Uganda's Invocation of Cessation Regarding its Rwandan Refugee Caseload: Lessons for International Protection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The invocation of Clause 1C(5) of the Refugee Convention 1951, the ceased circumstances cessation clause, is a site of negotiation between the legal principles that underpin the international refugee protection regime and the practical constraints of international politics. On 13 May 2010, a Tripartite Commission, composed of the governments of Uganda and Rwanda and UNHCR, issued a joint communiqué announcing that, on 31 December 2011, the Government of Uganda will apply the cessation clause to its Rwandan caseload. This article contends that the practice of cessation as it is unfolding in the Uganda-Rwanda context does not satisfy the substantive and procedural legal requirements of the ceased circumstances cessation clause, as elaborated by UNHCR’s Guidelines on International Protection: Cessation of Refugee Status under Article 1C(5) and (6) of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. Rather, cessation is being utilized prematurely as a tool to end a protracted refugee situation, in a way that risks further undermining the integrity of the refugee protection system. In particular, Uganda’s creation of a situation of ‘constructive cessation’ demonstrates the challenges in reconciling the individualized evaluation of persecution with the invocation of cessation for a group; the principles of non-refoulement with the surrogate character of the international protection system; and ongoing protection objectives with the search for durable solutions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".