“Internal Flight or Relocation Alternative” in the Context of Article 1A(2) of the 1951
Convention and/or 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees
I.
INTRODUCTION
1. Internal flight or relocation alternative is a concept that is increasingly considered by
decision-makers in refugee status determination. To date, there has been no consistent
approach to this concept and consequently divergent practices have emerged both within and
across jurisdictions. Given the differing approaches, these Guidelines are designed to offer
decision-makers a more structured approach to analysis of this aspect of refugee status
determination.
2. The concept of an internal flight or relocation alternative is not a stand-alone principle of
refugee law, nor is it an independent test in the determination of refugee status. A Convention
refugee is a person who meets the criteria set out in Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention
and/or 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (hereinafter “1951 Convention”).
These criteria are to be interpreted in a liberal and humanitarian spirit, in accordance with
their ordinary meaning, and in light of the object and purpose of the 1951 Convention. The
concept of an internal flight or relocation alternative is not explicitly referred to in these
criteria. The question of whether the claimant has an internal flight or relocation alternative
may, however, arise as part of the refugee status determination process.
3. Some have located the concept of internal flight or relocation alternative in the “wellfounded fear of being persecuted” clause of the definition, and others in the “unwilling … or
unable … to avail himself of the protection of that country” clause. These approaches are not
necessarily contradictory, since the definition comprises one holistic test of interrelated
elements. How these elements relate, and the importance to be accorded to one or another
element, necessarily falls to be determined on the facts of each individual case.1
4. International law does not require threatened individuals to exhaust all options within their
own country first before seeking asylum; that is, it does not consider asylum to be the last
resort. The concept of internal flight or relocation alternative should therefore not be invoked
in a manner that would undermine important human rights tenets underlying the international
protection regime, namely the right to leave one’s country, the right to seek asylum and
protection against refoulement. Moreover, since the concept can only arise in the context of
an assessment of the refugee claim on its merits, it cannot be used to deny access to refugee
status determination procedures. A consideration of internal flight or relocation necessitates
regard for the personal circumstances of the individual claimant and the conditions in the
country for which the internal flight or relocation alternative is proposed.2
5. Consideration of possible internal relocation areas is not relevant for refugees coming
under the purview of Article I(2) of the OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of
Refugee Problems in Africa 1969. Article I(2) specifically clarifies the definition of a refugee as
follows: “every person who, owing to external aggression, occupation, foreign domination or
events seriously disturbing public order in either part or the whole of his country of origin or
nationality, is compelled to leave his place of habitual residence in order to seek refuge in
another place outside his country of origin or nationality”.3
1
For further details, see UNHCR, “Interpreting Article 1 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of
Refugees”, Geneva, April 2001, (hereafter UNHCR, “Interpreting Article 1”), para. 12.
2
Ibid., paras. 35–37.
3
(Emphasis added.) The 1984 Cartagena Declaration also specifically refers to Article I(2) of the OAU
Refugee Convention.
2