of the legal practices,
discourses, and institutions that they encountered (Holzer, 2013). It is likely
that the author is subjectively biased.

King 8
Area Analysis: Security
3. Holzer, Elizabeth. The Concerned Women of Buduburam: Refugee Activists and
Humanitarian Dilemmas. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2015. Print.
(SEE ABOVE)

4. Holzer, Elizabeth & Warren, Kamryn. Humanitarian spectacles from below: A study of
social connections in unsettled contexts. Ethnography 16(4): 482-502 (2015). Web.
The authors, Elizabeth Holzer and Kamryn Warren, currently work with the
University of Connecticut, Department of Sociology. Holzer, an assistant professor of
sociology and human rights, conducted fieldwork in the Buduburam refugee camp
(March Apirl 2006; September 2007 August 2008; June July 2011) to study the
ways that [the refugees] made sense of the legal practices, discourses, and
institutions that they encountered (Holzer, 2013). Warren, a graduate student, has
research interests that include the intersections of forced migration, humanitarianism,
and transnationalism. She is currently analyzing the Bhutanese refugee crisis and the
refugee camps of Eastern Nepal for her dissertation.

5. Jacobsen, Karen. Can Refugees Benefit the State? Refugee Resources and African
Statebuilding. The Journal of Modern African Studies 40(4): 577-596 (2002). Web.
The author, Karen Jacobsen, is currently the Associate Professor of
Research at the Fletcher School (Tufts University) and the Acting Director of
the Feinstein International Center where she directs the Refugees and Forced
Migration Production. Jacobsen also acts as consultant for the UNHCR and
related NGOs and her research interests include refugees and migration issues,
humanitarian assistance, livelihoods in complex emergencies, and developing
countries.

King 9
Area Analysis: Security

6. Sagy, Tehila. Do Human Rights Transcend Citizenship? Lessons from the Buduburam
Refugee Camp. Social & Legal Studies 23(2): 215-236 (2014). Web.
The author, Tehila Sagy, is currently a lecturer in socio-legal studies
with the University of Leicester, Law School. Sagy conducts research in the
areas of criminal justice, private ordering (system of social norms maintained
by the parties involved and independent from the State), legal anthropology,
human rights, police work, international organizations, NGOs, and
multiculturalism. For her PhD, Sagy conducted an ethnographic study of the
legal system of the Buduburam refugee camp (2005-2007, The Research
Project). It is likely that the author is subjectively biased.

7. Tanle, Augustine. Refugees reflections on their stay in the Buduburam Camp in

Ghana. GeoJournal 78: 867-883 (2013). Web.
The author, Augustine Tanle, currently works with the University of
Cape Coast, Department of Population and Health (Cape Coast, Ghana).
Tanle has published extensively on qualitative social research, urban/rural
sociology, and social policy. Given that the author is based in Ghana, he is
potentially biased towards supporting its refugee policies. It is also likely the
author is subjectively biased.

8. Woodward, Lucinda & Galvin, Peter. Halfway to Nowhere: Liberian Former

Child Soldiers in a Ghanaian Refugee Camp. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 99(5):
1003-1011 (2009). Web.

King 10
Area Analysis: Security
The authors, Lucinda Woodward and Peter Galvin, currently work
with the Indiana University Southeast. Woodward, an Assistant Professor of
Psychology and International Studies and International Programs Co-Director
(Department of International Studies, IUS). Galvin, a professor of
geosciences (Department of Geosciences, IUS). Both authors are likely to be
biased in favor of their respective fields, perhaps to the detriment of an article
addressing refugee crises.