This study examined enforcement and implementation of durable solutions among South Sudanese refugees at Kiryandongo settlement, Uganda from 1990 to 2010. It set out to examine South Sudanese refugees’ settlement and coping mechanism at Kiryandongo settlement, examine the enforcement and implementation of the durable solutions among South Sudanese refugees at Kiryandongo and, finally, to examine the impact of enforcement and implantation of durable solutions among South Sudanese refugees. The project paper was guided by three hypotheses suggesting that South Sudanese refugees had challenges upon settling in Uganda, secondly, durable solutions were not fully enforced and implemented among South Sudanese because of non-compliancy of hosting governments, animosity between host communities and refugees not forgetting continued conflicts in refugees’ countries of origin. Thirdly there were challenges to the enforcement and implementation of durable solutions for South Sudanese refugees at Kiryandongo settlement. The study was shaped using the Kinetic model of refugee theory which categorized refugees into two types; the anticipatory refugees and the acute refugees. This research adopted a qualitative research paradigm, descriptive in nature. Research data was obtained from both primary and secondary materials. The study reviewed scholarly refugee journal articles and books in an attempt to understand refugee issues in the world. From the reviews, a research gap was identified. Primary data was derived from oral interviews in Uganda, for two weeks in Kiryandongo and one in Kampala. The interviews conducted with refugees, chief officers of particular NGOs and government officials both in Kampala and at the settlements were in-depth and semi-structured interviews. The study also used internet sources, focused group discussions as well as key informants to collect data during the field visit. The data collected was incorporated and analyzed to breed this thesis. The study established that South Sudanese refugees discerned the three instruments; local integration, repatriation and resettlement as solutions to their plight. Settlement was an option but they regarded it as a temporary solution, repatriation was not an option refugees took for reasons of insecurity and continued instability back home and lastly resettlement to a third country was their most preferred solution. All the instruments were applied among the refugees by implementing partners; government of Uganda and the UNHCR but they were not successful. The reason for this was, factors like language barrier, hostility of host communities, animosity and competition of resources between refugees and host communities made local integration unsuccessful, continued instability and conflicts in refugees’ countries of origin made repatriation as a process impossible yet noncompliance of host governments to receive refugees coupled with strict policies of host countries against refugees hindered resettlement. This research recommends that host governments and refugee implementing agencies should protect refugees against discrimination and hostility from host communities to effect local integration, similarly, governments should resolve conflicts in refugees’ countries of origin and support refugees to willingly return home in order to achieve repatriation as an instrument to refugee plight and lastly, all refugee laws be should be practical rather than on paper, third countries where refugees desire to be resettled should be complying and loosen up their policies to accommodate refugees because their issues are humanitarian. The study concluded therefore that all options were to a small extent implemented and enforced among South Sudanese refugees, and are still a work in progress indicating that these so-called durable solutions are not a finality in the life of a refugee.

show more