Response to the Internal Displacement in Georgia: The Role of Different Stakeholders

As I initially pointed out in Chap. 1 , IDPs are widely recognized as a vulnerable group. This vulnerability largely stems from their unique status under international law, which lacks a legally binding framework for this forced displacement type. This sets them apart from other categories of forcibly displaced people, most notably refugees, who benefit from internationally protected rights. My objective here is not to draw comparisons between the hardships experienced by different groups but to highlight the disparity in treatment at both international and domestic levels. The critical situation faced by IDPs first came to widespread attention during the late 1980s in Ethiopia, a time marked by civil war and famine. Those who managed to flee across borders into Sudan and Kenya received support from the UN, unlike those who remained within Ethiopian borders. At the time, no specific rules or regulations were in place to assist those who stayed, illustrating a significant gap in support (Cohen 2006: 88). Responding to this critical gap, the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement were introduced in 1998. These principles established a universal framework aimed at enhancing the management of IDPs worldwide. Despite their significance, these principles lack enforceability and, by themselves, do not fully address the myriad of challenges faced. This shortfall mainly arises from the sui generis nature of each IDP situation and the fact that the IDPs eventually fall under the responsibility of their respective states.