Law and Policy Developments

New UNHCR Guidelines on the
Cessation Clauses

An information note for African NGOs

June 2003

In February 2003 UNHCR issued new guidelines on the interpretation and application of the cessation clauses of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention (hereafter the 1951 Convention).

The new Guidelines are the fruit of a series of consultations with experts, NGOs and government officials about how the cessation clauses have worked in practice in the fifty years since the 1951 Convention came into operation. The consultations on the cessation clauses were themselves part of a wider set of discussions which were convened by UNHCR during the last two years with the aim of revitalizing support for, and understanding of, the 1951 Convention.

The new Guidelines are intended to complement the guidelines on cessation contained in UNHCR’s Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status (the Handbook), considered in many jurisdictions as an authoritative source of guidance when interpreting the 1951 Convention.

What are the Cessation Clauses?

The cessation clauses, contained in the six sub clauses of Article 1C of the 1951 Convention, provide the framework within which refugee status may be lawfully withdrawn or “ceased.”

The basic idea underlying cessation is that refugee status should “cease” when there is clearly no longer any need for international protection—e.g., where a refugee acquires a new nationality and enjoys the protection of his or her new State of citizenship; or where there is no longer any danger that the refugee will be returned to persecution because the situation in the refugee’s country of origin has stabilized.

The first four clauses of Article 1C refer to situations where the refugee himself or herself has personally taken action which suggests that they are no longer in need of the special protection extended to a refugee under the Convention.

The final two clauses refer to factors which occur outside the personal control of the refugee. They describe a situation where circumstances have changed so much in the refugee’s country of asylum (or country of previous habitual residence) that it can be determined that sufficient protection is available to him or her at home. This latter notion is known as “ceased circumstances” and is central to how cessation operates in practice (Subsection (5) and (6) of Article 1 C, 1951 Convention).

How Does Cessation Operate in Practice?

The cessation clauses are very infrequently invoked. When cessation is used it is usually applied to a particular group of refugees collectively. This is often done by means of a formal declaration by UNHCR or by a host State that it has been determined safe for that group of refugees to return home—a declaration of general cessation. In order for cessation to not to result in further persecution of the refugee group, it vital that the change in circumstances relied upon for the declaration be fundamental, stable, durable and effective.

In May 2002, for example, UNHCR announced that refugee status would be ended for Eritrean refugees who had fled as a result of the war of independence or as a result of the most recent border conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea. Although this group was declared to be no longer be “of concern” to UNHCR, it was still open to individuals to come forward to say that they continued to have fears about return. Those who were found still to be in need of international protection would be able to remain as refugees.

Over the last twenty years UNHCR has applied the cessation clauses in relation approximately fifteen national groups.

Cessation on the basis of “ceased circumstances” may also be applied on an individual case basis. This is, however, extremely rarely done. Generally where cessation is applied to an individual it is by way of the personal circumstances clauses (the first four clauses of Article 1C) eg., where a refugee acquires citizenship of another State with full rights of residence and appropriate protection.

What are the most important new interpretative clarifications offered by the new Guidelines?

The new Guidelines provide additional clarification in relation to the meaning and operation of the “ceased circumstances” clauses of the cessation clauses (subsections (5) and (6) of Article 1C). During the Consultations it was recognized that, although the existing guidelines in the Handbook were generally adequate, there was particular need for further clarification around procedures and concepts for assessing the existence of “ceased circumstances.”

The new Guidelines do not, however, address the questions which are sometimes raised about aspects of the interpretation of the first four clauses of the cessation provision—issues related to changes in personal circumstances.

The new Guidelines thus:

• expand significantly on the guidelines in the UNHCR Handbook relating to interpretation of subsections (5) and (6) of Article IC;
• contain an extensive discussion of the general principles which must infuse any decision to declare cessation and an elaboration of the meaning of the concepts of “fundamental” and “durable” change in the country of origin;
• examine in more detail the kind of situations where exceptions to cessation might apply;
• recognize that, although not strictly required by the 1951 Convention, the fact that a refugee has stayed for a long time in a host country and has created strong social, economic and other family ties, should be a factor taken into account by States when considering cessation and whether to provide alternative residence status;
• clarify that, despite the actual wording of the “ceased circumstances” clauses, the possibility of invoking exceptions to the ceased circumstances clauses should be available to all refugees—the literal meaning of the provisions suggest that exceptions may only be invoked by Article 1 A (1) refugees (persons who were considered to be refugees under the international instruments which were in force prior to the 1951 Convention);
• explicitly recognize that “partial cessation” may occur—that is a declaration of cessation which only affects a certain subgroup of refugees from a particular country (see Eritrean example above);
• describe the procedure and process elements which must be observed prior to, and after, a determination of ceased circumstances: these include issues such as the burden of proof, the creation of transparent and consultative processes involving, inter alia, the refugee community, and provision of an opportunity to challenge the applicability of the declaration to an individual case.

How can the new Guidelines be used by NGO advocates?

The emphasis in the Guidelines both on (a) the criteria for making an objective assessment of the changed circumstances in the country of origin and (b) on interpreting the applicability and operation of cessation firmly within the context of the search for genuinely durable solutions for refugee communities, is to be much welcomed.

The content of the new Guidelines, and in particular their associated status with that of the Handbook, add up to a valuable resource for refugee advocates seeking to ensure that States (and indeed UNHCR) invoke the cessation clauses only in clearly defined situations where careful and thorough discussion of the ramifications of a decision to apply cessation has taken place.

On a practical note, the question of whether the cessation clauses might apply to the Rwandan refugee caseload across Africa will shortly be an issue with which States, UNHCR, advocates and refugees in the region will have to grapple.

Do the new Guidelines address the interpretation of the cessation clauses in the 1969 OAU Refugee Convention (1969 Convention)?

The cessation clauses in Article 1C of the 1951 Convention are very similar to the first five clauses found in Article I(4) of the 1969 Convention. But there are three significant differences. The 1969 Convention provides for two additional grounds for cessation, contains only one ceased circumstances clause and neglects to articulate any exception to the application of the latter (Article I(4)(e)).

The 1969 Convention itself recognizes that the 1951 Convention is the “basic and universal instrument relating to the status of refugees” (Preamble, clause 9). The 1969 instrument was intended as a complement to the 1951 Convention—to elaborate particular aspects of the application of the provisions of the 1951 Convention to refugee situations in Africa. The new Guidelines can be read therefore as providing a guide to understanding the ceased circumstances clause of the 1969 Convention (Article I 4 (e)).

Of particular interest to African advocates is the explicit reference in the new Guidelines to how assessment of ceased circumstances should operate in situations where groups have been recognized as refugees without any individualized determinations of their cases.

A unique 1969 Convention perspective on cessation—a request to refugee advocates

Naturally, as the new Guidelines focus on providing interpretative guidance on the 1951 Convention, there is no attention paid in the new Guidelines to the two additional concepts which were introduced by the drafters of the 1969 Convention—viz., that refugee status will “cease to apply” where the refugee “has committed a serious non political crime outside his country of refuge after his admission to the country as a refugee” or “has seriously infringed the purposes and principles of this Convention” (Articles I(4)(f) and I(4)(g)).

These two additional concepts interject questions of criminality and “deservedness” into consideration of the concept of cessation, and reinforce the preoccupation with the potential for subversion by refugee populations which seems to be a theme of the 1969 Convention. Article I(4)(f), for example, which refers to the commission of serious non-political crimes outside the country of refuge after admission to the host country, is a formulation which immediately evokes the cross border incursions which are such a prevalent feature of conflict in Africa.

The concept of cessation as conceived in the 1951 Convention, however, and as discussed above, was not intended to be associated either with questions relating to criminality, or with the maintenance of State security. It was simply intended to trigger recognition that the need for international protection had “ceased.” In the 1951 Convention, the issues of criminality and security were dealt with in the exclusion clauses (Article 1F) and other articles of the 1951 Convention such as those relating to expulsion (Article 32), and exceptions to the principle of non-refoulement (Article 33(2)).

There are many questions surrounding how Articles I (4)(f) and I(4)(g) are intended work in harmony with the overall purposes of the 1969 Convention. And indeed whether these concepts should not have been confined within the exclusion and security related clauses of the Convention. The Lawyers Committee would be extremely interested in hearing from advocates who have had experiences of how these two clauses which containing these unusual cessation concepts, may have been invoked in national law.

Deirdre Clancy, Director of the International Refugee Program, attended the UNHCR expert discussions on cessation in Lisbon in May 2001.

Further reading:

UNHCR, “Guidelines on International Protection: Cessation of Refugee Status Under Article 1C(5) and (6) of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.”

Joan Fitzpatrick, "Current Issues in Cessation of Protection Under Article 1C of the 1951 Refugee Convention and Article 1.4 of the 1969 OAU Convention," Prepared for the UNHCR Global Consultations on International Protection, June 2001.