Tanzania plans to return thousands of refugees to Burundi, despite their unwillingness and irrespective of the dangerous conditions awaiting them there. Sadly, this is not an isolated case.

It has become an increasingly common practice for refugees to be involuntarily returned to insecure countries of origin, in direct violation of laws and principles adopted by the international community over the past 70 years.

First and foremost, such laws and principles assert that refugees should be able to make a free and informed choice about repatriation, and must not be pressed into going back. They also stipulate that repatriation must take place in a safe and dignified manner, with refugees allowed to return at their own pace.

In addition, the international community has agreed that the UN refugee agency, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, should actively encourage people to return home only in situations where fundamental changes have taken place, such as a change of government, democratic elections or restoration of the rule of law.

Another principle concerns the need for repatriation movements to be effectively coordinated, usually through the establishment of “tripartite commissions” involving the host state, country of origin and the UNHCR. In this context, the UN refugee agency is charged with representing the interests of refugees, ensuring that their return is conducted with full respect for their rights.

But while these principles are clear, they are coming under mounting pressure.

The international community now considers repatriation not only the preferred outcome but also, in many cases, the only possible outcome.

That is because host countries in developing regions do not want refugees indefinitely present on their territory. Donor states are keen to avert the need for long-term assistance programmes, while countries of origin are eager to bolster their legitimacy by demonstrating that exiled citizens are prepared to return.

As for the UNHCR – an agency funded and governed by states, and therefore highly sensitive to their concerns – it has become a primary objective to get as many refugees home as possible, demonstrating the organisation’s value to its primary stakeholders.

In this context, the notion that repatriation should be voluntary, safe and dignified has been increasingly set aside, with varying forms of coercion being used to ensure that mass repatriation movements take place.

As seen with respect to Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh, Somalis in Kenya, Afghans in Pakistan, Syrians in Lebanon and Burundians in Tanzania, measures used include the threat of camp closures, reductions in assistance levels, the closure of refugee markets and harassment by government officials.

States now insist that repatriation should take place more rapidly, even if there have not been fundamental changes in their country of origin. In November 2017, for example, Bangladesh, Myanmar and key donors such as the EU began to prepare for the return of an estimated 700,000 Rohingya refugees, even though large-scale displacements were still taking place.

Similarly, over the past two years there has been a growing international effort to prepare for refugee returns to Syria, despite the Assad regime remaining in power, the continued military presence of its Russian allies and the widespread prevalence of human rights abuses.

The forces that have undermined the established principles of refugee repatriation are deeply entrenched and seem highly unlikely to disappear in the foreseeable future. Even so, there are a number of steps that could be taken to halt the recent deterioration in standards.

First, the UNHCR should uphold the principle that repatriation must be voluntary, safe and dignified, even if this complicates its relationship with host and donor states. If the organisation is put under pressure to engage in repatriation operations that do not meet such standards, it must either decline to do so or be completely transparent about the rationale for its involvement.

A more diversified approach to refugee solutions is also needed, with situations in which some refugees might benefit from local integration more systematically identified and efforts made to find additional resettlement places.

Third, the repatriation process should become much more participatory. While it will not be an easy task, the UNHCR should try to convince states to establish “quadripartite commissions”, in which refugees are directly represented by democratically selected leaders.

Finally, there is a need to ensure that refugees who choose freely to repatriate have every opportunity to rebuild their lives in their homeland. For that objective to be attained, short-term humanitarian assistance must be complemented by longer-term development initiatives, designed to support the economy, infrastructure and environment of areas that have received large numbers of returnees.

This is a task that lies well beyond the competence of the UNHCR and other humanitarian agencies, one that will require the full engagement of development actors such as the World Bank and the UN Development Programme.

• Jeff Crisp is a research associate at the refugee studies centre, University of Oxford, and former head of policy development and evaluation at the UNHCR. A longer version of this article will appear in the Forced Migration Review