You are the officer in charge of overseeing refugees’ related issues in a multilateral humanitarian organisation. There is an ethnicity based civil war going on in a region and as a result, many people are being displaced. Hitherto, the economically better-off neighbouring countries have accommodated the streams of migrants with financial support from your organisation. The violence in the region has increased recently and the flux of people seeking refuge has grown substantially. With countries sealing their borders, the refugees are left in a vulnerable situation. You are sent to negotiate for humanitarian settlement of refugees with the neighbouring countries, who also happen to be a powerful economic bloc. However, they refuse any more accommodation on the following grounds: (a) Drainage of resources in face of subdued economic conditions. (b) Domestic political repercussions. (c) Rehabilitation will encourage more influx and indirectly fuel the persecutors. (d) Permanency of settlement in face of better prospects than at home. What are the counter-arguments that can be cited to convince the countries for an immediate solution? Suggest some long term measures as well that should be followed to address the problem. 10 marks

Mentor’s comment-

  • In the introduction briefly explain the case study.
  • In the body explain the ethical issues involved. The answer should reflect the understanding of reluctance in such issues and therefore must specifically address each point with a combination of short and long term solutions.
  • Conclude with a fair and balanced approach.
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments