Study Guide | United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)

Agenda Item I

Erased from the Map — Forced Displacement, UNRWA's Operational Collapse, and the Statelessness Crisis in the Occupied West Bank

Introduction

This topic examines the worsening humanitarian and legal crisis faced by Palestinian refugees in the occupied West Bank, focusing on the weakening capacity of UNRWA and the resulting rise in statelessness and forced displacement. It highlights how institutional breakdown, ongoing conflict, and restrictions on movement contribute to the “erasure” of refugee populations from legal and geographic recognition.

History and Background

The Palestinian refugee crisis began in 1948 after the Arab-Israeli conflict and mass displacement (Al-Nakba).
UNRWA was established in 1949 to provide humanitarian assistance, education, healthcare, and relief services.
The occupied West Bank has since remained under complex administrative control, with layered governance structures.
Over decades, political instability, settlement expansion, and movement restrictions have deepened statelessness.
Recent funding shortages and political pressures have significantly reduced UNRWA’s operational capacity.

Main Problems

Operational Collapse of UNRWA

Critical service updates across education, emergency healthcare, and food assistance are facing heavy disruptions.

Forced Displacement

Accelerated displacement dynamics resulting from ongoing settlement expansion and military operations.

Legal Statelessness

A complete absence of clear citizenship pathways leaves generations in continuous legal limbo.

Restrictions on Movement & Access

Proliferation of physical barriers, permits, and military checkpoints limiting basic geographic access.

Erosion of Protection Frameworks

International refugee frameworks are losing institutional leverage within the administrative landscape.

Aid Politicization & Funding Crises

Volatile donor contributions and geopolitical pressures threaten the predictable delivery of aid.

Committee Stakeholders

UNHCR

Maintains a historically limited mandate in Palestine relative to UNRWA, requiring complex institutional coordination.

UNRWA

The primary operational body responsible for executing frontline humanitarian mandates since 1949.

State of Israel

The occupying power controlling geographic security administration, movement parameters, and border dynamics.

Palestinian Authority

Exercises fractional domestic administrative governance within designated enclaves under international treaties.

Neighboring Arab States

Sovereign regional host nations (Jordan, Lebanon, Syria) absorbing long-term regional migration pressures.

International Donors

Major financial contributors (EU, USA, Gulf States) driving fiscal sustainability or policy shifts.

Refugee Communities

Palestinian refugee networks directly enduring deteriorating socio-economic frameworks and identity erasure.

Systemic Impacts

Socio-Economic Burden

Sharp increases in structural humanitarian dependency.
Deepening multi-generational poverty rates.
Severe educational disruption for vulnerable youth.

Institutional & Psychological

Widespread trauma and deep generational instability.
Pervasive erosion of trust in formal international frameworks.

Geopolitical Security

Severe weakening of international refugee protection norms.
Escalating regional volatility and unmanaged migration fluxes.

Proposed Solutions Framework

01. Stabilize UNRWA Financing

Secure resilient, long-term, and insulated donor funding channels to neutralize systemic budgetary disruptions.

02. Emergency Safeguards

Deploy immediate protection mechanisms to counter forced internal relocation patterns in vulnerable zones.

03. UNHCR-UNRWA Integration

Coalign tracking metrics and share institutional expertise under a single, unified operational framework.

04. Legal Protections

Enforce binding international legal accountability measures against illegal infrastructure demolition and spatial displacement.

05. Digital Archiving Platforms

Leverage decentralized cloud networks for sovereign, reliable identity retention for displaced populations.

06. Diplomatic Negotiations

Reintroduce structured, high-level dialogues targetting legal right-of-return mechanics and durable state solutions.

Agenda Item II

The Invisible Cage — Redrafting the 1951 Refugee Convention in the Age of AI Surveillance, Biometric Borders, and Erosion of the Right to Seek Asylum

Introduction

This topic explores how modern technologies—AI surveillance systems, biometric identification, and automated border control—are transforming global asylum systems. It questions whether the current legal framework, based on the 1951 Refugee Convention, is still adequate in protecting the right to seek asylum in a digitized and securitized world.

History and Background

The 1951 Refugee Convention was created in response to mass displacement after World War II.
It defines a refugee as someone unable to return to their country due to a well-founded fear of persecution.
The 1967 Protocol modernized the document by removing original geographical and temporal restrictions.
The core mechanics were fundamentally designed for analog border structures, not digital surveillance states.
In recent years, modern border management has shifted drastically toward biometric tracking and AI-driven automated screening.

Main Problems

Automated Profiling & Algorithmic Bias

Automated AI risk scoring structures frequently introduce systemic bias, causing wrongful asylum denials.

Loss of Asylum Seeker Anonymity

Aggressive tracking via biometric identity databases strips individuals of security and personal privacy.

Cross-Border Digital Tracking

Inter-state surveillance tracking leaves individuals under continuous observation along entire migratory tracks.

Black-Box Border Mechanisms

A distinct lack of structural transparency in automated legal judgements limits legal challenge capabilities.

Anachronistic Legal Instruments

Legacy human rights treaties fail to account for modern realities surrounding digitized digital identities.

Criminalization of Irregular Routes

The rapid deployment of defensive technologies turns unregularized transit paths into criminal actions.

Network of Stakeholders

UNHCR

Tasked with defending global legal adherence to standard human rights guidelines across shifting landscapes.

Border Control Agencies

State agencies executing sovereign security mandates through advanced technology deployments.

Technology Enterprises

Private organizations ideating, assembling, and licensing algorithmic tracking frameworks to governments.

Asylum Seekers

Displaced individuals directly bearing the operational brunt of digital gatekeeping architectures.

Transit & Host Nations

Geopolitical entities (e.g., EU blocks, USA, Middle Eastern nations) executing technology policies along borders.

Human Rights Defenders

Civil groups (Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch) identifying infractions and litigating against illegal technological deployment structures.

Resulting Consequences

Legal Deficits

Drastically reduced entry points to balanced asylum processing.
A sharp uptick in immediate, extrajudicial pushback events.
Gradual collapse of the foundational principle of non-refoulement.

Autonomy Vulnerabilities

Widespread privacy infractions and total destruction of individual self-determination.
Automated discrimination against marginalized demographics.

Spatial Transformations

Development of "invisible virtual borders" extending far behind geographical lines.

Feasible Technical & Legal Reform

01. Expand Optional Protocols

Incorporate comprehensive digital rights frameworks into existing treaty mechanics via agile updates.

02. Global AI Codes of Conduct

Introduce strict international guidelines to regulate automated decision tools in migration environments.

03. Mandatory Human-In-The-Loop

Enforce binding mandates requiring complete human oversight before finalizing asylum processing rejections.

04. Ban Predictive Policing

Institute strict bans against utilizing speculative algorithmic models to pre-emptively intercept transit.

05. Data Protection Safeguards

Enact codified guarantees enabling asylum seekers access to managed levels of functional digital anonymity.

06. Independent Tech Auditing

Form neutral international regulatory networks to rigorously evaluate border biometric software suites.

Delegate Strategy & Committee Perspective

The modern landscape of forced displacement places the UNHCR at a critical junction between regional sovereignty and international obligation. Delegates are directed to maintain close reference to:

International Refugee Law & Treaty Obligations
Operational coordination under political fragility
Protection of fundamental state non-refoulement
Emerging threats to digital identity and privacy rights
Equity of algorithmic border vetting technologies
Shared international financial accountability mechanisms

Resolution Guidance: Resolutions must balance state border sovereignty alongside human rights guarantees. Focus on creating pragmatic tracking infrastructures, technical monitoring auditing boards, and stabilizing operational donor funding patterns.