The 2016 New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants set out in Annex 1 paragraph 19 that the UN Refugee Agency, UNHCR, should ‘include … a … global compact on refugees in his annual report to the General Assembly in 2018’. The Formal Consultations ran from the start of January 2018 and considered a series of drafts proposed by UNHCR. At the instigation of states, the scope of the Global Compact on Refugees (GCR) became more limited and the final version expressly only applies to refugees as defined by the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. As such, there may seem little scope for considering internally displaced persons (IDPs) in the context of the GCR.
Paragraph 5 provides that the GCR is ‘grounded in the international refugee protection regime, centred on the cardinal principle of non-refoulement, and at the core of which is the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol. Some regions have also adopted specific instruments which apply to their own respective contexts’. Nevertheless, there are express and implicit references to IDPs in the GCR. One useful example relates directly to academia and is found in Paragraph 43 that called for a global academic network, ultimately the Global Academic Interdisciplinary Network (GAIN), on ‘refugee, other forced displacement, and statelessness issues’. The idea that academia could be restricted in its role, as part of Paragraph 3’s wider international community, to 1951 Convention refugees would have ignored the reality of research on forced displacement.
More significantly, though, the GCR in terms of its Objectives in Paragraph 7 has accepted the reality that ‘[easing] pressures on host countries’ and ‘[supporting] conditions in countries of origin for return in safety and dignity’, amongst other matters, will necessarily include dealing with IDPs alongside refugees. In Global North countries, it may be possible to focus on refugees alone, but in low- and middle-income countries that host over three-quarters of persons within UNHCR’s expanded mandate, which does include IDPs, the different populations are mixed and there are references to this co-mingling in parts of the GCR.
Express references to internal displacement in the GCR
Paragraph 12 acknowledges that ‘population movements are not necessarily homogenous, and may be of a composite character. Some may be large movements involving both refugees and others on the move; other situations may involve refugees and internally displaced persons; …’. In addition, Paragraph 12 goes on to refer to cross-border displacement as a result of climate events or other disasters, so when looking at mixed populations and GCR responses, the complex character of responding appropriately cannot consider 1951 Convention refugees in isolation. As a consequence of the broad reference in Paragraph 12, different elements of country support with respect to displacement, both burden- and responsibility-sharing and solutions, need to have regard to IDPs when meeting the GCR’s Guiding Principles of ‘better [protecting] and [assisting] refugees and [supporting] host countries and communities’ – Paragraph 5. The GCR’s Programme of Action, Section III, is concerned with ‘Arrangements for burden- and responsibility-sharing’ and ‘Areas in need of support’. Both aspects should have regard to IDPs, as is discussed below.
Dealing with the explicit references in the GCR, Paragraphs 52 and 53 deal with ‘Early warning, preparedness and contingency planning’. One only has to imagine a situation of acute crisis and along with the internal displacement in the source state, it is natural that cross-border displacement could result in displacement of the local population as the refugees arrive in the country of asylum. As such, providing better protection to refugees and host communities requires preparedness measures that consider internal displacement:
53. … Preparedness measures will take into account global, regional, subregional and national early warning and early action mechanisms, disaster risk reduction efforts, and measures to enhance evidence-based forecasting of future movements and emergencies. They could, where appropriate, also take into account forced internal displacement that may result from a particular situation. UNHCR will strengthen support to concerned countries by sharing information on the movement of people of concern. (emphasis added)
UNHCR, having operations both sides of the border, is uniquely well-placed to provide information in country of nationality or origin and country of asylum and, with respect to the former, give indications on whether IDPs may turn into increased numbers of refugees in the country of asylum, that may indeed cause greater internal displacement in the latter as well.
With respect to solutions to refugee status, the GCR deals with this in Paragraphs 85-100. Given that resettlement in a third country is not a viable alternative in the current world order except in the rarest of cases, that leaves integration in the country of asylum or voluntary repatriation. Under Paragraph 89, the GCR acknowledges that return to the country of nationality or origin can lead to internal displacement of returnees. It may not be possible due to the cause of cross-border displacement in the first place to be able to return to the refugee’s original home. Thus, even the proposed solution to refugee status in the country of asylum may give rise to internal displacement on return, even under voluntary repatriation. Thus, paragraph 89 provides that, ‘Relevant stakeholders will work with authorities, as appropriate, to support information sharing on protection risks in areas of return and the establishment of systems for analysis of such risks’. With increasing pressure by states globally in the current changing world order to promote return of refugees and asylum seekers, in part because of the reduction in humanitarian aid, this planning by various states is crucial to uphold the human rights of all forcibly displaced persons.
Broader acknowledgement of IDPs through the GCR
It is good to note the express references in the GCR that show the interconnectedness of internal and cross-border displacement. If the Compact were solely focused on 1951 Convention refugees, then that would not reflect modern displacement and UNHCR’s operational practice in those low- or middle-income countries that host the vast majority of the 123.2 million persons falling under the organisation’s international protection set out in the 1950 Statute at the end of 2024 – approximately 40 million refugees and asylum seekers and 73.2 million IDPs.
However, it is that relationship between the two forms of displacement that underpins the approach of the GCR. Paragraph 4 sets out that the GCR is not legally binding, ‘but that it reflects the political will and ambition of the international community as a whole for strengthened cooperation and solidarity with refugees and affected host countries’. The commitment to fairer and more predictable burden- and responsibility-sharing derives from Paragraph 3 and, more significantly, Paragraph 5, yet, courtesy of Paragraph 4, it is not legally binding on countries from the global North who are not major hosting countries (cf. Gilbert, 2019). On the other hand, Paragraph 5 sets out the Guiding Principles of the GCR, including international refugee law, especially the principle of non-refoulement, international human rights law, with most of the United Nations’ treaties footnoted, and along with other pertinent areas of international law that better protect and assist refugees. Thus, while the GCR itself is not legally binding, it sets out the treaty-based commitments of refugee hosting, predominantly low- or middle-income countries, who cannot avoid their obligations to the refugees. And therein lies the inherent unfairness in the GCR. First, that the focus is on effectively a third of the people within UNHCR’s mandate responsibility, with no similar compact for IDPs so that the burden and responsibility can be shared, and, secondly, that most of those same human rights obligations in Paragraph 5 apply to IDPs, too, but there has been no endorsement by the General Assembly for those forcibly displaced persons.
What is good about the GCR, though, is that for the first time, as is mentioned in the Introduction above, there is full recognition of the impact on host countries and host communities and that the latter need assistance, too, as part of fairer and more predictable burden- and responsibility-sharing. And it is this that once more incorporates IDPs within the GCR framework. Given the fact that 67% of refugees are in neighbouring countries, one only has to take into account the acute crise in East Africa and the Horn and it is impossible not to recognise that the GCR host communities will inevitably include IDPs in that state. IDPs are the unnamed group within the GCR who must be part of better protection and assistance, especially as set out in §III.B of the GCR, and should be incorporated into the Global North’s commitment to fair and predictable burden- and responsibility-sharing. If the sharing is to be fair, it needs to acknowledge the increased costs associated with responding to internally displaced persons alongside the refugee population – the displacement-scape as a whole has to be acknowledged when allocating resources to ‘host communities’.
Conclusion
The GCR was very definitely limited to 1951 Convention refugees by the states at the Formal Consultations in 2018. However, reality in situations of forced displacement means that both expressly and implicitly, IDPs need also to be factored into Paragraph 5’s Guiding Principle, ‘to operationalize the principles of burden- and responsibility-sharing to better protect and assist refugees and support host countries and communities’.
Geoff Gilbert is Sérgio Vieira de Mello Professor of International Human Rights & Humanitarian Law, in the School of Law and Human Rights Centre, University of Essex, and Senior Adviser on Protection Policy & Legal Advice, Division of International Protection & Solutions, UNHCR.
This topical paper is part of the special series on ‘Internal Displacement in a Changing World Order’, led by the Internal Displacement Research Programmeat the RLI. The experts contributing to this series assess how rapid shifts in contemporary politics, plummeting levels of humanitarian aid and escalating global crises are impacting displacement-affected communities. The series ties into the launch in April 2026 of a 45-chapter “Handbook of Internal Displacement” that comprehensively addresses this issue.
KEYWORDS: Internal Displacement, IDPs, Global Compact on Refugees, GCR, UNHCR
Selected Bibliography
Gilbert, Geoff (2019) Not bound but Committed: operationalising the Global Compact on Refugees. International Migration, 57 (6). pp. 27-42.
https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.12632.
UN (2018) Global Compact on Refugees.
UN General Assembly (2016) New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants.
UNHCR (2025) Global Trends Report 2024.