Blog post by Allison Bostrom and Marga F. Angerasa *

---

Internal Displacement in Ethiopia

Internally displaced persons (IDPs) are people who have been driven from their homes by violence, climate change, instability, or other dangers, but have not crossed an international border. Displacement puts these IDPs in a distinct position in which they cannot exercise their rights on equal footing with their compatriots. They may lack a feeling of security, access to their documents, land/property and even the means to feed themselves. In short, forced displacement causes unimaginable suffering to IDPs.

Measures taken to assist IDPs can be generally sorted into two categories. First, provision of basic necessities and ensuring security is what matters most. Second, seeking a durable solution for the suffering of IDPs is key not only for the life of the IDPs but to ensure sustainable development and peace. Durable solutions also help to curb further displacement and end cycles of suffering. In both cases, the government has the primary duty to provide assistance, in the absence of which the international community has both the legal and moral duty to intervene. The UN Guiding Principles and the Kampala Convention identify three kinds of durable solutions for IDPs: integration of IDPs to their place of refuge, resettlement in other areas of the country, and return to place of displacement. Each of these solutions has its own merits and demerits, but the safety and security of the victims should be taken into consideration when weighing them against one another. Most importantly, the free and informed consent of IDPs must be given priority in any decision or plan of action that impacts their lives. In addition, the factors that led to displacement must be addressed by the government. For example, if conflict or widespread human rights violations precipitated displacement, measures should be taken to address the causes of the conflict, then displacement, from its roots. Genuine transitional justice efforts can contribute significantly to initiatives toward durable solutions.

Transitional Justice for Durable Solutions for IDPs

Transitional justice (TJ) is the blanket term for the process by which societies recover from large-scale, sustained human rights violations and build more peaceful and inclusive systems. Most often TJ is used in societies that have endured conflict and/or authoritarian rule. The formal end to a conflict or a dictator’s rule does not necessarily signal an end to people’s suffering, however. When an entire people has suffered severe human rights violations, they need both justice and closure to move on. In some cases, institutions must be repaired or built from scratch to establish an inclusive and representative government. In short, these societies face many challenges, and TJ provides a framework for addressing them. The International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ) poses several important questions that help to define TJ’s scope: “How can we pursue justice if the state itself perpetrated or was complicit in violations against its own citizens? What can be done to restore the basic values of trust and respect in a system shattered by atrocities committed on an enormous scale? How does society recover?” Essentially, TJ addresses the need to provide a way forward for societies as a whole by focusing on what the (many) victims need. This can and should take many forms, including criminal accountability for human rights violations, reparations (monetary or otherwise) for harm done, truth-seeking commissions that allow victims and their loved ones to tell their stories and have them publicly documented, and reconciliation efforts to rebuild communities.

Ethiopian TJ : A hope for IDPs?

Ethiopia set the TJ process into motion while hosting over 2.9 million internally displaced persons amidst continued armed conflict in at least its two largest regions.  Ethiopia is among the countries in which the highest number of internal displacements have been recorded. In 2022, Ethiopia globally ranked third with 2.032 million IDPs. Despite the gravity of this figure, the true number is likely far greater due to widespread challenges with counting IDPs in Ethiopia, including a lack of data and inconsistent registration of internal displacements. A significant portion of internal displacements in Ethiopia are driven by armed conflict, ethnic tensions, and human rights violations. Specific incidents and factors that frequently cause displacement include looting, property destruction, sexual violence, and the general dismantling social cohesion. As a signatory to the Kampala Convention and other international human rights instruments, Ethiopia has a duty to prevent displacement and furnish IDPs with due protection, humanitarian assistance, and durable solutions.

After the disastrous civil war in the Northern part of the country that cost lives of hundreds of thousands, the Ethiopian government and TPLF signed the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement in 2023. The peace accord, among other things, requires a TJ process, which started immediately afterward.

Some characterized TJ in Ethiopia as stillborn, arguing that conducting TJ in the midst of conflict is impossible. Despite this, the government has moved forward with it. In addition to the adoption of a formal TJ policy, the government announced it is working on detailed roadmaps for the process.

Our concern is around how the IDPs should be included in and benefit from the TJ process, regardless of the implementation timeline. The process may be implemented after peaceful resolution of conflict. We want to highlight what a genuine TJ process brings to the table for IDPs. Despite its challenges, transitional justice could give IDPs an opportunity to self-advocate and secure solutions in the form of restitution, representation, and justice. Though the future of TJ in Ethiopia is uncertain, IDPs and their advocates can take it upon themselves to prepare for it.

The importance of TJ in ending the plight of IDPs is the buzzword of the day. However, the exclusion of IDPs in most TJ processes is common. In this piece, we argue that the ongoing Ethiopian TJ process should take the following matters into consideration:

1. Identifying the number of IDPs in Ethiopia 

Planning for humanitarian assistance and efforts towards durable solutions require identification of IDPs, both those displaced en masse and individually. Profiling IDPs and identifying their individual needs facilitates both access to IDPs and the development of an appropriate response. It is also important to distinguish IDPs from members of host communities that may have separate needs. It is only by identifying IDPs and registering their numbers and locations, in addition to assessing their needs and those of their hosts, that durable solutions can be attained. Hence there must be institutional and legal arrangements that ensure that these tasks are accomplished to make TJ work for IDPs.

2. Establishing an internal displacement victims’ association

Considering IDPs as passive recipients of humanitarian assistance and protection from the government and humanitarian organizations is old-fashioned. TJ must not approach the pursuit of durable solutions and justice for IDPs as a fait accompli. Hence, inclusion of IDPs in TJ discussions is necessary. CSOs working in the area may play a key role in assisting IDPs, as victims, to organize themselves to voice their own perspectives.

3. Ensuring the inclusion of IDPs in the dialogue and TJ process

The only way to ensure that IDPs’ needs and concerns are adequately addressed is to include them in a deep, meaningful, and systematic way in decision-making. TJ can only be successful if all victims have the opportunity to share their experiences and seek restitution. This must include symbolically meaningful efforts such as truth-seeking, as well as tangible means such as reparations.

4. Ensuring criminal accountability for arbitrary displacements

Restitution of lost property alone cannot constitute justice for IDPs. Forced displacement is a crime under international law, and there must be criminal accountability for this act both to ensure that formal justice is delivered and to provide IDPs with a sense of closure regarding the traumas they experienced.

5. Recognizing the necessity of durable solutions for sustainable peace

As noted above, Ethiopia has a staggering number of IDPs from several different regions and ethnic groups. Without durable solutions for these people that provide pathways to secure futures, there cannot be sustainable peace in the country. The insecurity, deprivation, and sense of abandonment that accompany extended periods of displacement breed instability.

6. Security reforms

Just as there can be no peace without special attention to IDPs’ needs, assurances of reform are necessary to restore people’s sense of security and their confidence that the abuses committed during the conflicts will not be repeated. Ethiopia’s security forces have been credibly accused of committing and abetting atrocities. The country’s people must be assured that new safeguards are in place to prevent recurrence. This can include formal justice mechanisms but must also include reforms to the security forces. Leaving the same actors or structures in control of the country’s security apparatus at best gives the impression of continuity and at worst actively facilitates it.

What does the near-term future of Ethiopia’s TJ effort look like?

We are at a precarious moment for transitional justice in Ethiopia. The National Dialogue has progressed, but many are still skeptical of its composition and ability to navigate the complex political landscape of the country. Regardless of the validity of these concerns, the bigger impediment is the continuing conflicts in several of Ethiopia’s regions. By definition, TJ cannot begin until there is a transition from conflict to, at the very least, a cessation of hostilities. Therefore, the future of TJ in Ethiopia is highly uncertain.

However, we have argued here that waiting until there is a defined future for Ethiopian TJ will put IDPs and their advocates in an unfavorable position. It is only by ensuring that IDPs are fully incorporated into the process, from planning through execution, that their needs can be fully addressed.

* Allison Bostrom: Allison Bostrom is a researcher with a passion for human rights, especially those of displaced populations. She completed her MSc in International Development at the University of Edinburgh with a masters dissertation on the subject of the intersection between imperialism and migration. She regularly publishes articles about human rights and migration and volunteers with newcomer populations in the Washington, DC area.

Marga Fikadu: Marga has been a lecturer of law at Wolkite University since 2017. He has an LLM in human rights (2021) and an LLB in law (2016) from Addis Ababa University. He has a great deal of research interest in forced migration, the rule of law, children’s rights, and the rights of political prisoners. Marga also works with CSOs and is a member of international professional networks.

---

The views expressed in this article belong to the author/s and do not necessarily reflect those of the Refugee Law Initiative. We welcome comments and contributions to this blog – please comment below and see here for contribution guidelines.