Rethinking Refugee Governance in the Middle East

Fletcher Professor Tamirace Fakhoury studies conflict and migration in the Middle East. Together with Dawn Chatty of the University of Oxford, Fakhoury edited Refugee Governance in the Arab World, a research anthology published by I.B. Tauris/Bloomsbury in January 2025. The anthology is open access, and the open access is funded by Sciences Po, Paris, where Fakhoury was the visiting Kuwait chair.

Fakhoury spoke to Fletcher about the book, her insights into Arab governance and how current events may reshape the landscape for refugees.

Tell us about the book and the collection of topics that it covers.

The book is an edited anthology on refugee governance in the Arab world. It emerged from our observation that while there is much literature on how Western states deal with refugee politics, research stays silent on the role that regions such as the Arab world have played in shaping the post-1945 international refugee regime and the development of refugee norms.

There is an assumption that because only a few Arab states signed the 1951 Refugee Convention, they are bystanders.

We wanted to reverse this Western-centric approach and look at Arab countries and societies as protagonists, shaping norms, practices and the history of refugee politics.  This anthology builds on scholars’ call for seeing the world as multiplex and relational. Rather than perceiving the international system as a monolithic block of treaties, powers and alliances, we are invited to embrace cross-cutting world orders. 

How have Arab governance approaches differed from the international treaties?

As the chapters in the anthology explore, refugee governance in the Arab world consists of a complex assemblage of discursive practices, laws and informal norms. Contrary to the assumption that international treaties have no traction in the region, they feed into a multi-level governance architecture where formal, informal, explicit and implicit rules and norms build on each other. This governance complexity allows for opportunities, but it also generates many dilemmas for refugees and humanitarian workers. 

Arab states sometimes rely on the UNHCR for refugee status determination. At the same time, they come up with their own policies that often change across time and space. Instead of acknowledging displaced individuals as refugees, states such as Jordan and Lebanon, two key refugee-hosting states, have regarded refugees as temporarily displaced or as guests. At the same time, according to my interviews, Arab states would like the international community to account more concretely for their contributions to the global refugee regime. They would like informal norms such as informal hospitality, open border practices and transborder kinship ties to figure more prominently in the international system. 

One of the basic premises of the 1951 Convention is to grant refugee status to displaced individuals fleeing from political persecution. In the inter-Arab regional system, states have embraced norms such as national ownership over conflict processes, non-interference in states’ affairs and the good neighborliness principle as guiding principles in their relationship with each other. As such, accusing a fellow state of persecution goes against these principles. 

Tell us about the role Arab countries play in the global refugee system.

Historically, Arab states have played an oversized role in receiving and hosting refugees. There have been multiple critical junctures, including Palestinian displacement after 1948 and Iraqi displacement after 2003.

We witnessed massive displacement following the outbreak of Syria’s war in 2011. Policy legacies affected how Arab states responded to displacement, reshaping foreign relations and international norms of refugee responsibility-sharing.

The Middle East which hosts about 6.2 million refugees of displaced Syrians became a marketplace for humanitarian ideas. The European Union pursued a policy of refugee resilience building, offering agreements and financial incentives to Syria’s neighboring states to keep refugees where they were. While Western countries rhetorically promoted a rights-based refugee regime, they attempted to repel refugees and govern them from afar. This transformed the refugee issue into a political marketplace where states and non-state actors were outbidding each other on refugee initiatives and seeking to extract payoffs.

Arab states sought to leverage these deals. Since they hosted many more refugees than the European Union, they could contest the Western order. Better yet, they could brand themselves as important actors and gatekeepers in the international system. 

How have different states in the Arab world approached refugee governance amidst recent challenges?

Refugee reception policies vary from one context to another because of politics, economics and historical legacies. Looking at how states reacted to mass displacement from Syria gives us an insight into varying patterns and commonalities. 

While Lebanon adopted an open-border policy following the onset of Syrian displacement in 2011, it closed its borders by the end of 2014. The state cited infrastructural and economic constraints, but governmental officials also drew on Lebanon’s sectarian model of power-sharing to justify Lebanon’s reluctance to integrate Syrian refugees. Most Syrian refugees are Sunni Muslim, so policymakers circulated a narrative that integrating them would risk disturbing the demographics of Lebanon.

Jordan’s leaders promoted a different narrative. Jordan hoped to stabilize the Hashemite monarchy against spillovers from Syria. It aimed to multiply and reinforce its alliances with the Western world. Jordan branded itself as a haven of stability and a reliable Western interlocutor. Refugee bargain deals with Western countries became a significant source of Jordan’s external revenue.

Saudi Arabia aimed to share responsibility by bearing the burden financially rather than geographically. It chose to dispense aid to international organizations but did not want to admit refugees on its own soil.  In a broader context, Gulf states were afraid that the Syrian refugee issue would threaten their own geostrategic security.

How do governance approaches affect the daily life of a Syrian refugee?

Lebanon, for example, has hosted about 1.5 million Syrian refugees, who account for 25 percent of Lebanon’s total population.

Across Lebanon, Syrian refugees face varying restrictions and regulations. Since 2011, some localities have enforced curfews on their mobility, while others have been more lenient. Refugee work opportunities have fluctuated. An initial period of tolerance after 2011 was followed by severe crackdowns since 2016, including military-enforced shop closures and penalties for hiring Syrians. Lebanese authorities have pressured refugees to return to Syria, sometimes evicting them.

Before the fall of the Bashar al-Assad regime, safe return was not an option for most Syrian refugees. Now, with the fall of Assad in Syria, the issue of return is on people’s mind, but as long as the political transition remains uncertain in Syria, it is too soon to speak about safe, voluntary and dignified returns. In fact, the United Nations Refugee Agency has recently announced that Syria is not yet safe for return. 

Will the changes in Syria bring new approaches to refugee governance?

With new leadership in both countries, authorities are discussing how to delineate the Syrian Lebanese borders and enforce new policy procedures around mobility and return. Uncertainty remains as refugees face various potential risks including political reprisals, religious persecution and LGBT discrimination. Some E.U. countries have been debating pausing asylum processing, but an unstable political transition means that safe and voluntary returns to Syria are not yet guaranteed.

Still, many Syrian communities are pondering return. Syrians who have acquired the refugee status in France have been lobbying for their right to visit their home country without seeing their status revoked when they return to France. 

What do international law and Arab refugee governance norms say about President Donald Trump’s proposal that the Palestinian population should be removed from Gaza?

International law enshrines people's right not only to leave but to stay, protecting populations from forced displacement and rights to dignified treatment, land and property. Arab states have opposed the proposal that people be displaced from their own territory. In this moment, it's important to embrace a people-centered sense and understanding of justice. Unfortunately, geopolitical conflicts are playing out in a transactional mediation landscape where people are commodified.