How Much Protection in Internal Relocation is Enough to Refuse Refugee Claims?

Internal Relocation Principle (IRP) – also known as the Internal Relocation/Protection/Flight Alternative (IRA/IPA/IFA) – refers to a norm of international refugee law which permits the refusal of refugee status based on the finding that the applicant can find sufficient protection against the well-founded fear of persecution by relocating internally to another area in the country of origin. Although the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol did not make a clear reference to IRP, IRP has become a firmly established norm in today’s international refugee law through the development of State practice.

The key question in applying IRP is how much protection in the proposed site of internal relocation is sufficient enough to deny the applicant’s refugee claim? Despite constant academic consensus that the requirement of protection quality in internal relocation must be higher than the mere absence of well-founded fear of persecution, States seem to have attempted to lower this requirement in domestic law and practice. This presentation aims to map out some features in the current trend of IRP State practice, using examples of the United States, Canada and Norway.