Roundtable: Revisiting the Promises and Pitfalls of Resettlement and Safe Pathways

Abstract

Resettlement, as the most prominent safe pathway for refugees, promises to provide a ‘durable solution’ to some of the most vulnerable groups and individuals and to signal solidarity to countries of first refuge. While for a long-time resettlement has been the dominant mode of admitting vulnerable refugee from first countries of refuge, today states deploy a whole range of other ‘complementary pathways’, such as private and community sponsorship, work- and educationrelated programmes, family reunification and evacuation schemes. Complementary pathways, which are meant to complement resettlement, widen the pool of eligible refugees to benefit from a safe pathway to a country of refuge. These pathways incorporate selection mechanisms, generally based on other than just vulnerability-based criteria and often provide only temporary protection. Moreover, these new modes of admission also bring in new actors, such as non-governmental organisations (NGOs), civil society groups, and private companies. The field has become very versatile to the point where it is a challenge to discern between different initiatives, their characteristics and benefits for the wider protection regime. For instance, what distinguishes legal pathways, ‘third country solutions’, alternative refugee admission policies, humanitarian admission programmes, safe pathways, and legal entry channels, just to name a few? What function do they have for the protection of refugees? Do safe pathways live up to their promises? If not, how could they be remedied? This roundtable will revisit these questions in times of increasing externalisation and displacement.

hybrid event