Whither the Refugees? International Organisations and “Solutions” to Displacement, 1921–1960
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Achieving “durable solutions” is a central goal of the contemporary refugee regime. Durable solutions are often equated with three routes to resolving displacement—voluntary repatriation, local integration or resettlement—and the concept is closely tied to ideas about permanency, protection, and the rectification of refugees’ legal limbo. Despite its contemporary prominence, the genealogy of the concept of durable solutions has not been fully considered. Accordingly, this article traces the origins of the concept of durable solutions for refugees from 1921 to 1960, examining how such solutions have been framed in international law and through the work of a key set of international organisations: the League of Nations, the UN Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, the International Refugee Organization, the UN Conciliation Commission for Palestine, the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. By historicising durable solutions discourse as it evolved in the inter-war, immediate post-Second World War and early Cold War eras, and analysing how different international organisations have understood the “refugee problem” and solutions to it, this article promotes critical (re)engagement with the very notion of durable solutions, and demonstrates how the contemporary trinity of voluntary repatriation, local integration, and resettlement emerged from earlier approaches shaped by geo-political and legal considerations tied to particular groups of refugees.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it