A Comparative Analysis of the Legal Status of Former Refugees under General Cessation Clause: A Case Study of Rwandese Refugees in Zambia and Uganda

Abstract

The study presents a comparative analysis of the legal status of former refugees under the general cessation clause, focusing on Rwandese refugees in Zambia and Uganda. It explores how both states implemented the clause and the extent to which their approaches aligned with international protection standards. By means of a qualitative and comparative legal methodology, the study concludes that Zambia, in spite of not having a conclusive legal framework at the time still ensured that efforts to uphold international norms by way of administrative collaboration with UNHCR importance placed on voluntariness. Conversely, even though Uganda had a well structured legal framework outlined in the Refugees Act of 2006 and the Refugee Regulations of 2010, its application of the cessation clauses digressed from international refugee principles as political and diplomatic deliberations paved way for actions that weakened principles of non-refoulement. This study indicates that operative protection relies not only on the premise of legal provisions but on genuine observance of their provisions in practice.