By Diwash Gahatraj
JHAPA, Nepal,, Jul 31 2025 – Four Bhutanese Lotshampa refugees—Aasis Subedi, Santosh Darji, Roshan Tamang, and Ashok Gurung—filed an appeal in Nepal’s Supreme Court on July 27, challenging a government order that would deport them from Nepal.

After being resettled in the United States through a UN refugee program, the four were deported back to Bhutan in April this year only to be turned away at the border. Bhutan refused to recognize them as citizens.

They entered Nepal without a visa and were imprisoned for 28 days. They were released in June only after Aasis Subedi’s father, Narayan Subedi, filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court of Nepal. The court then issued an interim order stopping their deportation.

The order instructed the government to release the men from prison and let them stay in the refugee camps in Jhapa district—Pathri and Beldangi. It also required them to report to the local police station once a week and asked the Immigration Department to complete its investigation within 60 days.

That deadline passed on June 20. Three days later, the family received a letter from Nepal’s Immigration Department.

“I was shocked to see the verdict. I felt sad and helpless,” said 36-year-old Aasis Subedi, reading the letter aloud. It stated that the Department had decided to deport the four men—either back to the U.S., or to Bhutan—after fining them NPR 5,000 (about USD 36.4) each. They were also told to pay visa fees and an additional USD 8 per day as an overstay penalty.

“This deportation order is deeply flawed,” said senior advocate Satish Krishna Kharel, who will represent the four men in court. “They were resettled to the U.S. from Nepal under a formal international program. Sending them away now, without any country ready to take them, violates basic legal and humanitarian principles.”

Kharel and the legal team argue that the decision by the Immigration Department disregards their history and undermines the credibility of the international resettlement process itself. With both the U.S. and Bhutan denying them citizenship, the four men are effectively stateless—caught in a legal no-man’s-land. Their fate now rests with Nepal’s highest court, which could set an important legal precedent on how stateless individuals are treated in the country.

Department of Immigration (DoI) spokesperson Tikaram Dhakal told a Nepali daily, “Even though they came from the US, they are Bhutanese. The sooner they arrange their travel documents, the sooner we can deport them. If they can’t go back to the US, Bhutan is the easier option for us. They will also have to cover the cost of their airfare.”

Until their travel documents are ready, they will remain in the camp.

Aasis’s father, Narayan Subedi, feels helpless about his son’s statelessness. “Last time, I filed a habeas corpus petition in the Supreme Court after my son and three others were arrested. We’re filing another petition now, still holding on to hope that a solution can be found for their future,” he says, before leaving for Kathmandu for the appeal.

“Money is always a challenge for refugees living in the camp,” says Narayan Subedi, father of one of the deportees. “Both last time and again now, we’ve only been able to cover travel and legal expenses in Kathmandu because of help from a few well-wishers—like Dilli Adhikari, a fellow Lhotshampa refugee now living in the U.S.”

Now 55, Narayan has no formal job. He supports himself by running a small grocery shop from his home within the refugee camp. Much like his son’s situation today, Narayan himself has lived as a stateless refugee since the early 1990s. Unlike his wife and children, he didn’t qualify for third-country resettlement when the U.S.-led program was active.

Similarly, refugee rights activist and head of INHURED International, Dr. Gopal Krishna Siwakoti, explains that the deportation order for the four individuals was made strictly by following the letter of Nepal’s Immigration Act, without considering the larger human and legal issues involved. He says the authorities seem confused and uncertain about how to find a fair and lasting solution to this complicated situation.

Normally, Nepal’s Immigration Department charges a heavy fine—NPR 50,000 plus USD 8 per day—for entering the country without proper documents or overstaying a visa. But in this case, the four deportees were treated with some compassion. They were asked to pay just NPR 5,000 each. However, they will still need to pay the USD 8 per day overstay fine once they get their travel documents and are ready to leave the country.

A Grim Outlook

The future for the four men deported from the U.S., and others like them, remains highly uncertain. Most possible outcomes offer little hope. Without strong international pressure or a shift in regional diplomacy, these individuals could remain trapped in a legal and humanitarian dead end.

Repatriation to Bhutan may seem like the most direct solution, but it is highly unlikely. Bhutan has consistently refused to take back Lhotshampa refugees—even those who were verified as citizens in past screenings.

Another option is permanent settlement in Nepal. But this, too, remains uncertain. Nepal is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention and offers no legal path to citizenship for refugees, making long-term integration nearly impossible.

Third-country resettlement is also improbable. The UNHCR-led program has officially ended, and most countries are unwilling to accept individuals with unresolved legal or criminal records.

According to Dr. Gopal Krishna Siwakoti, the most likely outcome is “prolonged area detention or legal limbo.” This has happened before. Thousands of refugees have spent decades in camps in Nepal without any durable solution. Nearly 7,000 Lhotshampas still live in the two camps in eastern Nepal. The newly deported face the same grim reality—stateless, stuck, and with no clear path ahead.

Way Ahead

For the deportees, this marks a return to statelessness. No country is willing to accept them, leaving them without citizenship, protection, or a clear future. Their deportation goes against international laws, including the right to seek asylum and protection from torture.

Nepal and Bhutan do not have formal diplomatic relations, and their talks to resolve the refugee issue have been stuck since the 15th round of negotiations. India has remained silent, and the United States has not acted beyond deporting the individuals.

Experts like Siwakoti say that the way forward now depends on international pressure.

“Support from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), global human rights organizations, and Bhutanese diaspora groups could help push for a humane and lasting solution.”

“On the legal front, the upcoming appeal in Nepal’s Supreme Court could become a key moment—setting a precedent for how stateless individuals are treated in Nepal going forward,” he adds.

Regional diplomacy may also help if Nepal raises the issue at global forums like the UN Human Rights Council, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), or the European Union. That could increase pressure on Bhutan to respond and engage in resolving the crisis.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById({js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Maximilian Malawista
NEW YORK, Jul 31 2025 – Amidst the ongoing conflict in Gaza, the risk of famine among rising need of consumption and nutrition have reached their worst levels since the start of the conflict. Without urgent analysis to latest report from the Food Security Classificat “IPC ALERT: Worst-case scenario of Famine unfolding in the Gaza Strip”.

A new analysis from the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) has projected that the entire Gaza Strip will endure high levels of acute food insecurity, IPC Phase 3 or above, by September 2025. This includes half a million people in IPC Phase 5 (Catastrophe), which is about one-quarter of the entire population. In North Gaza and Rafah, critical levels at IPC phase 4 are affecting 70,000 children under the age of five, including 17,000 pregnant and breastfeeding women. The data indicated that risk of famine is detected within all areas of the Gaza Strip, as lack of food, starvation, destruction, and death, intrudes on all areas of life.

These catastrophic, critical, and acute levels of famine have forced one in three people (39 percent) to go days at a time without eating a single morsel of food. Among low levels of food consumption comes unprecedented malnutrition rates, with children under the age of five quadrupling in rates only in two months, reaching 16.5 percent. Between April and mid-July, more than 20,000 children have been admitted to hospitals for treatment of acute malnutrition, with more than 3,000 being severely malnourished. In July, 320,000 children under the age of five are at risk of acute malnutrition.

“Emaciated children and babies are dying from malnutrition in Gaza,” adding “We need immediate, safe and unhindered humanitarian access across Gaza to scale up the delivery of life-saving food, nutrition, water and medicine. Without that, mothers and fathers will continue to face a parent’s worst nightmare, powerless to save a starving child from a condition we are able to prevent,” said UNICEF Executive Director Catherine Russell.

These conditions are expected to worsen even further as safe spaces in the Gaza Strip have shrunk to less than 12 percent. Due to this, there has been 762,500 displacements since March 18th, 2025. 88 percent of the Gaza Strip are under militarized zones or displacement orders, and 70 percent of all infrastructure have been damaged or destroyed. In places where people were attempting to get food, 1,000 people have been killed since May 27th, raising the death toll of the entire conflict to 59,500 people with 143,000 injured.

Bakeries and community kitchens remain closed, and humanitarian access remains blocked. What was described as a ‘trickle’ of aid has entered Gaza due to the easing of the blockade on May 19th. Yet the resources were vastly inadequate to meet the scale of current and future needs.

The blockade

Following the 80-day blockade prior to May 19th, aid has been able to partially resume, but at a scale far below needs. An estimated 62,000 metric tons (MT) of staple food is required per month to cover the most basic food needs of Gaza, which does not include fresh foods such as meat and vegetables. According to the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT), a unit in the Israeli Ministry of defense, only 19,900 MT and 37,800 MT of food overall has entered Gaza between May and June, with zero aid entering between March 2nd and May 18th. This includes supplies from the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF).

Another hurdle prohibiting aid delivery is the presence of armed actors near convey routes and distribution points. The UN estimates that only 1,300 MT of the 14,900 MT of the official humanitarian aid, consisting of 97 percent food and 3 percent essential non-food items, reached the distribution sites.

All together these conditions have made it virtually impossible for the people of Gaza to receive any form of humanitarian aid. In late June, less than 1.5 percent of the population based in the south, or 25,000 people, were able to receive humanitarian food assistance from UN agencies and humanitarian groups for the first time in weeks. In the north, humanitarian access has been even further restrained by repeated closings of the Zikim Crossing. At this rate, current stocks of lifesaving and preventive nutrition supplies are expected to be completely depleted within next month. Though since then, Karem Shalom and Zikim crossings have been reopened for limited aid deliveries to pass through.

The GHF claimed that they have distributed over 89 million meals from four distribution sites, which are primarily in militarized zones along the Khan Younis-Rafah border, where less than a quarter of the Gaza population is located. The caveat is that most of the food items are not ready to eat, requiring water and fuel to cook which are currently vastly unavailable. The disproportionate access to supply distribution sites requires high-risk journeys and offers food on a first-come first-served basis, leaving the most vulnerable groups still unable to access food.

Within the past three months, aid at its peak in June was 37,843.34 metric tons, only 17 percent of what Gaza was receiving in February this year (216,075 MT), with a projected decrease from June in July.

“The unbearable suffering of the people of Gaza is already clear for the world to see,” said World Food Programme Executive Director Cindy McCain. “Waiting for official confirmation of famine to provide life-saving food aid they desperately need is unconscionable.”
“We need to floor Gaza with large-scale food aid, immediately and without obstruction, and keep it flowing each and every day to prevent mass starvation. People are already dying of malnutrition and the longer we wait to act, the higher the death toll will rise.”

In light of the ongoing crisis, UN agencies have reiterated their call for an immediate ceasefire, the release of all hostages and the enablement of uninterrupted humanitarian operations. They have also called for investing in the recovery of local food systems by revitalizing bakeries and markets and rehabilitating local agriculture.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Naomi Ayot Oyaro and Tais Siqueira
KAMPALA Uganda / SORIA Spain, Jul 31 2025 – In Uganda, local communities are routinely sidelined in development processes, despite knowing most about their own needs. When a Moroto District officer remarked, ‘This is the first time local leaders were truly heard’, it offered a powerful reminder of what so often goes wrong: development fails when communities are excluded.

At CAPAIDS, in partnership with CIVICUS, we have had the opportunity to engage local actors countrywide to undertake collective analyses of what is going well and not so well in development, and articulate key asks. Under the initial phase of our project, we organised intentional and safe spaces for over 200 local and national actors and local government representatives in all seven regions of Uganda.

Following these conversations, it’s time for us to reflect.

Challenges to locally led development

Our discussions took place in a landscape where current development approaches favour global north actors and large national organisations, often at the expense of local communities. Like their counterparts across the country, people from Western Uganda shared their experiences of historical exclusion and expressed hope for more meaningful opportunities to engage in shaping locally led development.

In most cases, local actors lack direct access to donors and instead interact with intermediaries, who they often perceive as donors. During consultations, they raised concerns about potential exploitation by intermediaries and national actors based in the capital. A key issue highlighted was that they may be included in co-design processes for funding proposals, only to find themselves excluded from implementation.

Participants also identified activity budget-based partnerships as exploitative. In these arrangements, intermediaries or international non-government organisations (INGOs) contract local actors on a strictly activity-based funding model, where funds are released per activity and reports are required for each task, without providing overhead funding for local organisations. As a result, local actors effectively become project officers rather than genuine development partners. This approach, while common, does little to foster the growth of local organisations and instead reduces them to mere budget disbursement channels, ultimately limiting their sustainability and independence. For example, several organisations reported being involved in large-scale donor-funded projects but being unable to cover their operational costs, making long-term impact and institutional growth almost impossible.

Additionally, consultations revealed the existence of numerous sub-national civil society and human rights networks that remain underutilised. To prevent siloed approaches, development actors should work through these established networks instead of bypassing them. However, intermediaries and INGOs frequently overlook these networks and instead directly select local partners, reinforcing fragmentation. The exclusion of diverse civil society voices and the absence of mechanisms to build geographical and thematic synergy among organisations are clear shortfalls of the current aid ecosystem. It’s essential these challenges are addressed to help build a meaningful and transformative locally led development framework.

People in Southwestern Uganda identified key barriers to locally led development, with limited funding (identified by 40 per cent) the most significant challenge, as restrictive donor conditions and a lack of direct funding hinder sustainability. Constrained civic space (20 per cent) further limits operations due to government-imposed restrictions. Capacity gaps (15 per cent) limit the ability of local civil society organisations (CSOs), including grassroots bodies, to engage effectively in donor planning and project implementation. Regulatory and compliance issues (15 per cent) create bureaucratic hurdles, making it difficult for local CSOs to operate. Competition from international organisations registered as local CSOs (10 per cent) reduces funding opportunities, while poor donor-local CSO relationships exacerbate the issue. Meanwhile top-down planning (5 per cent) results in interventions that fail to address local needs due to limited community input. These are important challenges to address.

From local to global

The challenges in Uganda aren’t isolated ones. Across the globe, local actors face similar systematic struggles in accessing funding, engaging in decision-making and leading solutions-building.

The global development ecosystem is increasingly recognising the need for change. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) recommendation on enabling civil society (2021) and Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation have said as much, while recently and despite major cutbacks, the Dutch government stated that it will continue ‘providing aid to people in crisis situations via local aid organisations, as they are able to respond swiftly and effectively in crises’, highlighting a growing awareness that development must be led by those closest to the issues.

There’s been a surge in commitments from funders to support locally led development. Initiatives such as the Grand Bargain 3.0 and Donor Statement on Locally Led Development, albeit championed by the now-extinguished USAID, have set ambitious goals to support local actors. However, these pledges aren’t always leading to tangible actions. A study by Publish What You Fund reveals that four out of five OECD donors lack clear locally led development strategies, definitions, or measurable targets, hindering accountability and progress.

To truly advance locally led development, there must be a systemic change – in Uganda, and globally. Funders and policymakers must intentionally ensure meaningful participation by local actors in decision-making spaces, integrate locally led development into democracy support frameworks and provide accessible, flexible and high-quality funding that allows communities to define their own priorities. Transparency and accountability are also essential: progress must be assessed collectively with local actors to ensure commitments translate into tangible and meaningful change.

Local communities engaged in change across Uganda made eight recommendations to move from pledges to tangible solutions and actions:

1. Enable full participation, co-leadership and leadership of local communities in coordination mechanisms and programming and policy spaces. This includes the inclusion of local actors and communities in processes on locally led development to build synergy and alignment on key terminology and processes. Community-centred development approaches must be preferred over external expert models.

2. Prioritise radical inclusion. Funding should be directed toward excluded groups, including people with disabilities, women-led organisations and other marginalised communities.

3. Utilise existing local platforms. Donors and INGOs should work through local networks rather than creating parallel structures.

4. Invest inclusively in organisational capacity strengthening, recognising the diversity of civil society. Capacity must be co-developed with local communities based on their contexts and needs, to ensure it brings agency, autonomy, growth and development for local civil society, contributing to sustainability and synergy. Avoid project-based interventions.

5. Advocate for policy shifts. The government of Uganda should focus on policy review and changes to enable locally led initiatives to thrive, including by funding local actors, coalitions and networks.

6. Ensure transparency and accountability. Donors and intermediaries must be held accountable to help promote quantity, quality and data transparency of local funding.

7. Share risks. Development partnerships must be designed so risk is shared among partners, including donors and national and local actors. Risks should not be transferred to the local level.

8. Practise zero tolerance for corruption and resource grabbing. Transparent mechanisms of accountability should be developed in co-creation with local actors, and any abusers of the system must be held to account. Local actors in Uganda presented a case where they exposed potential fraud and instead of proper investigations being done the partnership was terminated.

Championing local actors to be the driving force in their own progress is the way forward, not just in Uganda, but everywhere the path is clear: shift power, resources and trust to local leaders. The question for funders should no longer why, but how fast?

Naomi Ayot Oyaro is Executive Director of CAPAIDS Uganda. Taís Siqueira is Local Leadership Lab Coordinator at CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation. CAPAIDS Uganda is in partnership with CIVICUS on the Local Leadership Labs Project as the National Convening Partner in Uganda.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Luisa Gómez and Alexandra Colón-Amil
WASHINGTON DC, Jul 31 2025 – The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has issued one of the most progressive climate justice decisions of our time. Its historic Advisory Opinion on the climate emergency and human rights, released on July 3, 2025, was unequivocal: States have legal obligations under international human rights law to reduce, prevent, and address climate damage, including reining in big polluters.

Moreover, this ruling reaffirmed States’ duty to protect environmental defenders — people, communities, and organizations courageously working to safeguard human rights, their territories, and the environment — whose efforts are vital in confronting the climate crisis.

This Opinion is part of a growing series of climate-related rulings by international courts. It landed on the eve of the July 23, 2025, landmark climate ruling by the International Court of Justice and after the historic April 21, 2024, climate ruling by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

Inter-American Court of Human Rights in Costa Rica. Credit: Luisa Gómez / CIEL

Together, these three opinions add powerful momentum to the global pursuit of climate justice and accountability, grounding climate action in binding law and offering a roadmap for courts, advocates, and policymakers worldwide.

The process for the Inter-American climate opinion was initiated two years ago by a request from Chile and Colombia, which ignited significant interest from the international community, States, Indigenous and Afro-descendant peoples, civil society actors, environmental defenders, and community organizations.

The consultative process was the most participatory in the Court’s history, with 613 actors submitting 263 briefs and 185 delegations participating in three public hearings held in various locations, including the Caribbean and the heart of the Brazilian Amazon.

In its groundbreaking opinion, the Court made clear that we are facing a climate emergency that drastically impacts human rights. In response, it called on States to undertake urgent and effective action, such as regulating the corporations primarily responsible for the crisis, particularly those in the fossil fuel industry; safeguarding the right to a healthy climate; and recognizing Nature as a subject of rights.

Notably, the Advisory Opinion acknowledged the critical role of environmental defenders in combating climate change, promoting rights-based solutions, and holding polluters accountable. At a time when democratic institutions are increasingly under pressure worldwide, the Court recognized that these defenders are crucial allies to governments not only in confronting the climate crisis, but also in strengthening democracy and the rule of law.

This is a watershed moment for Latin America and the Caribbean, a region that consistently accounts for the highest number of documented murders of environmental defenders — making up 85 percent of global cases in 2023. Given that this Advisory Opinion applies to all Member States of the Organization of American States (OAS), more than 30 countries can no longer ignore what the Court calls the States’ “special duty of protection” toward environmental defenders.

This duty includes ensuring a safe environment where they can operate without stigmatization, threats, restrictions, or risks to their lives, as well as investigating, punishing, and providing reparations for any harm they may face – from attacks to intimidation.

The Court’s message is unmistakable: environmental defenders have the right to impartial, timely, and thorough justice. States must initiate investigations into crimes against defenders ex officio — that is, on their own initiative and without solely relying on victims to drive the process. Furthermore, States must investigate all attacks against defenders with the same level of urgency and rigor, whether it’s a threat, defamation, harassment, intimidation, or an act of deadly violence.

Criminalization is now the most common tactic to silence defenders globally, according to Global Witness. In recent years, there has been a surge of laws aimed at eroding the rights and ability of activists and civil society organizations to take part in climate action. In its landmark decision, the Court acknowledged that environmental defenders are victims of various forms of judicial harassment, arbitrary detentions, disproportionate sentences, and the misuse of laws to restrict their work.

The Court also addressed the growing use of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP suits) to suppress environmental advocacy. It urged States to repeal laws abused to persecute and punish defenders, set up procedures to rapidly dismiss baseless legal actions, and train law enforcement and judicial authorities to prevent judicial harassment and protect the right to defend the environment.

As it has done in previous decisions, the Court consistently referred to the standards of the Escazú Agreement in this climate opinion. This is the first binding regional treaty in Latin America and the Caribbean to promote environmental democracy — the right to information, participation, and justice.

Notably, the Escazú Agreement is the only treaty in the world with specific provisions to ensure a safe and supportive environment for defenders. Yet, despite being the most violent region worldwide for those who defend the planet, the Escazú Agreement has not been ratified by all Latin American and Caribbean countries. To date, it has entered into force in 18 countries.

The Court’s ongoing reference to the Escazú Agreement in its rulings, as a supplementary source for interpreting the law, has two significant effects. The first is legal. The Court is effectively incorporating the protections of the Escazú Agreement into Inter-American standards — the regional norms that countries in the Americas are expected to follow to protect human rights.

This means that Escazú protections are applicable not only to the 18 countries that have ratified the Agreement, but also to all OAS member states.

The second is a political effect. The Court’s references to the Escazú Agreement in its decisions show that the Agreement aligns with and strengthens Inter-American standards for the protection of human rights. This sends a message that may prompt countries in the region to ratify the Escazú Agreement as a means of fulfilling their international human rights obligations.

We must not forget that without robust implementation, the protections mentioned above remain fragile and defenders remain at risk — especially women, Indigenous Peoples, and trans activists, who face unique and more severe threats. In Latin America and around the world, a strong movement is advancing to protect defenders and uphold their rights.

With its climate opinion, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights affirmed that States must be part of this movement, fulfilling their legal duty to protect the right to defend the environment. The time to act is now.

Luisa Gómez is, Senior Attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), and Alexandra Colón-Amil is CIEL Campaign Specialist

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);