Understanding Voluntary Return: An Assessment from the Framework of Peacebuilding and Social Cohesion
- Conflictus
- Feb 20
- 6 min read
Updated: Feb 26
Since 2016, as Conflictus, we have been working in collaboration with development and humanitarian aid organizations in Turkey, focusing on social cohesion and conflict resolution to foster dialogue between Syrian refugees* and the local population. Throughout this process, we have consistently sought to answer the question: "How can we live together without erasing our differences?"
However, as of December 2024, the new developments in Syria have brought discussions on "voluntary return" into sharper focus. These discussions mark a critical turning point, especially for individuals and institutions working on migration policies, social cohesion, and conflict resolution. Since this process is often framed in public discourse in a way that diverges from the concept of voluntariness, we felt the need to explore it by focusing on the questions of why and how.
Although discussions on return may seem to stand in direct contrast to debates on social cohesion, the management of this process is a crucial factor that directly impacts societal peace. Therefore, in this article, while addressing the key aspects of how the process should unfold, we aim to share some recommendations from a peacebuilding and conflict resolution perspective—without delving too deeply into details. In doing so, we hope to provide a framework for individuals and institutions working in this field.
Let's Talk About Concepts: What Exactly Is Voluntary Return?
According to international conventions that define the fundamental rights of refugees and the obligations of states, return cannot be enforced (See: The 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, and UN Global Compact on Refugees, 2018). This fundamental principle should always be kept in mind.
However, "voluntary return" is only one of the three durable solutions defined by UNHCR for refugees. The other two solutions are local integration in the host country and resettlement in a third country.
The most critical issue when discussing voluntary return is the uncertainty surrounding the process and the lack of consensus on many aspects of it.
That is precisely why we must ask the following questions:
Return… But what kind of return?
What conditions must be met for the process to be sustainable and successful?
Is successful return merely crossing a border, or does it require sustainable reintegration?
Does return mean going back to one's original community, or does it involve creating new opportunities in different areas?
Does return imply regaining the standard of living achieved in the host country, or merely returning to the living conditions left behind before displacement?
These essential questions highlight that a successful and sustainable return process is not merely a movement but rather a multidimensional process of reconstruction.
This is precisely why discussions on voluntary return should not focus solely on returning but must center around durability, sustainability, and dignified living conditions.
While reflecting on these questions, we would like to recall Johan Galtung, a key figure in peace studies. As he strongly emphasized, “The end of armed conflict does not necessarily mean the establishment of peace.” In other words, discussing voluntary return based solely on the assumption that armed conflict and physical violence have ceased—without assessing whether the social and structural conditions are adequate—will not lead to a lasting solution. On the contrary, it may even mark the beginning of new cycles of conflict for displaced individuals.
Low Return, High Dynamics: The Barriers and Challenges of the Process
Past experiences show that returns are not as widespread as often assumed. An analysis by UNHCR on 53 post-conflict cases between 1989 and 2008 reveals that the majority of refugees do not return to their home countries within ten years after the end of the conflict. In only 15 out of the 53 cases studied did at least half of the refugees return.
The factors influencing return include:
Individual refugee conditions: Factors such as age, gender, and social status can influence the return process.
Host country conditions: Another significant factor that shapes the return process is the host country’s condition. In general, the factors that enable or hinder return include the host country’s situation. Key elements in this regard include refugees’ ability to rebuild their lives in the host country, access to economic opportunities, the level of social cohesion, and access to basic services.
Current Conditions in the Home Country: Another important factor affecting refugees' decision to return is the current conditions in their home countries. Post-conflict security, economic reconstruction, infrastructure deficiencies, and social reintegration processes, as well as dealing with post-war trauma, are among the main elements influencing the decision to return.
Access to accurate information: Misleading information can negatively affect return decisions. Studies and previous examples show that returns made without obtaining accurate and sufficient information often result in feelings of regret and disappointment. This situation can make life difficult for those who return, potentially leading to new conflicts and directly affecting the sustainability of return.
The role of national and international development and humanitarian aid organizations: These organizations play a crucial role in making the return process safe and sustainable. Strengthening the capacities of national and local institutions, reorganizing existing legislation to facilitate this process, and ensuring justice through necessary actions are examples of the responsibilities that international organizations have in this context.
Although global legal and political frameworks exist to manage refugee returns, measuring and evaluating the nature of the return process is not easy. Distinguishing between physical return and permanent settlement is a critical requirement for sustainable return.
To ensure sustainable return, structural conditions such as security, economic development, and access to basic services must be established. However, alongside these elements, it is also important to strengthen social cohesion and peacebuilding mechanisms. At this point, from a conflict resolution perspective, ways to implement the social dynamics of coexistence should be explored.
In this context:
The role of individuals within the current refugee groups who are equipped to manage peace and social cohesion processes should not be overlooked: Refugees who have previously worked in local mediation, peacebuilding, and social cohesion or have experience in civil society can take the initiative and make a significant contribution to managing potential conflicts during the return process. These individuals can facilitate social cohesion processes by building trust with both returnees and the local population.
Ensuring access to accurate information about the current situation in Syria: Refugees should have access to mechanisms for accurate information both in the countries they reside in and within Syria, in order to make a realistic assessment of the return process. Local NGOs, international organizations, and community leaders play a crucial role at this point.
Strengthening the conflict sensitivity skills of local and international actors: When managing the return process, it is crucial for local and international organizations to have conflict sensitivity. To prevent potential tensions during the return process, communication channels between the local population and refugees should be strengthened. Additionally, organizing conflict resolution training for humanitarian aid workers and government officials is an important step.
To briefly emphasize once again, it is evident that this challenging and ambiguous process cannot be handled in a one-sided and one-dimensional manner. When it comes to peacebuilding efforts, it is essential to carefully examine all structural, economic, and social dynamics without excluding any party and to develop a roadmap accordingly.
We would like to emphasize that return should be left to the refugees' discretion without being presented as an obligation, and the most important thing is the improvement of the current conditions there.
*In this article, the term 'refugee' is used to refer to individuals who have been displaced due to war and have had to migrate, regardless of their legal status."
Thank you for reading our post! At Conflictus, we eagerly await your feedback and insights.
Dilara Gök & Tunç Karaçay
Conflictus Conflict Resolution Training and Consultancy
🔗 Learn more about our services:
Conflictus Website: https://www.conflictus.co/en
📧 Contact us: info@conflictus.co
Constant, L., Culbertson, S., Blake, J. S., Adgie, M. K., & Dayalani, H. (2021). In search of a durable solution: Examining the factors influencing postconflict refugee returns. RAND Corporation.
Galtung, J. (1969). "Violence, Peace, and Peace Research." Journal of Peace Research, 6(3), 167-191
Hovil, Lucy, “Hoping for Peace, Afraid of War: The Dilemmas of Repatriation and Belonging on the Borders of Uganda and South Sudan,” Geneva, Switzerland: UNHCR, New Issues in Refugee Research, Research Paper No. 196, 2010.
Comments