Populist radical right parties across Europe have consistently capitalized on refugee crises to advance anti-immigrant agendas. By employing extensive content analysis of social media posts from February 2022, the onset of the Russo-Ukrainian war, to March 2023, this article examines how Bulgarian, Czech, German and Polish populist radical right actors discursively contest and reinvent the legitimacy of Ukrainian war refugees. Two dominant narratives emerge. First, radical right politicians assessed the legitimacy of seeking refuge based on ethnicity, reasons for flight and gender, initially welcoming Ukrainians as vulnerable Europeans who needed immediate protection. Second, radical right rhetoric quickly endorses nativist connotations. Despite their cultural proximity, war refugees are now portrayed as an imminent threat to security, welfare and national identity. This study sheds light on the consistency of the discursive tactics populist radical right parties employ when shaping public opinion on solidarity, national identity, immigration and foreign policy.

The Russo-Ottoman War of 1877-78 was a pivotal event for the Ottoman Empire in various ways, but one of its defining characteristics is its association with the large-scale displacement of people. This article seeks to contribute to the history of migration and displacement in the late Ottoman Empire by exploring how Muslim refugees understood and narrated their experiences. Methodologically it underscores the use of narrative sources, such as memoirs and literary works. The aim is to examine displacement from the perspective of the refugees through sources reflecting their voices, rather than from the standpoint of state and administrative actors. The article focuses on an account of the Russo-Ottoman War of 1877-78 and subsequent flight (hicret) by Hüseyin Raci, a Muslim ʿalim, teacher, and poet from Eski Zağra, a city in the Balkans, while also drawing connections with other literary works penned by Muslim refugees.

European asylum policy still has a long way to go to better address protection challenges. This paper presents data and visualizations that should help improve responsibility-sharing and solidarity between states. We developed an interactive cartographic tool to map the distribution of refugees in Europe. Besides the observed geographic distribution of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of the temporary protection status, our tool allows for the calculation of a theoretical distribution between countries based on different criteria. The tool is an interactive visualization created with the software “Tableau Desktop.” The original data was collected from Eurostat and the World Bank, before being processed by the research team with the Extract Transform Load (ETL) utility “Tableau Prep” and made available through the Tableau Desktop application. The actual number of asylum applications lodged in country A can thus be compared with the number that would be proportional to that country’s population within Europe in combination with three other criteria. Maps of observed and theoretical reallocations can thus be produced based on population size, area, unemployment rate, economic prosperity or a mix of these factors. The number of refugees received is represented by a red semicircle while the “equitable” number in proportion to given criteria is represented by a grey semicircle. Our database not only allows geographical analysis of the drivers of refugee distribution in Europe, but it also provides the population and policymakers with a solid basis for discussing responsibility-sharing schemes, such as those envisaged in the new EU Asylum Pact of 2024.

Refugee youth are at high risk for trauma-related disorders – outcomes not only the result of pre-migration trauma, but consequences of diverse post-migration stressors. This study identified individual, parental, and environmental factors – some potentially modifiable – associated with trajectories of psychological risk and resilience in 291 Syrian and Iraqi refugee youth during resettlement in the U.S. Data was collected at arrival and at two follow-up visits up to 7 years post-arrival. Linear mixed modeling assessed predictors of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, and depression trajectories. Victimization trauma (i.e., assault) and lower maternal subjective social status predicted more severe PTSD (p = .046, f 2 = .07; p < .001, f 2 = .23) and anxiety (p = .008, f2 = .05; p = .002, f 2 = .11) trajectories in youth. Paternal unemployment predicted less stable PTSD (p = .009, f2 = .13) and anxiety (p < .001, f 2 = .10) trajectories. More severe depression trajectories were associated with female sex (p = .045, f 2 = .06) and death threat traumas (p = .014, f 2 = .07). Findings identified predictors of long-term risk and resilience for refugee youth, as well as potentially modifiable ecological risk factors. Victimization and death threat trauma exposure could be salient in identifying youth at high risk for trauma-related symptoms early in resettlement. Indicators of financial security were also associated with symptoms, suggesting environmental intervention targets.

How should the responsibility for refugees be distributed among states? While scholars have proposed various sources of responsibility to make the distribution more equitable, they have not provided guidance on how to weigh each principle within a composite scheme. This is an important problem to resolve because the principles often implicate different actors, resulting in distinct distributions of responsibility. Moreover, states are particularly able to obfuscate their level of responsibility when multiple principles exist. To remedy this problem, I specify the range of possible solutions to the weighting problem, based on the principles of liability, community, and capacity. This argument identifies the relative importance of each principle based on the stated goals of a particular framework. These goals include whether the scheme is intended to operate under ideal or non-ideal assumptions, or if it intends to optimize state or refugee interests. By focusing on how to weigh various sources of responsibility, this paper paves the way for scholars to develop determinate schemes that can identify each state’s fair share in contexts where multiple principles apply.

Understanding and responding to patient expectations is crucial for providing high-quality, person-centred mental healthcare, but remains underexplored in humanitarian settings. This study examines the preferences and experiences of Syrian mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) service users in Northwest Syria and Türkiye. We conducted structured interviews with 378 displaced Syrians (55% female, mean age: 31 years). Participants completed the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire-8 and responded to nine open-ended questions. An abductive qualitative content analysis guided by the World Health Organization’s health system responsiveness framework was used to interpret their accounts. Participants most frequently described the importance of time and understanding (62%), dignity (43%), confidentiality (36%) and continuity of care (31%), with notable variation by gender. Interpersonal aspects of care were crucial for building trust and sustaining service engagement. Service-level factors, such as adequate time with practitioners and integrated and coordinated care, ensured high-quality support in a context of ongoing conflict, displacement and poverty. These findings underscore the importance of embedding person-centred approaches in MHPSS service design and delivery. As efforts to rebuild Syria’s health system begin, prioritising service user experiences could improve the quality of care and restore health system trust and legitimacy.

The international solidarity principle is a crucial legal norm of international society. It helps guide state conduct and facilitate cooperation among international actors to respond to global challenges and uphold human rights. The European Union (EU) and its Member States have argued that their bilateral agreements with non-EU countries to prevent irregular migration to Europe is a demonstration of international solidarity that fulfils their obligations to asylum seekers and refugees. However, the EU’s interpretation of international solidarity in these arrangements has been contested. This article argues that the EU has strategically interpreted the international solidarity principle to fit in with, and complement, its migration deterrence policy framework. It posits that the EU’s interpretation abuses the international solidarity principle as it aims to separate the solidarity principle from the realisation of human rights, thereby hurting, instead of benefitting, asylum seekers and refugees. This article makes an important contribution to understanding how the solidarity principle is interpreted between EU and non-EU partners, and the intimate connection between solidarity and the realisation of human rights. More importantly, it demonstrates how the interpretation and evasion of the international solidarity principle has been shaped by, and shaped to fit, the EU’s migration externalisation policy framework.

This study addresses the mental health needs of refugees and migrants in the Netherlands, highlighting the urgent public health challenges they face. Unique psychosocial hurdles, exacerbated by cultural dislocation, language barriers and systemic inequalities, hinder their access to quality mental healthcare. This study explores how coloniality intersects with mental healthcare access, using a decolonial framework to challenge stereotypes and assumptions that marginalize migrant voices. Through semi-structured interviews with migrants and language service providers, this research reveals the complexities of navigating the mental healthcare system. Findings reveal that temporality, professionalism and language barriers are key issues in migrants’ mental healthcare journeys. We advocate for systemic changes that prioritize migrant perspectives. Ultimately, this study aims to inform policy and practice to enhance mental health services for migrant populations in the Netherlands and contribute to the broader dialogue on decolonization in mental health.

This article examines the Canada-United States Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) in relation to a growing literature on bureaucrats’ role in immigration policy making, while challenging interpretations of the agreement as a “Europeanization” of Canadian policy. Canada is a prototypical liberal “migration state” that balances economic considerations, national security, rights and broader cultural concerns through its immigration regime. We open the “black box” of the state to examine how bureaucratic decision making informed the development of Canada’s asylum system. Drawing on interviews, archival materials and government documents, we show bureaucrats simultaneously sought to manage asylum backlogs and ensure compliance with international obligations while countering advocacy group opposition. The STCA reflects a uniquely Canadian approach to balancing competing imperatives in refugee policy, highlighting the role of bureaucrats in shaping immigration policy within domestic and international constraints. This research contributes to understanding the historical development of migration control policies in liberal democracies.

Organizations often face moral dilemmas. For example, in 2004 the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) needed to decide whether to help refugees in enclosed camps in Pakistan repatriate to Afghanistan. On the one hand, helping with repatriation might have made UNHCR complicit in forced returns, as refugees sought to repatriate just to avoid life without freedom in Pakistan. On the other hand, refusing to help with repatriation would leave refugees stranded in camps: perhaps repatriation was the best option if this was what refugees wanted. When organizations face this and other dilemmas, it is not clear how they should proceed. In other words, it is unclear which policy they should pursue when all feasible policies seem wrong. Some might think that, at least for hard dilemmas, every choice is just wrong, and so no choice is right. But that is not quite true. Even difficult dilemmas can be resolved using certain methods. One method is to ask those affected by potential policies what they think the most justifiable policy is. A second method is to choose what to do randomly. Randomly selecting a course of action can sometimes be the fairest way of determining what to do when every option seems wrong.