Sustainable Solutions to the Displaced Person Situation On the Thai-Myanmar Border.....Conclusion: Resettlement operations within the shelters in Thailand have now been ongoing continuously for more than 5 years with over 64,000 departures completed as of the end of 2010. However, despite the large investment of financial and human resources in this effort, the displacement situation appears not to have diminished significantly in scale as of yet. While no stakeholders involved with the situation in Thailand are currently calling for an end to resettlement activities, there has been little agreement about what role resettlement actually x serves in long-term solutions for the situation. For the most part, the program has been implemented thus far in a reflexive manner rather than as a truly responsive and solutions-oriented strategy, based primarily upon the parameters established by the policies of resettlement nations and the RTG rather than the needs of the displaced persons within the shelters. Looking towards the future, it appears highly unlikely that resettlement can resolve the displaced person situation in the border shelters as a lone durable solution and almost certainly not if the status quo registration policies and procedures of the RTG are maintained. All stakeholders involved with trying to address the situation are currently stuck with the impractical approach of attempting to resolve a protracted state of conflict and human rights abuses within Myanmar without effective means for engaging with the situation in-country. Neither stemming the tide of new displacement flows nor establishing conditions that would allow for an eventual safe return appear feasible at this time. Within the limitations of this strategy framework, a greater level of cooperation between resettlement countries, international organizations, and the RTG to support a higher quantity of departures for resettlement through addressing the policy constraints and personal capacity restrictions to participation appears a desirable option and might allow for resettlement to begin to have a more significant impact on reducing the scale of displacement within Thailand. However, realistically this would still be unlikely to resolve the situation as a whole if not conducted in combination with more actualized forms of local integration within Thailand and within the context of reduced displacement flows into the shelters. The overall conclusion reached about resettlement is that it continues to play a meaningful palliative, protective, and durable solution role within the shelters in Thailand. While it is necessary for resettlement to remain a carefully targeted program, the stakeholders involved should consider expanding resettlement to allow participation of legitimate asylum seekers within the shelters who are currently restricted from applying because of the lack of a timely status determination process. Allowing higher levels of participation in resettlement through addressing this policy constraint, as well as some of the more personal constraints that prevent some families within the shelters from moving on with their lives, would be a positive development in terms of providing durable solutions to the situation. In conjunction with greater opportunities for local integration and livelihood options for those who cannot or do not wish to participate in resettlement, the program should be expanded to make the option of an alternative to indefinite encampment within the shelters in Thailand available to a larger group of eligible displaced persons..."