Each year millions of people throughout the world are forced from their homes to make way for new roads, dams and other infrastructure developments. The World Bank funds many of these projects in developing countries and has been both harshly criticised for its track record with involuntary resettlement and a global leader in producing guidelines aimed at ensuring those forced to relocate are not harmed by the process. The Bank’s policy on involuntary resettlement is backed up by an Inspection Panel that can investigate complaints. This thesis sets out to analyse the extent to which the Bank’s policy and complaint system meet international human rights standards and - through the lens of the Inspection Panel - whether the policy translates into field practice that protects the rights of those forcibly displaced. The paper specifically examines all cases involving involuntary resettlement to have come before the Panel during the past six years. To provide context to the analysis, this paper also asks whether the Bank is legally bound by international human rights law. It argues that in important ways the policy and complaint system fall short of international standards, while the recent Panel cases highlight serious deficiencies in applying the policy in the field. The paper argues the Bank has binding obligations in this regard so is under a legal duty to address these shortcomings.