Search

Protection mechanisms aimed at assisting refugees emerge at different scales, from the global to the local. In host countries such as South Africa, formal mechanisms are meant to support refugees in finding various forms of protection, including legal and social protection. Yet, research over the last few decades has repeatedly shown that in regions such as southern Africa ‘current mechanisms are not offering effective and efficient access to refuge for those in need’ (Papademetriou, 2015). As a result, refugees and other forced migrants are regularly required to locate more informal mechanisms at the ground level, through social networks and civil society. This paper is interested in the range of formal and informal protection mechanisms available to refugees in South Africa, and how these mechanisms interact with each other. Specifically, using a multi-scalar approach, the paper investigates the reality of protection for refugees in South Africa, and the role different key scales of analysis (the global, the national and the ground) play in how refugees locate forms of protection. The paper asks three pertinent questions i) what is the relevance of formal protection mechanisms for refugees in South Africa today?; ii) what is the relevance of informal protection mechanisms that exist outside of formal state structures?; and iii) what is the relationship between these different formal and informal mechanisms at the different scales of analysis? There is real value in adopting this approach to exploring refugee protection in South Africa. Firstly, it develops existing research by exploring the availability of different forms of protection for refugees in South Africa, and importantly investigating where they are located. Secondly, in doing this, the paper is also able to highlight serious protection gaps in both the national and global refugee regime. Thirdly, by taking a multi-scalar approach, the research also examines the interconnectedness and complexity of the relationships between each scale.3 Finally, by investigating these issues before and during the Covid-19 pandemic, the paper can scrutinise the stability and reliability of such mechanisms (both formal and informal) during a period of national emergency.&nbsp

Additional file 2.

Additional file 3. List of policies included in analysis.

Additional file 1. Automated search strategy: South African National, Provincial and Metropolitan-level policies.

South Africa has a progressive legal refugee framework and retains a national refugee reception system comprising of several key pieces of institutional architecture, which include a nationally run refugee status determination (RSD) procedure, and appeal and judicial review mechanisms. All of these are prescribed in law to ensure implementation of the state’s international obligations towards asylum-seekers and refugees. Yet, since being established in the mid-1990s, the national refugee reception system, which is overseen by the Department of Home Affairs (DHA), has been plagued by allegations of corruption, serious legal and procedural flaws in the application of the law, and national policies that continually breach international law. This article asks what impact the overarching management of refugee affairs being under the control of DHA has had on individual institutions. Has the DHA been able to truly assert influence over all aspects of the asylum system or have individual institutions been able to carve out their own institutional identity which helps insulate them from broader ideology and allows them to place their mandate for the protection of refugees as a priority? In this way, the article speaks directly to the role institutional identity plays within national refugee reception systems and the impact these issues have on how government officials and institutions implement relevant legal frameworks. Ultimately, what emerges is a government department that from day one has been able to exert its influence over all aspects of refugee affairs, either through key pieces of institutional architecture, or by responding to perceived setbacks through new policy. The result is a national system that creates barriers that prevent asylum-seekers and refugees from gaining access to the interior and leaves most forced migrants in the country struggling to access basic rights. Equally, the mounting importance of the judiciary and civil society as the only de jure and de facto custodians of refugee protection in the country becomes explicit. The paper concludes by suggesting international agencies such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) should utilise recent developments through the Global Compact on Refugees as an opportunity to build stronger relations with the more progressive elements of the DHA and push for the reengagement and better co-operation with key stakeholders, such as civil society and academia.

Based on fieldwork conducted in selected migration arrival ports in Greece, Italy, Spain, France, South Africa, and Canada, this research reportexplores the role of the notion of vulnerability in the field level governance of international protection. Specifically, it explores how key actors and stakeholders in the selected field sites 1) understand and apply the notion of vulnerability, and 2) collaborate to address and reduce vulnerabilities. Particular attention is paid to how field level governance takes into account gender and legal status, and how actors collaborate in regard to mechanisms for identification, access to legal information and assistance, and access to healthcare and shelter. The field level is where global, regional, national and local actors and stakeholders interact in order to implement the international protection regime. A great variety of actors and stakeholders are as such engaged in the field level governance of migration and refugee protection, including notably government agencies, local authorities, civil society organizations, host community members, and migrants. Critically, our research provides opportunities to explore de facto governance responses and how they do or do not reflect formal governance processes - including national legislative frameworks and the global compacts on refugees and migration.&nbsp