Pathways without Parity: Four Mechanisms of Differentiation in Durable Solutions for Internally Displaced Persons

Durable-solutions frameworks specify three formally equivalent pathways out of internal displacement: return, local integration, and settlement elsewhere. Recent assessments hold that the historical policy preference for return has receded. This study tests that claim against the instruments themselves. Nine national and sub-national durable-solutions instruments from six jurisdictions across two continents were purposively selected and coded against a fifteen-dimension schema, using comparative document analysis to build theory rather than to estimate prevalence. Five instruments differentiate provision between pathways, and they do so through four distinguishable mechanisms: contents, where one pathway confers more; modality, where the strength of the state’s obligation differs; temporality, where provision is framed as interim; and population, where groups are assigned to pathways and provided for unequally. Differentiation is conditional on the unit to which provision is directed. Instruments allocating individual entitlements differentiate; those allocating rights, collective conditions or area-based measures do not. Only differentiation by contents is visible to coding that records the presence or absence of provisions. The study concludes that apparent parity is produced by silence rather than equalisation, and that differential provision structures the choice between pathways before displaced persons make it, which is difficult to reconcile with the voluntariness these instruments assert.

Keywords: internal displacement; durable solutions; local integration; policy analysis; comparative law; territorial governance; voluntariness.