The Governance Challenges in Refugee Camps

With around 117 million people displaced worldwide, the global refugee crisis has reached a scale unprecedented in modern history. The Middle East remains the epicenter of this phenomenon, particularly due to the Syrian conflict. As of late 2025, approximately 4.6 million Syrians remain displaced in neighboring countries like Türkiye, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, and Iraq. While many live in urban areas, hundreds of thousands are confined to camps like Zaatari and Azraq in Jordan, which have evolved from emergency shelters into complex, “permanent-temporary” sites.

Managing these sites is no longer just a matter of logistics; it is a critical governance matter. Historically, governance systems have focused on stable, sovereign states, yet refugee camps represent a “sovereignty gap” where international organizations (UNHCR), local NGOs, and host governments must collaborate to provide everything from water and healthcare to security and education. In Jordan, for instance, poverty among refugees in camps has surged by 22% since 2021, illustrating that without a more effective model of management, these sites become traps of stagnation rather than transition points.

The Syrian Context

Following the historic transition of power in December 2024, Syria stands at a critical crossroads. The promise of change is accompanied by profound instability, as the country grapples with the immense challenges of physical reconstruction and the establishment of a representative government from the remains of the former state. According to UNHCR data from late 2025, over 1.3 million Syrians have crossed back into Syria from neighboring countries over the past year. However, behind the data, there are some realities to understand. First, there is a stark divide between the hope to return and the intention to do so. 80% of Syrian refugees hope to return one day, but only about 27% consider returning within a year. This suggests that 20% might not perceive repatriation as an option.

Second—and relatedly, demographic shifts have created a unique crisis of identity. Take the example of Jordan’s camps, where children account for half of the inhabitants. For these youth, “home” is a place they have never visited, leading to a generational divide in how belonging and national identity are understood, and therefore impacting the intention to return. Finally, the question of capacity remains a central obstacle. Major barriers to return persist, including a severe housing shortage—exacerbated by widespread destruction—limited access to basic services, and legal uncertainty regarding personal safety and property rights. A nation must be functionally rebuilt before its population can realistically return; however, Syria faces a daunting reconstruction bill estimated at over $216 billion, all while enduring persistent security and economic instability.

This overview highlights the need to carefully examine—or reexamine—how camps are managed. For decades, the standard model of camp management has focused on maintaining a baseline of survival while waiting for a political solution that often never arrives. Under this model, management functions as a complex web where the UNHCR generally coordinates the delivery of essential services, while the host government maintains security and regulates the movement of refugees within camp boundaries.

The inherent complexity of this organizational web, combined with the “trap of temporariness,” makes the governance of a camp far more challenging than in previous decades. It is no longer a simple matter of emergency logistics; it is a struggle to govern a permanent society using a toolkit designed only for a temporary crisis. This mismatch leaves refugees in a state of limbo—living in “cities” that lack the typical legal and economic structures necessary to foster human agency or prepare residents for a life beyond the perimeter.

The added challenge is that the standard model of camp management was designed primarily for the immediate arrival of refugees seeking a safe haven. While that model ‘has worked’ for crisis intervention, it might not be the right one for the eventual transition of returning home. To bridge this gap, management must evolve into a preparatory phase—one that moves beyond simple sustenance to actively cultivate the legal, vocational, and psychological readiness required for refugees to successfully rebuild their lives in their countries of origin

Fleeing vs. Returning: A Structural Shift

We must distinguish between the act of fleeing home and the act of returning home. These are not simply mirror images of each other; they are based on entirely different humanitarian and psychological frameworks and therefore might require very different governance approaches.

Fleeing is driven by immediate, acute trauma—the ‘push’ factors of war, violence, and persecution. In this phase, management is focused on emergency response: triage, caloric intake, and physical shelter. The refugee’s identity is defined by what they have lost. Success is measured by lives saved and immediate safety secured. Returning home, however, is a proactive, long-term process of reconstruction and reintegration. It is often more psychologically taxing than fleeing because it involves a ‘rupture’ of identity. A returnee is not simply or easily returning to a normalcy or ‘re-rooted’ back into their homes; they often return to find their property occupied by others, their neighborhoods unrecognizable, and their social networks dissolved. For Syrian returnees in 2025, the challenge is not just the absence of war, but the absence of a ‘normal’ to return to. We then might want to think of managing camps in a different way, possibly as reintegration hubs.

Conclusion: Toward a New Model of Governance

The Middle East serves as a stark reminder that refugee camps are not temporary glitches in the international system; they are enduring ecosystems that demand sophisticated management. While the recent, hopeful signs of refugees returning to their homelands offer a path forward, they also add a layer of complexity to an already strained system. The governance of these camps must be carefully reimagined; otherwise, we will continue to fail the millions of people who are currently trapped in a cycle of “permanent temporariness,” unprepared for the future they hope to rebuild.