Security-Driven vs. Positive Peace Refugee Policy Frameworks
This paper examines how refugee policies can be reoriented from traditional security-driven frameworks toward approaches grounded in positive peace. Drawing on Ó Tuathail and Dahlman's (2006) analysis of post-war Bosnia and Herzegovina — particularly the concept of "domicide" and the partial success of minority returns under the Dayton Peace Accords — alongside the Institute for Economics and Peace's Positive Peace Report 2020, the paper argues for policies that address not only physical resettlement but also the deeper social and psychological wounds of conflict. It advocates for equitable resource distribution, good governance, community integration, and long-term systemic commitment as foundations for sustainable, refugee-inclusive societies.
- Security-Driven Policies and Their Limitations: Domicide, Bosnia, and the limits of resettlement
- Positive Peace as a Policy Framework: IEP principles for holistic, peaceful societies
- Balancing Security with Humanitarian Needs: Reconciling state security with individual refugee rights
- Community Integration and Multiethnic Spaces: Building inclusive communities beyond physical return
- Long-Term Commitment and Systemic Change: Sustainable peace requires long-term policy strategies
- Evidence-Based and Context-Sensitive Policymaking: Empirical grounding for real-world refugee policy
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- It grounds policy recommendations in concrete historical evidence — the Bosnian war and the partial success of minority returns — giving abstract arguments real-world credibility.
- It synthesizes two distinct scholarly sources (Ó Tuathail & Dahlman and the IEP Positive Peace Report) into a coherent argument, showing how each source reinforces the other.
- It maintains a clear normative thread throughout: moving from the problem (security-driven policies) to the solution (positive peace principles) without losing analytical focus.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates source integration — rather than summarizing each source separately, it weaves them together to construct a cumulative argument. Each source is introduced, explained, and then explicitly connected to the paper's central claim about reforming refugee policy, demonstrating how academic writing builds arguments rather than merely reports information.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by establishing the problem through the concept of domicide and the Bosnian experience, then introduces positive peace as a theoretical counter-framework, before moving through four applied dimensions: balancing security and humanitarian needs, fostering community integration, committing to long-term systemic change, and grounding policy in empirical evidence. The conclusion synthesizes all threads into a call for evidence-based, contextually sensitive policymaking.
Security-Driven Policies and Their Limitations
Ó Tuathail and Dahlman (2006) examine the Bosnian war's impact on homes and homelands, highlighting the concept of domicide — the deliberate destruction of homes. This concept underscores the need for policies to acknowledge and address such destruction, moving beyond mere physical resettlement to consider the deeper, often invisible, scars left by conflict. Homes and lives are frequently destroyed, yet people must continue forward. The authors argue that the Bosnian war was essentially a war against homes in the name of idealized homelands. The international community's efforts in post-war Bosnia — and especially the promotion of "minority returns" under the Dayton Peace Accords — attempted to reverse the effects of ethnic cleansing and restore multiethnic communities. However, this process was only partially successful in reconstituting the pre-war multiethnic spatiality of Bosnia.
Positive Peace as a Policy Framework
The Positive Peace Report 2020 emphasizes the importance of creating and sustaining peaceful societies through the development of positive peace, defined by the attitudes, institutions, and structures that foster peace. The report suggests that high levels of positive peace within a country correlate with various beneficial outcomes, including economic strength, resilience, and social well-being. It also emphasizes the systemic nature of positive peace, which demands a holistic understanding of social dynamics and the ways in which communities are interdependent.
Incorporating principles of positive peace can significantly guide the development of refugee policies. The Institute for Economics and Peace (2021) emphasizes principles such as equitable resource distribution, good governance, and the acceptance of others' rights. These principles are crucial because they focus not merely on the absence of conflict but on creating environments in which refugees can thrive. This approach suggests a shift from traditional security-driven policies to those that foster holistic societal well-being.
Balancing Security with Humanitarian Needs
This approach depends on balancing security with humanitarian needs. Security-driven policies often prioritize state-level interests, which can sometimes come at the expense of individual rights and needs. A balance is therefore necessary — one in which security concerns are addressed without undermining the dignity and rights of refugees. This balance is essential for policies to be both effective in maintaining security and respectful of human rights.
References
Ó Tuathail, G., and Dahlman, C. (2006). Post-domicide Bosnia and Herzegovina: Homes, homelands and one million returns. International Peacekeeping, 13(2), 242–260.
Institute for Economics and Peace. (2021). Positive Peace Report 2020: Analysing the factors that sustain peace. 17–27.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.