Explaining Delayed Cessation : A Case Study of Rwandan Refugees in Zimbabwe

Cessation is a process that removes refugee status. If cessation occurs too soon, it risks the lives of individuals sent back to their countries of origin. If cessation happens too slowly or not at all, states may become more reluctant to accept refugees in the first place. The most recent experiment in cessation is underway – and well behind schedule. Two deadlines recommended by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for the cessation of refugee status of Rwandans have come and gone, yet some 100,000 Rwandan refugees remain in countries of asylum. This article hypothesizes that the delay to implementation of Rwandan cessation by many African states is driven by regional political concerns with irregular migration. Unilateral cessation may cause undesirable irregular migration, which poses a challenge for a region composed of states with varying levels of support for cessation and at various stages of implementation. Cessation is a state prerogative but may only work effectively as an act of regional consensus. Meanwhile, Rwandan refugees are faced with indefinite uncertainty about their legal status. Most Rwandan refugees have not experienced premature cessation, but delayed cessation. If coordinated implementation of cessation does not occur, the outstanding Rwandan refugee population will dwindle slowly over time, primarily because individuals opt for voluntary return or host states increase local integration. As delays mount in implementation and enforcement of the ceased circumstances clauses, one must conclude that the UNHCR advisory deadlines for cessation were premature, or that cessation has not proved as effective as the 1951 Refugee Convention intended – or both