Journal on Migration and Human Security

In March 2022, the Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS) released a request for papers (RFP) for a special issue of its Journal on Migration and Human Security (JMHS), devoted to identifying solutions to situations of protracted displacement. The co-editors selected 10 papers for this special issue by authors from a dozen countries, including two refugees. The papers cover several large populations in protracted displacement, as well as other less-publicized groups. The former include:

Rohingya refugees in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh;

This paper introduces and integrates the themes and recommendations from this special issue. Section 1 provides a short overview of the scope, growth, and consequences of protracted displacement. Section 2 situates this phenomenon in a legal context and examines traditional and complementary solutions to displacement. Section 3 outlines topline findings, recommendations, and cross-cutting themes from the special issue. Section 4 offers conclusions and final reflections.

This article highlights the realities facing Azerbaijan’s internally displaced persons (IDPs), living in a state of protracted displacement. It argues that the World Bank’s development approach to the IDP population in Azerbaijan and to IDP populations elsewhere has likely done more for these populations’ long-term welfare and prospects than exclusively humanitarian approaches could have accomplished, even though displaced peoples have traditionally been presumed to be the responsibility of the humanitarian community.

The article begins with a brief discussion of the differences between refugees and IDPs and between humanitarian and development approaches. It then outlines a history of the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia over the contested region of Nagorno-Karabakh which, in the early 1990s, produced upward of a half-million Azerbaijani IDPs. Next, the article discusses some of the realities (economic, social, and mental health, among others) that confronted Azerbaijan’s IDPs 15 years into their displacement. It focuses on a community of IDPs who lived in a temporary-turned-long-term “collective center” on the outskirts of Azerbaijan’s capital of Baku. Finally, the article discusses one of the World Bank’s projects in Azerbaijan with IDPs.

The article concludes with policy recommendations on the way future scholars, practitioners, and policymakers should be trained to understand and approach IDPs. More broadly, it recommends that combined humanitarian and development approaches to IDP situations should become the norm. This seems imperative given that the number of IDPs displaced by conflict and violence world-wide has increased each year for more than a decade, while the ability of IDPs to avail themselves of traditional durable solutions has not kept pace.

This research aims to study how Turkey and Pakistan (the world’s largest refugee hosting countries) have reacted to and managed protracted refugee challenges. In the context of Pakistan, the study explores the Afghan refugee influx since the late 1970, while for Turkey the focus is on the Syrian refugee inflow since 2011. While cognizant of contextual differences (time and space) between these two countries, we aim to comparatively explore policies, best practices, and short and long-term solutions developed to protracted displacement issues in each country. To do this we intend to comparatively explore the role of institutional environments and the international refugee regime in resolving protracted refugee issues in a chronological sequence. First, we investigate how each state’s “open-door policies” toward the first influx of refugees evolved into ad-hoc solutions in the course of protracted displacement.

Second, we comparatively assess multilevel integration approaches and solution strategies at the macro (states and their cooperation with countries of origin and inter-governmental organizations such as the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and International Organization for Migration (IOM)), meso (interventions/implementations), and micro levels (civil society and refugee-led initiatives). Third, we examine how refugee policies in each country are negotiated with national and international humanitarian and refugee agencies, including regional organizations and countries of origin. Theoretically, this article is grounded on a macro structural approach (state’s international humanitarian obligations and responsibilities), refugee diplomacy (state’s use of diplomatic tools, process administering refugees), and management theories.

This paper examines whether multilevel transnational cooperation makes a difference in refugee protection, especially in protracted displacement. In response to the forced migration of millions of Syrians to Turkey starting in 2011, the EU and Turkish government published a joint statement in March 2016. The so-called EU-Turkey deal (EUTD) provided a substantial flow of money (EUR 6 billion in four years) from the EU to Turkey. In return Turkey had to commit to contain and control migration movement toward the EU.

In social science, there are quite diverse evaluations of the EUTD. Whereas some studies focus on its effectiveness and efficiency in reaching the outlined goals, other publications stress its geo-political effects on migrants’ mobility and (externalized) border control. Meanwhile some studies look for points to improve the EUTD while others criticize it fundamentally.

This article analyzes the involvement of different types of international governmental and non-governmental organizations (IGOs and INGOs) in the four main action fields of the EUTD and its implicit side effects on the Turkish regime of migration management. It first summarizes some crucial findings and pending questions in the social science literature. Based on analysis of available documents and our own interviews in Turkey, we then shed light on the organizations involved in the implementation of the EUTD and its effects on the Turkish regime of refugee protection.

In 2022, Turkey hosted some 3.7 million Syrian refugees of a total of almost four million registered international forced migrants. The EUTD of 2016 was mainly a response by the EU to the large numbers of Syrian refugees arriving in its members’ territories. When more than 1.2 million asylum seekers were registered in the then EU-28 in 2015 alone — more than twice the number in the preceding year — some EU member states (MS) negotiated with the Turkish government (Eurostat 2015, 2016). Based on a meeting of the European Council and its “Turkish counterpart” the so-called “EU-Turkey statement” was published on March 18 in 2015 (European Council 2016).

From the very beginning, this EUTD was controversial — both in public discussions and in the social science literature. Was it primarily a payment from the EU to the Turkish government for externalizing its responsibilities of refugee protection? Or was it an appropriate measure for sharing the burden of an urgent humanitarian crisis? Was the money spent for refugee-oriented humanitarian aid and development expenses or was it instrumentalized by the Turkish government for its own ends? How did refugee related IGOs and INGOs participate in the management of the EUTD? In the following sections, we focus on some selected aspects of the role of national and international, governmental and non-governmental organizations active in the field of refugee protection, specifically the role and cooperation dynamics of these refugee related organizations (RRO) in implementing the Facility for Refugees in Turkey (FRIT) as part of the EUTD.

Based on expert interviews in Turkey and an analysis of spending under the EUTD, the paper analyzes (1) how the landscape of RROs developed in the context of the EUTD, (2) how the budget of the EUTD was spent, and (3) how the cooperation between these RROs developed. The paper adds new insights into the contradictory dynamics between organizing services for refugees and controlling and containing refugee movements to the EU, between assisting and instrumentalizing forced migrants in Turkey, and between humanitarian aid and development activities. Especially the last point is relevant for contexts of protracted displacement as instruments of immediate humanitarian assistance have to be combined with means of longer-term development. From a perspective of organizational sociology, it argues that the EUTD contributed to a multi-level transnational organizational field of refugee protection, where collective and corporate actors relate in conflict and cooperation between the poles of rational self-interests and mutually recognized norms, between control-oriented state authorities up to grass root action networks. Analysis of the EUTD enables us to draw out specific insights and practical lessons for a broader audience. Before presenting our own empirical findings we first will sketch out the broader landscape of social science research and analysis of the EUTD. ²

As the number of refugees has continued to grow in post-independence Africa, host governments across the continent have developed stringent refugee policies that are detached from historical transborder relationships in which refugees and host communities interact. The stringent policies are underpinned by the assumption that host communities view refugees from the state-centric perspective of non-citizens as undesirable foreigners or outsiders. Host governments’ insistence that the solution lies in refugees eventually repatriating to their countries of origin drives refugee policies that undermine solutions instead of building and capitalizing on solutions generated at the level of host communities.

The exclusion of local histories and social dynamics in host regions has led to policies that neither hold up to humanitarian standards nor serve their intended non-integration objectives. Some host governments are reluctant to implement local integration and have maintained exclusionary policies for a long period of time when the realities in the host communities show that refugees are included and participate in various community activities. Host governments perpetuate this disjuncture between policy and local practice by assuming or pretending that refugees will wait for repatriation instead of finding solutions in the host countries where some of them have lived for decades. Contrary to the non-integration objectives of official encampment policies and scholarship that assumes that the absence of official integration policies deters integration, many refugees have defied the stereotypical portrayal of refugees as “bare life” which denotes prioritization of mere survival as opposed to the quality of life. They have managed to find solutions and live their lives as active and productive members of their host countries.

This article specifically addresses the situation of Somali refugees in Ethiopia and Kenya. It argues that the absence of local integration policies or reluctance by host governments to implement them where they exist does not automatically mean that refugees are unable to integrate in their host countries. Host government policies against integration are mediated by refugees’ self-initiative and resourcefulness. These characteristics are facilitated by host communities whose ties and mutual dependence with refugees, cultivated pre- and post-flight, play an important role in engendering solidarity and circumventing policies that hamper refugees’ quest for long-term solutions.

Based on the research findings, the paper recommends that host governments pursue policies that are informed by the shared needs and interests between refugee and host communities and that build on the social dynamics and relationships in refugee-hosting regions.

This commentary examines community-based research in fragile settings based on the authors’ experience working with Rohingya and host community researchers in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh. This iteration of a community-based approach to research focuses on putting community researchers at the center and emphasizes their involvement at each stage of the research process – from design to implementation to analysis – alongside external researchers. Community researchers contribute their expertise to increase understanding of nuances that might otherwise be lost to external researchers. Integral to this approach is building and nurturing the trust of researchers, respondents and community members through innovative means such as an informal “trust network.” Also central to the community-based approach, especially in fragile ¹ settings, is a sustained emphasis on community researchers’ learning and skills-building. The commentary article describes methods developed by the Centre for Peace and Justice, Brac University (CPJ), implemented with Rohingya refugees and host community researchers in Cox’s Bazar. The article suggests:

Putting community members at the heart of learning and research approaches helps to amplify marginalized voices and emphasize their needs and choices.

While youth are routinely lauded as “change-makers,” they are often underserved and unsupported in refugee responses. As the Rohingya face protracted displacement in Bangladesh, what is the state of youth inclusion in the response? Do youth and adolescents feel supported, or are they ignored and left behind?

To answer these questions, the paper uses:

Literature on youth participation and inclusion in humanitarian programming;

It finds that:

Refugee Rohingya youth and adolescents remain firmly on the margins of humanitarian programming, and are largely excluded from decision-making processes;

The paper ends with a series of recommendations to the Strategic Executive Group (SEG) and the Inter-Sector Coordination Group (ISCG), to donors, the international community, and the government of Bangladesh. ¹

In recent years, increasing attention has been paid to the ways refugees in displacement manage to organize themselves and act upon their needs. The growing recognition in the UN system of the importance of localization of aid and the potential role played by local actors has given refugee-led organizations (RLO) a space to grow. In this paper, we analyze refugee agency and solidarity through the organization of the refugee communities in Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon. In doing so, we examine: (1) the reasons behind the creation of these organizations and their dynamics; (2) the role of host states toward this drive to organize refugee communities; and (3) the patterns, forms, and structures that these organizations take in providing humanitarian services, as well as community support and empowerment.

This paper explores the ways in which contemporary mobility dynamics in Mexico have changed over the last decade, leading to protracted displacement. It focuses on three populations: (1) the internally displaced due to violence; (2) Mexican nationals returning from the United States, both voluntarily and due to deportation; and (3) populations seeking asylum in Mexico and the United States. These three populations are not usually analyzed together and do not squarely fall under the traditional legal definitions. The paper outlines ways that situations of protracted displacement and insecurity present challenges in four interconnected arenas of life: housing, legal status, employment, and emotional well-being. For governments and local communities, protracted displacement requires immediate humanitarian responses and the development and implementation of public policies focused on integration. The paper concludes with a set of policy recommendations based on its findings.

New Zealand has a long history of receiving persons in search of safety and security. These populations span Danes fleeing suppression during the German occupation in the 1870s, Jews escaping persecution from Tsarist Russia in the 1880s, Polish orphans during World War II, Asians expelled from Uganda in 1972–73, Vietnamese boat people between 1997 and 1993, and refugees from Afghanistan starting in 2001. New Zealand’s formal refugee resettlement program dates from 1944 with the arrival of the Polish orphans and their caregivers. This commentary discusses a case that builds on this history — New Zealand’s reception of Afghan refugees who were rescued by the MV Tampa, a Norwegian container ship. The authors — a researcher and a refugee saved by MV Tampa — explore New Zealand’s reception of refugees in light of the “Kew Garden” ethical principles on the responsibility to assist imperiled persons.

As the global rate of displacement reaches new highs and the average length of displacement extends from years to decades, integration is an increasingly crucial lifeline for refugees and displaced communities seeking to rebuild their lives. Health systems serve as an ideal conduit for integration due to universal need, system complexity, and the interplay of political, social, and economic factors on health outcomes. Using lessons learned from case studies in Colombia and Jordan, this paper will explore different strategies for integration of refugee health services with host population health systems. It will highlight successful policy implementation and innovative approaches as well as predict potential barriers to success via a population-centered approach that emphasizes the importance of supporting host communities concurrently with displaced populations. It offers the following findings and recommendations for governmental and humanitarian actors.

Effective integration requires a “whole of person” approach which acknowledges and responds to the linkages between legal status, economic needs, and mental and physical health and wellbeing.