Contested labels: the operationalization of the IDP category in south Sudan

Abstract

Similar in shape to the ‘are refugees migrants’ debate, recent years have seen an emerging discussion about the relationship between the ‘IDP’ and ‘refugee returnee’ labels. The use of labels is known to be problematic yet continues to play a prominent role in policymaking and the humanitarian field. Drawing on an analysis of 20 interviews with professionals working for international organisations engaged in humanitarian operations and a variety of written contents, this paper investigates how, why and with which consequences the IDP population category has been operationalized and contested. A case study from South Sudan, where the debate about the relationship between the IDP and returning refugee labels played a significant role from 2019 onwards, shows that a number of factors shape this debate, including mandates, funding competition and donor structures, organisational politics, the role of individuals and political interests. The research findings suggest that labelling brings unintended consequences, beyond the stated goal of addressing needs in a better targeted manner. An over-reliance on labels as primary indicator of needs in status-based responses and the fragmentation of labels into increasingly competing, rather than nested entities, risks doing harm and constitutes a disservice to the affected populations. The research does not advocate to dismiss labels altogether, but encourages a much more critical engagement with how, why and for whom different labels are employed, along with a needs-based reorientation in the planning and implementation of humanitarian response operations.