Abstract
When referring to human mobility happening within a country due to factors such as threats from organized crime, some actors, texts or interventions name it as internal displacement; in other cases, it is preferred the expression forced internal displacement; and on some occasions, it is used arbitrary displacement. This is not a minor issue because beyond academically theorizing the expressions, the imprecise use of the terms can tempt against the truth, justice, and reparation of the victims, triggering the concussion of risks of protection of Human Rights and the inadequate activation of a comprehensive response. This paper identifies, based on the experience of Mexico and from the focus on the centrality of the victims, which expression should be preferred when talking about non-voluntary human mobility within a country: internal displacement, forced internal displacement, or arbitrary displacement. To do this, first, this paper approaches the linguistic definitions of the terms in question; subsequently, it develops a legal and doctrinal analysis of the expressions; and finally, it proposes the use of internal forced displacement as the most appropriate expression to describe the problem in light of truth, justice and reparation for the victims.
Presenters
Carlos Daniel Munoz ChamorroOfficer, Office in Mexico of the High Commisioner of Human Rights, México, Mexico
Details
Presentation Type
Theme
2024 Special Focus—The World on the Move: Understanding Migration in a New Global Age
KEYWORDS
Internal displacement, Internal forced displacement, Arbitrary displacement
