Human Rights Violation Over the Children Refugees in the Host Country

The main object of the research paper is to add to the discussion of how to secure the human rights of refugees in host country. whereas there is no doubt that an independent host country holds the main object for the conditions of human rights in the jurisdiction of host country. It is also appropriate to discuss issue of accountability in respect of UNHCR and the more actors in refugee camps. The international law of UNHCR orders to give international security to refugees and seek solution for issue of refugee problems. In this way, it is required to discuss in detail on the following parts of research paper, whether or not UNHCR has an obligation to take step in response to violation of human rights of refugee camps. If so, what are the potential limits that present for the scope of the duty of host country? The UNHCR is accountable for act and omission of the executing partners in operations of refugee camps operations. The research paper explores problems related to human rights of refugee in refugee camps and to some extent the policies and rules of international accountability as well as in respect of case study of refugee camps in Ethiopia.

The research study is helpful for the researchers to attain their knowledge about meaning and concept of violation of human rights over the children refugees. It may be effective to understand the different basic human rights of the refugees. The research study is also important for the country to decide the influences of human rights principles on the refugee protection mechanism (Ravitch and Carl, 2015).

The main important thing for a researcher is to evaluate the real objects of the research study. The reason is that research objects help to complete the research study successfully in proper way (Sacks, 2015). The major objective of the research study is to examine the basic human rights of the refugees. There are some objects related to the research, which are mentioned as follows-

1. To understand the basic human rights of the refugees.
2. To understand the problem of refugee children.
3. To analyse the international human rights law to protect the refugee children
4. To determine the impacts of human rights principles on the refugee protection mechanisms.
5. To analyse the various specific issues related to the violations of human rights over children refugees in United Kingdom.
6. To have knowledge of the reasons of migration of children
7. To determine the various recommendations for the protection of refugee children.

The introduction chapter of the research methodology helps to obtain the knowledge in deep in respect of methods, approaches, and procedures to conduct the research study in a procedural way. The introduction chapter of the research methodology is also helpful for the researcher to give the support in order to pool the details or information and data from a huge number of contributors. It also collects the various sources to fulfil the requirements of research and meet the research project (Lindert et al, 2016). In this research study, the research philosophy forms the understanding and knowledge of a researcher in respect of issue of research (Sigona, 2018). In addition of this, the selection of the proper research philosophy helps a researcher to evaluate the approaches of combining, assessing and understanding the data by making use of process of research (Myhrvold, 2015).

In respect of searching the accurate answers to the above discussed questions and objective of research, many research methods are employed. The traditional legal method, summarizing literature from known researchers, is primarily utilized. The international law, regional law and domestic refugee law instruments and rules related to human rights are also observed in respect of the literatures. Since United Nation High Commissioner for Refugee (UNHCR) is at the center of this thesis paper, resources created by office are also utilized widely such as UNHCR ExCom decisions, varioys Handbooks, and many official reports are studied. This research paper select the case study of human rights violations in the refugee camps of Ethiopia, in respect of the showing problems of international security from a practical viewpoint and to show the common over view of conditions of refugee camps. The legal study of domestic laws mainly, critical investigation of the Refugee laws of Ethiopia, applicable human right law and details taken by deliberations with staff members of ARRA and staff members of UNHCR have been asked and worked in addition to the own observation of authors while functioning for Ethiopia office in UNHCR stated in the research paper.

Trying to show, evaluate, observe, review and compare then decide a main matter such as  violations of the human rights in refugee camps in the host country and decide which actor has the duty for such violations is definitely a tough task. It is tough because it has various scope at the local and international levels, and because it contains huge work of special areas such as legal area, political area and economic areas. There is no doubt that every field has its own importance in creating the completing show. However, the assessment of all the fields with the restricted extent of the research paper can render a wide study without depth in the subject issue. To match the depth with the extent this study will ask for response the following questions-

1. When a contravention happens in refugee camps to which actors shall duty be given?
2. What conditions or situations may UNHCR be held internationally answerable for the violations of human rights taking place in the camps organized for refugee?
3. What is the normative category of rights of refugees as per the legal system and the duties of human rights of the host country in respect of security of refugee?
4. Is it probable for the many actors to be concurrently accountable under ILC’s (ARISWA) and (ARIO)?

Furthermore, it is significant to note that the government in host country, especially the responsible refugee agency (ARRA) officials was not unhelpful of the view of writers to make research on the issues of rights and powers of refugees but they actually taken to danger to their security. It was almost not possible to admit any formal data from the office of ARRA and most of the data rendered in the research paper collected in the very casual manner, mostly by making inquire from the officers at UNHCR.

In this research paper, the first chapter shows the general background. The second chapter states the meaning and concept of refugee. In this chapter basic human rights of refuges is discussed. The third chapter specifies the reasons or problems or the specific issues of refugee children. The fourth chapter states the meaning and establishment of refugee camps. Further, the fifth chapter addresses the recommendations for the refugee people. The sixth chapter provides the various conclusions regarding refugees.

The refugee disaster means the actions of huge groups of displaced persons. They may be internally displaced people, refugees, or the other migrants. It also means the occurrences in the nation of origin or the departure, to great problems while on the move or even after coming in a secure nation which include the many groups of the displaced persons, asylum seekers or refugees. The refugees are defined as the sufferers of violation of human rights. Article 1(a) (2) of the United Nations Convention in respect of the status of refugees 1951 defines the term refugee (Gratton and Jones, 2010). According to it  the word refugee should apply to a person who owing to well established threat of being offended  for the causes of race, faith, citizenship of specific social group or political review, is outside the nation of his nationality. They are not able to avail himself of the security of that nation (Flick, 2013).

The human rights violation is a main factor in producing the flight of refugees as well as a barrier to their secure and deliberately come back home. Securing the human rights in the nations of origin is critical both for the stoppage and for the resolution of the problems of refugees. It is also necessary to respect the human rights for the security of the refugees in the nations of asylum (Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2013). The respect for the human rights was a main part of the development of the nation was not an accident. It is clear that the risk of violation of human right in a domestic nation that induces the refugees to cross the international borders and have the security abroad (Cottrell, 2018).

It is a risk of violation of human rights in the domestic nation that forces the refugees to cross the international borders and require security abroad. Therefore, securing the human rights in nations of origin is of critical significance not only to the prevention of refugee problems but also for the solutions. In the present time, the problem of refugee is global in scope. This problem concerns not only persons in the relations with states but also concerns the people with the relation of states (Claudel, 2016). There is a requirement of law not only for the protection of the children refugees but also for the solution of whole problem or issue of refugee. The law should be solution oriented. It should impose the liabilities and obligations on all the states. It is strongly supposed that the human rights viewpoint of the problem of refugee will help to restructure the current mechanisms of the refugee law on this line (Camren, 2013). Further, the approach of human rights may helpful in giving the essential legal base for the security of refugees in states that have not allowed to the 1951 Refugee Convention or the 1967 protocol (Capaldi and Crowther, 2012).

In this way, the problem of refugee in respect of human rights has expected extraordinary significance in the present time. Here, the research study has been made for the understanding of the human rights of the refugees and the impacts of human rights principles on the refugee protection mechanisms. It also states the human rights in United Kingdom and the improving the involvement of authorities related to the human rights (Babbie, 2016).

In the present time, the movement of people is increasing in the comparison of present time. The people compulsorily displaced by war. The large-scale movements of the people include extremely diverse group that move for different reasons. The people leave their hometown because of some reasons. These reasons include poverty, dissimilarity, battle, violence, natural disasters, harassment, and the climate changes (Ravitch and Carl, 2015).

The children are influenced by the migration by the three ways. As per the first way, the children move with their family. As per the second way, they migrate alone with the family, parents, or legal guardians. In accordance with the third way, the children are left behind by the parents who have no choice except going out of country to protect the means of maintenance for the family (Pace and Sen, 2018). In all of these situations, the children have to tackle particular challenges to the rights to proper care and security. In this way, it is dynamic that policy and programme answers to the refugee movement and migrants involve provisions, which provide children the range of care and access to appropriate support services (Watters, 2007).

The rights of refugee children are secured by the same general law and the foreign treaties, which secure the citizen children. These acts are The Children Act, 1989, Human Right Act, 1998 and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). These acts include the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. All the refugees and asylum seekers are required to get registration with GP (Hamilton and Moore, 2004). The refugees and asylum seekers have the right to take NHS care in the similar manner as the British citizens. The refugees have rights to claim asylum timely.

There are many rights given to children. They have right to express themselves properly. It is a right of children to get involvement in creation of information, knowledge, and awareness. It is a basic right of refugee children to express their thinking, views, opinions, and feelings in respect of their own well-being (Harvey, 2015). Following rights are given to refugee children in order to make sure that children continue to take proper care despite of the status of migration-

• The right to life and survive
• The right of development
• The right to express own views and opinions in proper way
• The right to have their best interest
• The right to a name
• The right of nationality
• The right of freedom
• The right of religion
• The right to access the information or data
• The right to live in the environment of family
• The right of alternate care
• The right to make connection with parents
• The right of proper health and welfare involving right for disabled children
• The right of social security
• The right to education, culture, and arts.
• The right to get special security (Tay, et al 2015)

Certain rights are provided to refugees. It is a question to be considered that whether refugee’s rights are called as human rights. This question can be challenging at the time when refugee person are frequently sufferers of abuse in respect of the preventive policies related to refugees. It is observed by the Ex-United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) chief that a human right agenda out of which United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was born, and on which everyone depend, is progressively more coming under strain. Against this background, evaluating the relationship between refugee law, human rights law and humanitarian law is important in order to recognize the complete choice of duties of host country and thereby notify their practices towards the refugee people and asylum seekers (Phillips and Phillips, 2016). Though refugee law and human rights law were primarily conceived like international law’s two different branches, their versatile communication is now well recognized in each area of the host country. The laws including Refugee law, human rights law and international humanitarian law are law’s corresponding bodies of law which have same and general objectives. These objectives are the security of the life of refugee people, health of refugee and self-respect of refugee. They create a multifaceted network of balancing protection. it is very important to focus on the process of the interaction (Nestor and Schutt, 2014).

It is very important to see the connection or link between Refugee law and Human Rights law. In order to make sure the civilized treatment for a mostly weak group of individuals, international refugee law is very much connected to international human rights law. It makes focus on protecting the self-respect of an individual and security of individual. The relations between the Refugee law and Human Rights have been advanced as a causal connection, the contravention of human rights being recognized as the main cause of movements related refugee. The two bodies of law are corresponding progressively, the principles of human rights principles have been applied to increase the security of refugee people.  In respect of the powers that refugees and asylum-seekers have in international human rights law in host country.  In so far as international mechanisms to observe the appropriate application of human rights law may be used by and on the behalf of refugee males, females and children. The complete international security structure is based on the concept of human rights. It targets to help those who have been enforced to escape their nations because their powers have been desecrated (Marshall and Rossman, 2014).

The concept of discrimination is regularly understood according with the standards of human rights standards. The knowledge of international human rights law is accordingly essential for protecting the international protection for refugee people and others. The human rights law is applicable to the everyone. It is applied to refugee people, despite of the legal status, it is a useful norm to utilize in evaluating the treatment’s quality that asylum nations propose to refugee people and asylum-seekers in the related jurisdiction. It is mainly significant when the countries are not Parties to any refugee treaties.

The prevention under traditional and treaty-based human rights law on coming back the refugee in the jurisdiction where they are at the danger of torture or unkind or heartless or debasing treatment or penalty, emphasizes the non-refoulement principle under the refugee law. For conducting this, it proposes another legal avenue for saving the security for refugee people, during remedy to an international complaint method which is unavailable as per the provisions of the 1951Convention/1967 Protocol. The Human Rights Committee and the Committee against Torture have secured the exclusion of people facing a significant danger of torture. Similarly, at the local level, the Human Rights Court may guide or regulate the nation under the jurisdiction not to eject an asylum seeker to another nation where they can be at the danger of torture or any other contravention of the European Convention for the security of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 1950.10 The same powers have been given to inter-American Court of Human Rights has similar powers in relation to the ban on torture in the American Convention on Human Rights. It is also required to promote the human rights for securing the solutions to crises related to refugee. An effort to advance the human rights condition in the refugee-producing nation are very important if there is to be any real view of sustainable  return and reintegration on their own choice. In this way, the human rights principles are applied to all phase of the cycle of dislocation. It involves the reasons of dislocation, deciding the ability for international security, making sure the adequate norms of treatment in the host country, making sure that treatment are long-lasting (Hyman and Sierra, 2010).

International humanitarian law has the same relevance of the refugee law. Firstly, it helps to decide the status of refugee. The refugees are the people fleeing equipped disagreement and often violation of international humanitarian law. An individual escaping an armed conflict may not involuntarily covers in the definition of the 1951 Refugee Convention. It enforces the restricted list of basis for the discrimination. Identifying that the majority of people enforced to leave their own country today are escaping the random influence of warfare and the associating disorder involving the demolition of homes, stock of food and ways or resources of subsistence contravention of international humanitarian law  but with no particular factor of discrimination, succeeding local refugee instrument (Klenke, 2015). For an example, the 1984 Cartagena Declaration on Refugees and the 1969 OAU Refugee Convention have lengthened the definitions to involve the people escape armed conflict.

The second point of line between international humanitarian law and refugee law is in respect of the exclusion matters. The Violation of these provisions of international humanitarian law are considered as the war crime. Their commission can eliminate or reject the specific people from the power to security as a refugee. As far as security is concerned international humanitarian law proposes refugee people who search themselves in the host country. It is found that they are not taking a direct participation in warfare, as civilians refugee people are permitted to get protection from the influences of warfare. Further in the addition to the common security, the international humanitarian law renders the extra powers and security to refugee children in view of their condition as aliens in the jurisdiction of the party to the conflict and their subsequent particular vulnerabilities. If international humanitarian law works to stop the dislocation of civilians and to make sure the security during dislocation, shall they nonetheless have shifted. The parties to the conflict are specifically banned from dislocating the civilians. It is a sign of the principle that the civilian should be secure as much as possible from the influences of aggression (Gray, 2013).

The 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the security of civilian Population in the period of War: article 44 of this Convention, whose object is the security of civilian offenders, deals with refugee person and dislocated people. The Article 73 of the 1977 Additional Protocol states that refugee people and dislocated persons must be secured persons in the parts I and parts III of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Further additionally, international humanitarian law affords refugee persons additional security or the protection. In international armed conflict refugee people are sheltered by the laws related to aliens in jurisdiction of the party to a disagreement normally as well as by the safeguard related specially to the refugee people.

The refugees advantage from the securities afforded by the Fourth Geneva Convention to aliens in the territory of a party to a conflict involving the power to leave the jurisdiction where they search themselves unless their disappearance will be contrary to general interest of the host country, the sustained power to fundamental and essential securities and rights to which aliens had been permitted before the outbreak of warfare. When identifying that the party t o conflict in whose direct the aliens search themselves can confine the aliens or locate the people in the given place or given accommodation, the principle gives that these are the very strict procedures of control to which aliens can be subjected. Finally, the Fourth Convention also lays down limits on the powers of an argumentative to shift the aliens (Gratton and Jones, 2010.. It is stated that a secured individual can in no conditions be transferred to a nation where they can have the valid ground to terror discrimination for their political views or religious viewpoints a very early appearance of the non-refoulement principle.

In addition of the aforesaid rule for the advantages of all aliens in the jurisdiction of a party to a conflict, the Fourth Geneva Convention contains two further requirements expressly for the advantage of refugee people. The first provision states that refugee people must not be treated as enemy aliens and thus vulnerable to the actions of control exclusively on the base of their race. It identifies the fact that refugee people no longer have the connection of commitment with that country and are thus not mechanically a possible danger or the risk to their host nation (Flick, 2013). The second particular rule deals with the uncertain situation where refugee people can search themselves if the country which they have fled inhabits the host country. In these situations or conditions, the refugee people can only be detained, accused, crooked or banished from the occupied jurisdiction by the inhabiting authority for the crimes committed after the outbreak of warfare, or for crimes not related to the disagreement dedicated before the outbreak of warfare which, according to the law of the now occupied host country, will have justified banishment in the period of peace. The object of this provision is to make sure that refugee people are not penalized for actions such as political crimes that can have been the reason of their leaving from their own country or for the mere detail of having required asylum (Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2013).

The Geneva Convention (1-4) is applied in international armed conflicts, but general Article 3 that also applicable in non-international armed conflict. For the determination of treaty law applicable to the specific conflict, an initial classification of the conflict as international or non-international is needed and it is often complex or matter to dispute. The study states, however, that several regulations apply similarly in international and non-international armed conflict. For example, the restriction of attack on people, press or humanitarian relief personnel and the restriction of forced dislocation of people apply in any armed conflict. However, in a non-international armed conflict, every people is permitted to apply as a minimum, the basic humanitarian requirements of international law stated in Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions. These requirements are established in and increased by Geneva Protocol II of 1977. The common Article 3 and Geneva Protocol II apply with same force to all the people to a armed conflict, governance system and rebel alike (Cottrell, 2018).

Furthermore additionally, the government troop and rebel force should apply the various particular refugee treaty rules connecting to the internal conflict such as the Article 19 of the 1954 Cultural Property Convention and its Second Protocol of 1999, Protocol II to the Conventional Weapons Convention, on prohibition or limitation on the Utilisation of Mines, Booby-Traps and other various tools, as changed on 3 May 1996, the Ottawa landmines treaty of 1997(Culbertson and Constant, 2015).

The rules of customary international law surely applicable as well, in particular the fundamental principles of distinction, access to humanitarian assistance, management of civilians, dislocations and dislocated people, humane treatment and good faith. The progress to internationalize the security of human rights has led to the acceptance of particular legal convention pertaining to human rights. The devices namely the Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the Covenant on Economic detailed after the world war II, specially bring about fetters for the actions of host country as well as the duty of country to apply the norms related to human rights. This structures constantly apply duties on contracting party, high contracting party and parties related to host country.

The other provision is Article 2 of the ICCPR. The Article 2 of the ICCPR deals with the application of the privileges decided upon by parties of the host country to the agreement. It states that each party of host country to the current covenant undertakes to respect and to make sure to all people in the jurisdiction and subject to jurisdiction the rights identified in the current agreement, without difference of any kind for example race, sex, language, colour, religion, political view or other idea, local origin or social origin, born, possessions or other status( Gratz, 2017).

Furthermore, Where not already provided for by current legislature or other measures, each party of host country to the current agreement undertakes to take the proper steps, according with its constitutional procedures and with the requirements of the current agreement, to accept these laws or other measures as can be essential to provide effect to the rights identified in the current agreement (Dettlaff and Fong, 2016).

In relation to this Article, the UN Human Rights Committee has reflected the opinion that while Article 2 of the agreement usually leaves it to the parties of host country concerned to select their process of application in their jurisdictions in the structure set out in that Article, the duty under the agreement is not confined to the respect of human rights, but that parties of host country have also undertaken to make sure the enjoyment of these privileges to all people under their jurisdiction. This obligation to make sure both negative elements and positive elements. It is not to be known as a negative right directed solely at the host country, but rather that calls for positive measures to ensure it. It is normally stated that the host country fulfills its duty to respect by not actively infringing the rights of people, while the word making sure shows an affirmative obligation on the host country to assure such rights. Extensive case law on duties of host country to take proper step has in particular been established within the auspices of the European Court of Human Rights. Significantly, the concept of positive duties and negative duties is connected to the duty of the host country to exercise due diligence to stop, secure, fulfill and encourage human rights (Goodhart, 2016) .

Though due diligence duties, unlike the rules of duties of host country, normally stem from treaty duties, obligations of host country under human rights law and the laws of host country’s responsibility seem to gradually more converge. It is debatable that the norms of due diligence and duty of host country could work in tandem, by informing each other and making parts of a single whole. They are balancing and mutually reinforcing. As per this, the duty of host country to secure the human rights of all people in its jurisdiction and under its authority is very broad.

Many human rights conventions include special treaty mechanisms that have created procedures for monitoring and enforcing compliance with the obligations under the convention. Such procedures include individual complaint procedures, periodic reporting, and political and judicial inter-state proceedings.  The function of reporting mechanisms is to provide a comprehensive monitoring and human rights critique of a particular member state, while the ARSIWA are concerned with the legal consequences of concrete breaches. Such processes will complement the right to raise host country’s responsibility rather than replace it.

In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.

Moreover, there are rights which in principle are non-derogable but where special cases entail that an interference with the right concerned does not constitute a contravention. Within human rights treaties, then, the main criterion used to assess whether a defense of requirement may be successfully invoked is proportionality. This principle states that the extent of the limitation of the human right concerned must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. As such, the control will only be considered necessary when the proportionality requirement is satisfied.

There are a number of provisions in the 1951 Refugee Convention that pose duties upon states parties. Most importantly, states have a duty to provide protection to refugees. This includes states obligation to respect the principle of non-refoulement, embedded in Article 33 which stipulates that no refugee shall be returned to any country “where life or freedom will be threatened on account of his race, belief, nationality, membership of the specific social group or political opinion.” Importantly, neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor regional refugee instruments such as the 1969 OAU Refugee Convention generally allow states to derogate from their obligations.36 Although, unlike the UN Torture Convention that contains an absolute prohibition of refoulement, the 1951 Refugee Convention contains a provision in which states may lawfully restrict refugee rights under one or two narrow circumstances. Firstly, a small number of Convention rights may be withdrawn for reasons of security or criminality. Secondly, the rights of people whose refugees people status has yet to be confirmed may be temporarily suspended on national security grounds during a war of other grave emergency((Joly, 2016).

Though the ILC has labeled international refugee law as Exotic and highly dedicated, this field of law lays only a limited basis for the liability of host country. Within the 1951 Refugee Convention, one could envisage two various ways of holding states accountable for violation of the Convention; either through Article 35 concerning UNHCR’S supervisory function or through the Convention’s compromiser clause as stated in Article 38.

The actual mean of UNHCR’S supervisory duties has never been correctly discovered, and the drafting history states that the drafters did not have a complete knowledge of what supervision on the part of UNHCR will show and entail(Myhrvold, 2015).]. As one commentator stated, “the drafting procedure raised questions rather than response them.” But as per the literature review,  “supervision” has usually been known as the equivalent of reviewing rule compliance. It appears to presuppose a clear understanding of the meaning of the numerous requirements of the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol, but, more importantly, supervision also appears to presuppose knowledge about actual application on the part of states parties. There is nevertheless no sporadic, regular reporting need for host country as such, there is only a duty to undertake to render with information in the proper form.  The supervisory rights of UNHCR are also not accompanied by the power to enforce compliance in states parties in case of contraventions or violations of the Convention and Protocol. UNHCR’s power is limited to making formal and informal representations to governments (Betts, 2015). And even then, there has been increased criticism of UNHCR by outside observers, who point out that UNHCR cannot exercise the requisite of independence, and cannot take a strong stance towards states which violate the rights of refugee people. UNHCR has been basically shifted from an agency whose work was to be a protector of refugees people’s rights as applied by host country, to an agency which itself is included in rights application.

Article 38 of the 1951 Refugee Convention nevertheless provides a different opportunity for holding states responsible for refugee rights violations. It is a so-called compromissory clause attributing compulsory jurisdiction to the international Court of Justice under Article 36 of the ICJ Statute with regard to disputes arising under and with respect to the Convention. The subject matter of the dispute brought before the Court must be related to the “interpretation or application” of the Convention, and similar dispute settlement provisions can be found in numerous treaties. Under the decentralized implementation structure envisaged by the 1951 Refugee Convention, it is governments themselves which mainly remain liable to make sure that refugee people are treated as the agreement needs. Any party of host country can legally take up concern in respect of the non-compliance directly with any other party of host country, and can in most cases need the non-compliant host country to response to the International Court of Justice (Warner, 2017).

The major issue with the compromissory clause in the Convention is that states which are not directly affected by non-compliance have little incentive to become active. In general it is not states but individuals who are victims of a violation of the Refugee Convention, and this without being accorded individual judicial protection. Protection before the ICJ could be exercised by way diplomatic protection, but the individual concerned will generally not be a national of the state of residence and his home state will not be interested in protection. Furthermore, inter-state complaints come at a high political cost; while there have been some formal protests by states parties about the conduct of other states parties, no application has ever been made to the international Court of Justice as contemplated by Article 38. Thus, in practice, Article 35 and 38 are clearly limited and offer little opportunity for holding states responsible for violations of international refugee law (Goodwin-Gill, 2014).

The ILC has commonly referred to international humanitarian law as an example for or as an exception to regulations contained in the ARSIWA, and international tribunals have implemented the regulations on the liability of host country in respect of attribute or not to attribute some contraventions of international humanitarian law to a given host country. International humanitarian law came into being as law controlling belligerent inter-state relations, and thus as a part of the primary customary layer of law. In the present time, it is almost unthinkable to implement the area of law unless it is known in the second layer such as a law securing offenders of armed conflict against the host country and others who wage war. The international humanitarian law is thus interesting as it should be understood and implemented with due regard brought to the first layer of law and second layer of law.

The problem of migration is inappropriately getting bigger in various countries like Europe, Bangladesh, and Greece. The refugee problem took place since Greece is in the edge of insolvency. From the 2015, approximately 1 million people have passed by the coast of Turkey in islands of Greek (Culbertson and Constant, 2015). This migration is considered as largest displacement of huge population. The citizens of Greek face the struggle in nourishing themselves. These citizens of Greek are required the assistance. Many refugees reach in Greece regularly on continuous basis. The nation is provided little assistance and financial help and support from the E. U. to handle this problem. This problem of migration is not just a problem of Greece. It is a general European problem. Further, it occurs in the period when Greece is literally struggling to survive (Gratz, 2017).

In the nation, where approximately thirty percent of population are not employed and more than thirty percent of the people are below the level of poverty, then Greeks have expected the refugees very well with positive attitude and caring behaviour. The humanitarian crises in Europe are major crises after the Second World War. On the other hand, more than 830000 Rohingya refugees are protecting in the Bangladesh, having escaped violence and persecution in Myanmar (Muller, 2008). This involves more than 618000 people in the Bangladesh (Dettlaff and Fong, 2016).

Following are the main issues or challenges face by refugee children-

In the situation when refugee children are found at the international border passing illegally or present themselves to immigration officials at entry port, then migrated or displaced children are subject to accelerated removal, a policy which permits the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to banish an undocumented people without giving them the chance to protect against banishment in immigration court. To stop instant transportation, asylum seekers who are placed in an accelerated removal procedure shall tell the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) official they fear harassment, distress, or coming back to their nation or that they wish to apply for asylum. If an asylum officer decides asylum seeker has a reliable fear of oppression or distress, they may proceed with procedure asylum application (Rutinwa, 2017)..

If the person re-entered illegally after prior expulsion order, then they will be subject to various advanced removal procedure (Meda, 2017). This procedure is called as reinstatement of removal. In the case where a person is not a citizen convicted of some crimes, they are also subject to the removal procedure. The asylum seeker should fulfil the standard or reasonable fear in the interaction with asylum officer (Arnold, 2017). The asylum seeker should be come in the definition of refugee to validate the reasonable fear. It is an obligation of asylum seeker to prove that they come in the definition of refugee (Azima and Grizenko, 2002).

The migrated children are considered as most helpless population in the world. The living condition of refugees is one of specific issue of migration. The poor living condition of people may cause poor health. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) outlines the types of displaced people by the origin and geography (Zephaniah, 2013). Many people are classified as displaced person, those who are enforced to escape their homes but not their nations because of violence or harassment. A migrant is an individual who forced to cross international boarders because of well-founded threat of violence or harassment (Kuntz and Shrodes, 2017). An asylum seeker is the person who is demanding refugee status. The refugee may meet uncertainly low standard of living. They may have long-lasting diseases (Ruurs, 2016).

The refugees get shelter in refugee camp. The refugee camps are naturally contained of quickly built accommodations such as tents in rows. These tents give quick security and evolution in long-term arrangement (Tsarmpopoulou, 2016). In the condition where, the children are displaced for more than five years, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees considers this situation as a secured refugee situation. The two third migrated children reside in secured conditions (Danforth and Boeschoten, 2012). The average period migrated children spend in secured condition has risen to over twenty years. However, the people are wished-for to be temporary, camp house displaced people for periods that mirror long-lasting residence (Fraillon, 2016).

The living conditions of the refugees are big challenge. Historically, the living standards prevalent in some camps have presented hazards to health. The poor accommodation may led to rodent influxes and the transmission of Lassa fever in Sierra Leone camps while conditions such as dampness and gathering have given contribution to the lung infections in the refugee camp (Chenyika, 2011). The learning of Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon searched regular occurrences of drowning, poor aeration, and clamminess. There may be the problem of structure such as cracks in wall. The health influences are not limited to infectious disease. It is also found that leakage of water interrelated with occurrence of the long-lasting sickness (Pobjoy, 2017). These conditions influence the health of migrated people, as they will any other population group subject to these situations, and poses a specific risk to the susceptible populations for an example children and young people ( Nickerson, et al 2015).

Some policies may cause the temporary mind set liable for the bad living condition in the refugee camps. The migrated or displaced people are thought of as visitors in the host nations, waiting to come back home. This behaviour endangers the health of displaced children, as refugees live in the refugee camps in long-term period than intended. Residing in the spaces for the months or years not designed for long period residence is hazardous (Dwivedi, 2002). People must think the refugee camps as house, not as temporary accommodation. These alterations in viewpoints on accommodation will facilitate a creative practice to enhancing health of refugee by housing (Alayarian, 2018).

The migrated children do struggle for the education, despite of the fact that where they live. About half of refugee children do not go to school. Approximately three million youngsters are residing without the capacity to attain an education. In the absence of education, the migrated or displaced person, face many challenges and problems in searching the work and earning a living by resources (Kanj, 2010). The elements, which restrict the opportunity of education for youngsters and child, influenced by displacement, containing language problem, problem of living, increased poverty, problem of child labour, issue of marriage at early age and issue of gender. It is not easy for the seventy five percent of the migrated and displaced children or youth residing out of the refugee camps and the proper systems to access the education. If refugee children do not attend the training program or an education program, and then there are chances of leading danger life, exploitation, and forced labour.

The language barrier is one of the reasons for refugee children (Lavenex, 2017). The space limitation is one of the challenges for displaced children. They cannot get the education because of the limited resources. In this way, the displaced children face many problems when it comes to learning. When depending on the informal learning centres, local NGOs and online education may enhance the access, their use has not accepted or the resourced at scale (Lock and Nguyen, 2018). The migrated children cannot speak all languages. The other problem is that displaced children face ongoing physical and mental harassment. Generally, the teachers do not want to cause destruction, but they do not know the deep emotional burden of what their young charges have seen and experienced. They are not qualified to state the security issues (Fassin, 2011). The humanitarian community that education for displaced children is facing the deficiency of the main resources, which makes it not possible to handle all the barriers in respect of access and quality (Silove, 2008).

Further, Money is the biggest challenge in providing the education to the migrated children and solves this biggest issue. The main reason of this issue is that the families of the children cannot afford the expenses of them. The family income is also a biggest factor of not providing the education. There are many host countries, which do not allow the migrated children to do work. It directly affects the capacity to send children to get education in school. In many places, the chances of the employment are very less. It enhances the burden on the children to make the contribution to the income of household in the place of going school to get education. There is also a problem for the schools to arrange the extra classes and doubled shift classes. There are many children in the school to share the similar resources and same building. This will lead the strain in the education system of country (Jorgensen, 2017).

Furthermore, some schools or institutes provide the good teacher training program. They also get support by the United Nation and NGOs. On the other hand, others have no advantages to help them best integrate migrated students (Opaas and Varvin, 2015).

The solve community provides the solutions to help the world’s most exposed and helpless children to get their highest potential (Forsythe, 2017). The solve community-

• May frame the solutions to provide help to access the education such as by scaling promising education techniques (Peters and Wolper, 2018).
• May give the suggestion of new models, technologies and the ideas that specify the major obstacles to deliver the education for the students influenced by crises (Freeman, 2017).
• May offer tools and the policies to evaluate, review, and get quality education for decreasing the resources limitations, obstacles of language and geographic issues (MacKinnon, 2017).

The unaccompanied children are specifically helpless refugees (Willen, et al 2017).

 The stress and issues connected with roaming and relocating without parent or reliable adult, lead to higher rates of the sadness and signs of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), in the comparison of other displaced and migrated people. The cause of emotional problems include separation from the relatives, separation from families or separation from friends, violence in their domestic country, violence in their host country, poverty and hardships (Friedman, 2018). The resettlement affects the education of migrated children, regular moves, enhancing separation, mistrust the procedure of asylum, and misunderstand the process of asylum. Regardless of these challenges or problems, some accompanied minors hold solid agency and high adaptive working (Lee, 2017).

It is significant to highlight that even when uncovered to risks, all unaccompanied children do not develop the sadness or post-traumatic stress disorder. The unaccompanied children’s agency must always be respected and taken into the consideration. The education plays a vital role in the adjustment and resettlement process of unaccompanied children. In the school, children may learn the host language, develop a routine, experience a sense of object, and begin to create peer network. The accompanied children should be motivated to maintain ties with parent or families (Langlois, et. al, 2016).

According to the many theorists including Hannah Arendt, the refugee is the homeless or non-citizen people who terrorize the national system or system. Accordingly, the nations have acknowledged the requirement for the solution to the issue of refugees people, whose status is regarded not permanent, with two future choices that come back to their own country or nation of origin, or naturalization in the host country. It is found by Arendt that the refugee camp is an ultimate solution including the incarceration of refugees after rejecting their citizenship. Only then do they become homo safer in respect of the applied by ancient Roman law, intended to expire, with their life defined as bare (Van Reisen and Mawere, 2017).

The refugee camps refer to designated areas or the zones where refugees people live in their host country. It is found that the term ’refugee camp’ is defined in the international law. However, in most time it seems there is a contract between experts on the major features of the refugee camps, the civilian character of these people, problems of freedom of movement and the manner these camps directed.

The specific thing about the refugee camps is that the place needs being free from any type of activities related to military. As per the international law and UNHCR rules, camps must not be placed close to the jurisdiction. Article II (6) of the OAU Convention controlling the particular element of the issues of the refugee in Africa specifies that, For reason of protection, countries of asylum shall, as far as possible, settle refugees at a reasonable distance from the frontier of their nation of origin.This has usually been known to mean a minimum of fifty kilometers from the jurisdiction. This principle is also showed in the various UNHCR Executive Committee Conclusions, involving the 1987 Conclusion on Military or Armed Attacks on Refugee Camps and Settlements. It must clearly be civilian and humanitarian in the scope. An as per the next part of discussion, this character of refugee camp is decisively grounded on the international law. It is required to break it down the meaning and concept of refugee camps first, as it is significant part of the research paper (Savelsberg, 2015)..

Firstly, there is no meaning in international law of the term refugee camps for everyone’s surprise the 1951 Refugee Convention and The 1969 OAU Convention makes no reference of any kind to refugee camps. However, the Kampala Convention on the Internally Displaced Person, it might  be able to get a very short meaning of camps,  it refers them as “places where internally dislocated  persons are secured (Howard-Hassmann and Walton-Roberts, 2015).

The 1951 refugee convention makes no reference of any kind to ’refugees camps.’ The 1969 OAU refugee convention also offers nothing regarding the term ’refugee camp’. The only major international treaty which merely refers to “places where internally. Dislocated the persons are sheltered is the Kampala Convention. A comprehensive definition of the concept is also difficult to identify within the broader social sciences, and the operational definitions of international and non-governmental organizations provide little meaningful guidance for our purposes in this thesis. Within the realm of the so-called camp management project under the auspices of six international organizations, including UNHCR has been developed a single widely accepted operational definition. The term ’camp’ applies to a variety of camps or camp-like settings  temporary settlements including planned or self settled camps, collective centers and transit and return centers established for hosting displaced persons. It applies to ongoing and new situations where due to conflict or natural disasters, displaced persons are compelled to find shelter in temporary places.

The lack of a clear definition is particularly disconcerting because the refugee camp “label” may confer an array of legal, political and bureaucratic implications for refugee protection. It also complicates any attempt of clarifying the underlying objectives of hosting individuals in refugee camps; while the very aim of the refugee camp at the outset appears to be the strengthening of refugee protection, critics have argued that the objective of such encampment rather seems to be to protect states from refugees.  Understanding the specific characteristics of a camp is also necessary to understand where human rights violations occur, and thus their legality. It is also important to understand why and how they are used in short term or long-term situations in order to seek alternative solutions. While it may be easy to think of a camp in terms of a rigid definition, the idea of a camp is far more fluid, and can be understood in different ways according to space, time and culture.

Some of the key Camp characteristics have been discussed and listed by different experts. Although many practitioners and scholars are also discuss “camps” without defining their characteristics in light of other types of settlements.

According to Jacobson, here are outlines the various types of settlements that occur:

• Self-settlements occur when refugees settle amongst the local community without assistance from any government or international body. Refugees choose where they live, are able to work (though not necessarily legally), and usually do not receive formal protection from UNHCR or another body.
• Assisted settlements are intended to house refugees temporarily, and can be seen in camps and local settlements in rural areas, and mass shelters or public buildings in urban areas.
• Camps are “purpose-built sites, usually close to the border, and thus usually in rural areas”. They are meant to be temporary, and thus refugees are not expected to be self-sufficient. They are geared toward repatriation, and most are closed, not allowing refugees to come and go freely (though it can vary). Local settlements are like camps in that they are planned and segregated villages created specifically for refugees, but differ in that they are intended to promote self-sufficiency. Jacobsen emphasizes that refugee settlements are “seldom fixed” but are rather formed by “a fluid process, in which refugees settle in different situations”.63 For the purposes of this paper, camps are seen as different from settlements in that they severely restrict rights and freedoms, in particular the freedom of movement and the right to work, which at least the reality in Ethiopia’s case (Morina, et al 2016).

The Normativity of Long Term Encampments during the Cold War UNHCR became increasingly active with refugees outside of Europe. In many cases, refugees were political pawns for state ideologies, as states resettled or locally integrated refugees who held their same political views. However, with the end of the Cold War, sentiments toward refugees shifted, and the international community became more interested in the containment of refugees in their region of origin. Resettlement and local integration became less favorable, and refugees were left with temporary asylum in camps with no prospect for a long-term solution (Loescher, Betts and Milner 2008). In various cases, this made encampment more common, particularly in the 1980s in places like Ethiopia, South Africa, Pakistan and other parts of South Asia (Sacks, 2015).

Even though refugee camps are commonly designated as places of temporary shelter, their de facto duration is indeterminate. As such, they exist between the temporary and the permanent, or, as Agier has articulated, camp is an emergency intervention that has been on ‘stand-by’ for months or years . ‘Being characterized as temporary, while in practice often semi-permanent; the camp thus constitutes a paradoxical environment, also described by Bauman as “frozen transience.’ Today the average lifespan of a refugee camp is 7 years, and UNHCR has coined the term “protracted camp” in response to the increasing reality of protracted refugee situations.71 UNHCR defines a protracted refugee situation as a situation where “a refugee population of 25,000 persons or more has been living in exile for five years or longer in a developing country:’ These protracted situations often have devastating human rights consequences; academics and practitioners alike have begun to emphasize the susceptibility of refugees in protracted refugee situations to exploitation, negative survival strategies, and to political and military movements whose activities conflict with the civilian and humanitarian nature of refugee camps.  For these causes, many have started to question the legality of those long term encampments, advocating for regulated time limits (Scherr, 2015).

Containment of refugees in refugee camps was favored for several reasons. First and for most, developed/western countries “put forward a new state-centric approach, grounded in the refugees-as-burdens view”. The Refugees were seen as “passive aid recipients” at best, and security threats at worst (this has been especially the rhetoric of the right wing politicians in recent years). In response, donor countries would rather see this “burden” or “drain” in camps overseas than at their shores. On the other hand, Host states like Ethiopia and Kenya, for example, chose encampment because “ when refugee settlements are more fully serviced by the international community, refugees are also less likely to be perceived as a burden by local hosts”. This in another words meant that in some cases, aid was conditional upon encampment. Merrill Smith writes, “When a tight-fisted international community says to a very poor country it will provide help for refugees in camp, this evidently encourages that poor country to root out refugees who are integrated and plunk them into camps”. The view that refugees are a burden is also linked to increases in mass influx refugee situations, which encourage encampment as a way to control seemingly overwhelming numbers (Allain, (2017).

Refugee camps as a space on their own are not necessarily illegal, and I am not arguing that camps should never exist according to international law, or that there are not conditions where some limitations on refugee rights are acceptable. However, the human rights violations that occur because of these Protracted refugee encampments, mainly concerning the right to work and freedom of movement, do provide grounds for questioning the legality of Refugee Camps’ itself. One of the well-known scholar on refugee issues, Jeff Crisp, writes that a common characteristic of protracted exile  is the inability of exiled populations to avail themselves of basic human rights involvimg those rights to which refugees are entitled under the provisions of the 1951 Refugee Convention and other international instruments. Similarly, Elizabeth Ferris writes, “Restrictions on employment and on the right to move beyond the confines of camps deprive long-staying refugees of the freedom to pursue normal lives and to become productive members of their new societies. Containing refugees in camps prevents their presence from contributing to regional development and state-buildin. It also increases the vulnerability of refugees to other forms of exploitation

It is found for past time that the default response for any refugee crisis has been to set up refugee camps, which were believed to meet the social and political realities in which refugees are living. However, this assertion has been repeatedly proved wrong by a significant body of research. The United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) has been working on these issues for long. It came up with a new policy statement in 2009, on refugee protection and solutions in urban areas which recognized urban areas as ”a legitimate place for refugees to enjoy their rights”. In 2014, this has taken a significant step by releasing an ”alternative to Camps” policy which commits the agency to actively pursue alternatives to camps whenever possible. It also clarifies the official stand of UNHCR that camps should be a last resort rather than the default response to refugee influxes (Conant, 2016).

This new policy is very deliberately made focus on protection and solutions  and it tries to link the issue of urban refugees directly to the UNHCR mandate. The key element of the policy is to defend the freedom of movement of all refugees and defend mobility. It also identifies the most common human rights violations that urban refugees confronted in their day to day lives, such as detention, harassment, eviction and extortion. It focuses on providing refugees access to the livelihood and labor market. It has also an implication in integrating urban refugees into existing public and private services and limiting refugee specific services. And the beauty of this document is, it’s a relatively brave move by UNHCR to commit in providing protection and solutions irrespective of national legislations, whether states like it or not (Sonne, et al 2016). In general, UNHCR clearly states in this document the organizations commitment to adapt a more positive, contractive and more pro-active that it has been the past in this matter.

The migrated and refugee children are entitled to human rights and basic freedom as per the principles of human rights of refugees (Cantor, 2015). The limited practices accepted by the nation’s vis-à-vis asylum seekers are legally not justified, morally wrong, and deliberately counterproductive. It is necessary for the international communities that they should take necessary steps to address the human rights of displaced children in positive manner. The sufferer-oriented approach should be adopted (Nickerson, et al 2014).

The collaboration between UNHCR and the High Commissioner for Human right is necessarily required. It is also required for the NGOs to join other NGOs. The UNHCR had implemented many principles of human right in the functioning (Lori and Boyle, 2015). These principles include legal reintegration, institution building, reformation of law, rules, and regulation, application of rule of law, humanitarian help to migrated children on inside and give significance to the enhanced assistance with international human rights mechanism and local human right mechanism (Gil-Bazo, 2015).

For the efforts to stop the flow of children refugee, the NGOs are involved in giving the technical help to the states in the framework of common human right. The protection of refugee is identified as the part of agenda for human rights. The chances for use of the present framework of the international human rights treaty obligations have been increased. The mechanisms have been developed by the commission on human rights for examining the issues of migration (Knippen, Boggs and Meyer, 2015).

Following recommendations are suggested for the refugee children-

1. Treat children as children, despite of the fact of their migration status- It is recognise by child sensitive and child centred approaches that kids must be treated regarding the universal human rights. They are also required to be treated as per the particular requirements of an individual (Boyd, 2018).
2. Provide secure consistent channels for the migrants and refugees- The consistent secure channels should be provided for the migrants and refugees, involving immigration or relocation. This will make sure that more refugees or migrants will not trust on the smugglers. Thus, they may go for their endpoint in human conditions without putting their life and their children’s life in danger (Macdonald and Mayon-White, 2018).
3. International cooperation- it is a duty of state to increase the cross-country support. The state should increase the cooperation between governmental actor and non-governmental actor. The state must increase international collaboration among nations and with NGO partners to explore and stop the all practises of violence, methods of abuse and mistreatment of children. When the children got separation from the family or relatives, then they may suffer physical attack, crimes, thefts, and dangers during the life cycle (O’Byrne, 2014).
4. Stop violence- it is required by the states to provide particular help to children who were sufferers of violence, despite of the migration status of children. The states should provide the opportunities to children to access proper health services and mental rehabilitation facilities. The necessary steps should be taken to stop violence (Cook, Shannon, Vinson, Letts and Dwee, 2015).
5. Stop immigration incarceration of children and their caretakers- the state should stop immigration detention of the children. This practice should be replaced by non-custodial alternatives and community based alternatives so that children can live with their family, their parents, or caretakers. There should be provision of substitute care arrangements to complete the requirements and needs of children (Fink, 2015).
6. Fulfil basic requirements and make sure basic human rights of refugee children- There should be policies to make sure the basic human rights of refugee children. It is a duty of state to fulfil the requirements of the refugee children. It is also a duty of regional authorities and local authorities to make cooperation with non-governmental partners to provide food, housing, cleanliness, medical treatment, care, training, and children friendly spaces. There is a requirement to make investment in inner rehabilitation and emotional care (Sriram, Herman and Martin-Ortega, 2017).
7. Secure the right to quality care, despite of migration status- it is required to stop unnecessary separation of children from family. The efforts should be made for provide the care to children in the family. The state should made particular practices,policies and approaches to decrease the mental and physical distress related to the family separation in the short time (Moseley and Norman, 2018) .
8. Provide guardianship to migrant and refugee children disadvantaged of their family- if any alone children is found, then it is a duty of state to make appointment of independent skilled, knowledgeable, and talented carer with legal rights (Perugini and Gordon, 2015) .
9. Enhance encouragement and eliminate obstacles to family reunion- the state should make proper efforts to track the family of children as soon as possible. The efforts should be made to re-settle the family in short period. The limits to the family reunion process must be eliminated in order to evade avoidable separation of the children from the family (Drozdek, 2015).
10. Develop return policies that significances the best interest of children- the guidelines should be provided to develop clear international standards for return of alone children. The separated children should not be returned to their nation of usual residence, it no proper caretaker in the nation of origin has been recognised.
11. Give quality family based care to separated children- it is necessary for government and state to set the guidelines regarding the elimination of barriers to the provisions of family and community based care to alone and separated children. These barriers may include deficiency of financial resources and the judgement based on the origin of children. The state should recognise and work together with liable service providers to make sure the option of alternative care for the children with the better choice of family and community based care. The authorities should invest in giving the education and training to the caretaker in the context of education of children, protection of children and human rights of children. The decisions should be reviewed on the regular basis as per the different cases (Cohen and Asgary, 2016).
12. Provide the help to the children to establish the contact with families- information and communication technologies are very significant to give the protection to the alone and separated children. These tools help the displaced children to have communication and interaction with the families, relatives and their friends. In addition of right to direct communication and own relations with guardians, family and friends, other rights are specifically related to access the information and communication technologies like freedom to express views and ideas, and access to data or details.
13. Recognise, trace, and review the refugee and migrant children with the help of various data- it is an obligation of the state and other relevant authorities to make sure the registration of the children in a proper way. The state and other relevant authorities are also required to make sure the care, treatment of children, and protection of separated children from misuse, neglect, violence, and mistreatment. This is not so easy to keep watch over the migrant and refugee children because of the different process to access the information or data in different states. There are gaps in the national and international reviewing. This is also a reason to not to review the migrant and refugee children properly and timely (Gilbert, 2015).

For considering these gaps, the state should take effective actions to address the gaps. All the nations should make a report about the displaced children. The countries should share the data and information of the numbers of refugee and migrant children. The major focus should be made over the birth registration universally. The state should set the target in the agenda to register the newly born children. The measures should be set for the better implementation of the safeguards in national law in against the statelessness at the time of birth. The state should also set the standards to provide the grant nationality to all children in the context of migration (Bajaj, Canlas and Argenal, 2017).

14. Make the investment in capacity building of professionals to meet right of displaced children- the state should make necessarily investment in the providing the support and giving the training and providing the education to the experts or specialists involved in providing care to children. There should be provision of training, re training and mentally support for the social workers or the social community, counsellors for the family, care expert and care specialist. In this way, the social workers or the social community, counsellors for the family, care experts, and care specialists will be able to give the proper contribution to the caring assistance. They will be able to give the protection to the children during the migration and after refugee crises (Boswell, 2017).
15. Invest in sustainable development- states should device complete measure to address the root causes of forced migration with the help of solid strategies of anti-poverty, employment strategies, efforts for reducing inequality and efforts for the prevention of violence.
16. Foster participation of migrant and refugee children- In the migration and refugee policies, programs, and practices, the displaced children are critical stakeholders. It is a duty of state to identify the role that children can play in the recognition and the application of the explanations in the matters of migration, displacement, and refugee (Crawley and Skleparis, 2018).

As per the above analyses, it can be concluded that the proper determination of research methods applied by the researcher to fulfil the purpose and objects of this research study in a proper manner and timely. The researcher has utilised the various attitudes, methods, technique to analyse the basic human rights of the children refugees in United Kingdom. With the help of this technique, the researcher is capable to get the consistent and effective result. It can be precised that researcher has used ethical consideration to make the research in a moral way. Furthermore, it may be assessed that there are various researcher limitations tackled by a researcher. These limitations may relate to sample size, time, and the cost.

With the help of these five chapters, it is found that the allotment of international duty for human rights violations in the camps of refugee in host country. It is also analyzed that how refugee camp shield is infused by a huge degree of de jure and de facto allocation of supremacy and control over this space, mainly between the UNHCR and host country. Further, it is also analyzed between UNHCR and the executing partners of UNHCR. It is also point to be noted that, no different actor can take the duty to handle the situation of violation of the human rights. It is also required to make focus on the point that how the various actors may be concurrently liable in ILC’S Articles on the accountability of host country for internationally unlawful Actions (ARSIWA) and its rising articles on the International Organizations (ARIO)’s duties. This research paper has discussed the basic question of when exactly a host country may correctly be considered to be unable countries. As per the desire and capability to render proper security cannot be easily apparent, this capability and desire of host country must be determined as the main part of the determination of powers and rights of UNHCR.

Generally, there are two ways of handling the present issue in which an abundance of members contribute to violations of human rights of refugees in refugee camps. The first method is the simple one – it additional or less means adopting the present state of dealings with few, but not basic notifications. This method addresses the main duty of the host country and turns away from the UNHCR’s duties and its executing partner’s duties. As such it essentially promotes a shifting of the burden of security back to the independent country, who usually has been the alone liable member and who in various matters has the de facto greatest probable in providing security. This method is proper when the host country is capable but not willing to give proper security in camps of the refugees. In these conditions, the host country alone will be held internationally liable.

The second method and most likely the one that focuses more impacts on the UNHCR in giving the security, admitting its significant role in practice and the fact that an authority it holds in relation to refugee people is a fact that most likely is here to stay. It causes a condition of shared liability between the UNHCR and host country in the place a circumstances in which only one member is wholly accountable. In cases where the host country is not able such as owing to restricted sources or poor institution, to give proper security to refugees in the camps of refugee, when United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees manages these camps, the company must have shared accountability. In severe cases where a host country is simply required but not able, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees might have to tolerate the complete liability burden. Certainly, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is restrictto human rights of a normal law character curtailing from its legal personality and the UN Charter. However, this paper has made focus on the scope of mandate of international protection of United Nations High Commissioner for refugees. It also involves the condition of physical safety and the maintenance of the civilian of camp and civilized character. Without developing a fundamental stage of protection in the refugee camps, it will be not possible for United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to fulfill either its broader security or resolution asking for mandate. In this way, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) holds a positive obligation to perform and interfere to safe the fundamental human rights of refugee.

In the concluding chapter of this paper, it is found that, under the ARIO, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees will be accountable for the manner of its executing partners of NGO, even in those cases when it has accepted to free itself of liability by involving some clauses in the contracts with these NGOS. Many alterations are required to make in the relations between United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the executing partners of United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees with the view that this support the safety of refugee people and explain the problem of international liability. It is also appropriate to ask whether or not placing the refugee persons in the refugee camps is useful to their security.

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees clearly engages the demanding place of problem in the internationally as it has both permission and also regularly caught in a vice between the preference of members such as contributor governments and host countries. It is to be a standard industrialist, manager and enforcement agency of powers of refuges at the similar period as it is anticipated to be a supportive partner to host countries and NGO, and the final provider of substance assistance. This large amount of positions and its effect for refugee security is perhaps most clearly proved in the case study of refugees. The security role of United Nations High Commissioner for Refugee has become more and more realistic and practical. It focuses more on provision of foodstuff and accommodation, and refugee safety has as such had to provide manner for other challenging priority.

It is believed by United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees that if it shows its own liability, these risk mocking special treatment from the host countries, who have the main liability to guard refugee person in the jurisdiction of host country. Though, because it surfaces at the turning point between independence of host country and international human rights, the protection of refugees is normally considered to be high politics and renders the stress between standards related to human rights and actual politics. Many associations such as United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees tend to view attention to physical safety issues as a danger to their objectivity, fairness and independence. In this way, for terror of endangering relations with the government, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees appears to influence on soft diplomacy and prioritize less contentious everyday jobs, such as the terms of material support, in the face of hard human rights concern. However it is felt by United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees that it has a obligation to accomplish its mandate regardless of political circumstances related to politics and imperative.

Without downplaying the information that United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees often has to establish choices between poor and less poor choices on the ground, it is debatable that without an improved focus on the fundamental human rights of refugees, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees operated actual danger of clearly administering human unhappiness. More significantly, avoiding refugee security debatably influences the condition as much as tackling it. The research paper has focused on the legal system  and how the relevant laws in the land favors the safety of refugee person.

Alayarian, A. (2018) Children of refugees: torture, human rights and psychological consequences. New York: Routledge.

Allain, J. (2017) International Law in the Middle East: Closer to power than justice. New York: Routledge.

Arnold, S. (2017) Children’s rights and refugee law. Oxford: Routledge.

Azima, F. J., and Grizenko, N. (2002) immigrant and refugee children and their families. New York:  Columbia University press.

Babbie, E. R. (2016) The Basics of social research. USA: Cengage Learning.

Bajaj, M., Canlas, M., and Argenal, A.(2017) Between rights and realities: Human rights education for immigrant and refugee youth in an urban public high school. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 48(2), pp.124-140.

Betts, A.(2015) The normative terrain of the global refugee regime. Ethics & International Affairs, 29(4), pp.363-375.

Biehl, K.S. (2015) Governing through uncertainty: Experiences of being a refugee in Turkey as a country for temporary asylum. Social Analysis, 59(1), pp.57-75.

Boswell, C. (2017) The ethics of refugee policy. New York: Routledge.

Bottcher, S., Neubauer, K., Baillot, A., Rieder, G., Adam, M. and Diedrich, S.(2015) Stool screening of Syrian refugees and asylum seekers in Germany, 2013/2014: Identification of Sabin like polioviruses. International Journal of Medical Microbiology, 305(7), pp.601-606.

Boyd, M. (2018)Gender, refugee status, and permanent settlement.New York: Routledge.

Camren, T. (2013)Study of primry resorces. Oxford: Routledge.

Cantor, D. J. (2015) Reframing Relationships: Revisiting the Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination in Light of Recent Human Rights Treaty Body Jurisprudence. Refugee Survey Quarterly, 34(1), pp.79-106.

Capaldi, N., and Crowther, D. (2012) The Ashgate Research Companion. United Kingdom: Ashgate  publishing ltd.

Chenyika, T. (2011) social work and psychological services of African refugee children. United Kingdom: Universal publishers.

Claudel, M. (2016) the digitalising infrastructure.United States: springer.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., and Morrison, K. (2013) Research methods in education. UK: Routledge.

Cohen, S., and Asgary, R. (2016) Community Coping Strategies in Response to Hardship and Human Rights Abuses Among Burmese Refugees and Migrants at the Thai-Burmese Border. Family & community health, 39(2), pp.75-81.

Conant, L.(2016) Who files suit? Legal mobilization and torture violations in Europe. Law & Policy, 38(4), pp.280-303.

Cook, T.L., Shannon, P.J., Vinson, G.A., Letts, J.P., and Dwee, E.(2015) War trauma and torture experiences reported during public health screening of newly resettled Karen refugees: a qualitative study. BMC international health and human rights, 15(1), p.8.

Cottrell, R. (2018) the dissertation model. UK: Routledge.

Crawley, H., and Skleparis, D.(2018) Refugees, migrants, neither, both: categorical fetishism and the politics of bounding in Europe’s ‘migration crisis’. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44(1), pp.48-64.

Culbertson, S., and Constant, S. (2015) education of Syrian refugee children: Managing the crisis in Turkey and Lebanon.United States: Rand corporation.

Danforth, L. M., and Boeschoten, R. V. (2012) Children of the greek civil war: refugees and politics of memory. USA: University of Chicago press.

Dettlaff, A. J., and Fong, R. (2016) Immigrant and refugee children and families: Culturally responsive practice. New York: Columbia University press.

Drozdek, B. (2015) Challenges in treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder in refugees: Towards integration of evidence-based treatments with contextual and culture-sensitive perspectives. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 6(1), p.24750.

Dwivedi, K. N. (2002) meeting the needs of ethnic minority children. United Kingdom: Jessica Kingsley publishers.

Fassin, D. (2011) Policing borders, producing boundaries. The govern mentality of immigration in dark times. Annual review of anthropology, 40, pp.213-226.

Fink, M. (2015)A ‘Blind Spot’in the Framework of International Responsibility? Third Party Responsibility for Human Rights Violations: The Case of Frontex. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Flick, U. (2013) The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis.USA: SAGE.

Forsythe, D. P.(2017). Human rights in international relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fraillon, Z. (2016) the bone sparrow. UK: Hachette UK.

Freeman, M.(2017) Human rights. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Friedman, E.(2018)Women’s human rights: The emergence of a movement. New York: Routledge.

Gil-Bazo, M.T.(2015) Refugee protection under International Human Rights Law: From non-refoulement to residence and citizenship. Refugee Survey Quarterly, 34(1), pp.11-42.

Gilbert, G. (2015) Why Europe does not have a refugee crisis.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Goodhart, M.(2016) Human rights: politics and practice. Oxford: Oxford university press.

Goodwin-Gill, G.S. (2014) The international law of refugee protection. The Oxford handbook of refugee and forced migration studies, 52(5), pp.36-47.

Gratton, C., and Jones, I. (2010) Research methods for sports studies. UK: Taylor & Francis.

Gratz, A. (2017) Refugee. New York: Scholastic inc.

Gray, D. E. (2013) Doing research in the real worlds. USA: SAGE

Hamilton, R., and Moore, D. (2004) Educational interventions for refugee children: theoretical perspective and best practices. United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis group.

Harvey, C.(2015) Time for reform? Refugees, asylum-seekers, and protection under International Human Rights Law. Refugee Survey Quarterly, 34(1), pp.43-60.

Hil, R.(2017) Violations of trust: How social and welfare institutions fail children and young people. Oxford: Routledge.

Howard-Hassmann, R.E., and Walton-Roberts, M. (2015) The Human Right to Citizenship: A Slippery Concept. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Hyman, M., and Sierra, J. (2010) Marketing research kit for Dummies. USA: John Wiley & Sons.

Jan, S. (2011) supporting refugee children: strategies for educators. Canada: University of Toronto press.

Jill, R. (2006) Refugee children in UK. UK: McGraw Hill Education.

Joly, D. (2016) Haven or hell?: asylum policies and refugees in Europe. New York: Springer.

Jorgensen, C.(2017) Immigrant detention in the United States: violations of international and human rights law. Human Rights Brief. United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis

Kanj, J. K. (2010) Children of  Catastrophe: Journey from Palestinian refugee camp to America. Oxford: Routledge.

Klenke, K. (2015) Qualitative Research in the study of leadership. UK: Emerald Group publishing.

Knippen, J., Boggs, C., and Meyer, M.(2015) An uncertain path: Justice for crimes and human rights violations against migrants and refugees in Mexico. Washington DC: WOLA.

Kuntz, D., and Shrodes, A. (2017) Lost and found cat: the true story of kunkush’s incredible journey. USA: Random house children.

Langlois, E.V., Haines, A., Tomson, G., and Ghaffar, A.(2016) Refugees: towards better access to health-care services. The Lancet, 387(10016), pp.319-321.

Lavenex, S. (2017) Revival: The Europeanisation of Refugee Policies (2001): Between Human Rights and Internal Security. New York: Routledge.

Lee, A.R.(2017) An Investigation into the Educational Experiences of North Korean Refugees in China in Light of Their Exposure to Human Rights Violations. OMNES: The Journal of Multicultural Society, 8(1), pp.33-63.

Lindert, J., Carta, M.G., Schäfer, I., and Mollica, R.F.(2016) Refugees mental health—A public mental health challenge. The European Journal of Public Health, 26(3), pp.374-375.

Lock, M., and Nguyen, V.K. (2018) An anthropology of biomedicine. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Lori, J.R., and Boyle, J.S.(2015) Forced migration: Health and human rights issues among refugee populations. Nursing outlook, 63(1), pp.68-76.

Macdonald, T., and Mayon-White, R.(2018) The global human right to health: Dream or possibility?Florida: CRC Press.

MacKinnon, C. A.(2017) Rape, genocide, and women’s human rights. New York:  Routledge.

Marshall, C., and Rossman, G. B. (2014) Designing qualitative research. USA: SAGE publications.

Meda, L. (2017) Refugee learner experiences. A case of Zimbabwean refugee children. Germany: Anchor Academic publishing.

Morina, N., Schnyder, U., Schick, M., Nickerson, A., and Bryant, R.A. (2016) Attachment style and interpersonal trauma in refugees. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 50(12), pp.1161-1168.

Moseley, A., and Norman, R.(2018) Human rights and military intervention. New York: Routledge.

Muller, S. (2008) the general situation of refugee children in view of the UN-Convention. Germany: GRIN Verlag.

Myhrvold, T.(2015) Human rights, health and our obligations to refugees.New York: Routledge.

Nestor, P. G., and Schutt, R. K. (2014) research methods in human right mechanism. USA: SAGE publications.

Nickerson, A., Bryant, R.A., Rosebrock, L., and Litz, B.T.(2014) the mechanisms of psychosocial injury following human rights violations, mass trauma, and torture. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 21(2), pp.172-191.

Nickerson, A., Schnyder, U., Bryant, R.A., Schick, M., Mueller, J., and Morina, N.(2015) Moral injury in traumatized refugees. Psychotherapy and psychosomatics, 84(2), pp.122-123.

O’Byrne, D. (2014) Human rights: an introduction. New York: Routledge.

Opaas, M., and Varvin, S.(2015) Relationships of childhood adverse experiences with mental health and quality of life at treatment start for adult refugees traumatized by pre-flight experiences of war and human rights violations. The Journal of nervous and mental disease, 203(9), p.684.

Pace, M., and Sen, S. (2018) Syrian refugee children in middle east and Europe: integrating the young and exiled. New York: Routledge.

Perugini, N., and Gordon, N.(2015) The human right to dominate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Peters, J. S., and Wolper, A.(2018). Women’s rights, human rights: International feminist perspectives. New York: Routledge.

Phillips, J. J., and Phillips, P. P. (2016) Handbook of evaluation and measurement methods. UK: Routledge.

Pobjoy, J. M. (2017) The child in international refugee law. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.

Price, L.S. (2018) Sexual violence and genocide, the greatest violation of human security: Responses to the case of Darfur. India: Routledge India.

Ravitch, S. M., and Carl, N. M. (2015) Qualitative research: Basic human rights. USA: SAGE Publications.

Rutinwa, B. (2017) The end of asylum? The changing nature of refugee policies in Africa. In International Refugee Law. 35(1), 35-64.

Ruurs, M. (2016) Stepping stones: A refugee family’s journey. Canada: Orca book publishing.

Sacks, O. (2015) On the move towards the UNHCR. USA: SAGE publications.

Savelsberg, J.J.(2015) Representing mass violence: Conflicting responses to human rights violations in Darfur. California: University of California Press.

Scherr, R. (2015) Framing human rights: comics form and the politics of recognition in Joe Sacco’s Footnotes in Gaza. Textual Practice, 29(1), pp.111-131.

Schwartz-Shea, P., and Yanow, D. (2013) interpretive research design: concepts and processes. UK: Routledge.

Sigona, N.(2018) The contested politics of naming in Europe’s “refugee crisis”. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 41(3), pp.456-460.

Silove, D. (2008) The psychosocial effects of torture, mass human rights violations, and refugee trauma: Toward an integrated conceptual framework. The Journal of nervous and mental disease, 187(4), pp.200-207.

Smith, H.C.(2015) An exploration of the meaning of occupation to people who seek asylum in the United Kingdom. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 78(10), pp.614-621.

Sonne, C., Carlsson, J., Bech, P., Vindbjerg, E., Mortensen, E.L., and Elklit, A.(2016) Psychosocial predictors of treatment outcome for trauma-affected refugees. European journal of psychotraumatology, 7(1), p.30907.

Sriram, C.L., Herman, J., and Martin-Ortega, O.(2017) War, conflict and human rights: theory and practice. Oxford: Routledge.

Symonides, J. (2017) Human rights: concept and standards. Oxford: Routledge.

Tay, A.K., Rees, S., Chen, J., Kareth, M., and Silove, D.(2015) The structure of post-traumatic stress disorder and complex post-traumatic stress disorder amongst West Papuan refugees. BMC psychiatry, 15(1), p.111.

Tsarmpopoulou, G. (2016) children of the Mediterranean: the odyssey of th unescorted refugee children. London: Akakia publications.

Van Reisen, M., and Mawere, M. (2017) Human trafficking and trauma in the digital era: the ongoing tragedy of the trade in refugees from Eritrea. California: University of California Press.

Warner, J.(2017)No lost generations: Refugee children and their human right to education, from the Holocaust to the Syrian Civil War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Watters, C. (2007) Refugee children: towards the next horizon. Oxford: Routledge.

Willen, S.S., Knipper, M., Abadía-Barrero, C.E., and Davidovitch, N.(2017) Syndemic vulnerability and the right to health. The Lancet, 389(10072), pp.964-977.

William, J. (2018) the practices, data, law and ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wilson, J. (2014) Essentials of business research: a guide to doing your research project. USA: SAGE.

Zephaniah, B. (2013) Refugee boy. UK:A&C black.

Previous answers to this question