Internally displaced persons (IDPs) and refugees are some of the most vulnerable human groups in the world. Typically, it is assumed that while the protection of IDPs is a responsibility of the state where this displacement occurs, the international community has the responsibility to protect refugees. I argue that the international community cannot have the responsibility for the protection of refugees under the Westphalian model of sovereignty that rules international law, because “the international community” does not exist as an organized institution capable of carrying out such actions. As a rule, it is one state (be this the host-state or the state where an asylum seeker is asking for refuge) that decides and determines the nature and extent of refugee protection, sometimes with assistance from
the UNHCR. At the same time, with regard to international law, states are under no obligation to protect IDPs. I argue that the principles of international law of non-intervention and self-determination hinder the protection of both these groups of forcefully displaced individuals. I conclude that the condition of necessity in which refugees and IDPs find themselves provides with a sufficiently strong argument to at least rethink how much we prioritize non-intervention and self-determination in the international order. This is crucial taking into consideration the current predictions that estimate a world with millions of people on the move.
