Editorial: Refugees and humanitarian support in the Global South: challenges in repatriation and social cohesion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Funding constraints further exacerbate these challenges, making it difficult for these countries to manage the influx of refugees effectively. Despite these hurdles, there is potential for social integration to improve living conditions, although peaceful coexistence between host and refugee communities remains a pressing concern. Countries like Bangladesh do not endorse the idea of social integration of the Rohingya refugees, nor do they officially recognise them as refugees; instead, they term them as 'Forcibly Displaced Myanmar Nationals (FDMNs). This illustrates the diverse approaches to refugee management in different regions, which often fail to ensure a dignified life for refugees in camps. Learning from the cases of refugee management from different regions can be a positive approach. This justifies the need for more comprehensive research to address the gaps in understanding the dynamics of refugee management in the Global South.Under such complex circumstances, we aimed to bring together authors to contribute to the literature on these issues, so that scholars in different countries can learn from one another, acknowledging the challenges and difficulties. The topic of the special volume was thus to explore the critical and challenging areas of refugee management from the perspectives of the Global South. Thus, the key themes considered in this special issue are the experiences and challenges faced by these communities in managing the largest forcibly displaced population worldwide. This provided us with the opportunities to identify and address the needs and gaps in refugee management in the Global South, ultimately contributing to more effective and sustainable solutions. The special issue covered the following themes in six articles, including repatriation and its challenges, contemporary challenges such as COVID-19 in refugee communities, border crises, blockchain-based solutions to the refugee crisis, social cohesion and peaceful coexistence, and the need for welfare institutions at the camp level.This volume demonstrates that forced displacement, particularly in the Global South, presents persistent legal, social, and humanitarian challenges that necessitate innovative approaches to refugee management. Through diverse perspectives and historical analysis, it traces the evolution of displacement, demonstrating how current crises mirror past events. For instance, Khan and Wara compare the Biharis trapped in Bangladesh after 1971's independence with today's Forcibly Displaced Myanmar Nationals (FDMN), highlighting how the 1982 Myanmar Citizenship Act echoes the Bihari situation, leaving people in legal limbo and forced to seek refuge. In another article, Khan focuses on present-day issues, such as mounting tensions in refugee management and the consequences for host communities, including prolonged refugee presence, conflicting socioeconomic interests, and declining social cohesion. Siddiqi and Khan examine the external shocks, including the COVID-19 pandemic and sudden migration emergencies, which exacerbate these challenges by hindering aid access and reducing job opportunities in camps. Pari-Bedoya examines the case of the Peru-Chile border crisis, using these examples to illustrate broader management crises and institutional barriers. Importantly, the collection advances evidence-based methodologies for refugee management, including innovative tools like blockchain for transparent and accessible resource allocation, as Abraha pointed out in his article. Bhuiyan critiques the prevailing notion of temporary encampment and argues for a proactive, life-course perspective that moves beyond survival toward lasting well-being for refugees and greater harmony with host communities.Although these analyses from the cases of the Global South supply scholars with rigorous research and evidence-driven recommendations to address modern humanitarian crises among displaced populations worldwide, global communities also need to pay attention to the ongoing challenges in hosting and managing the refugee population in these countries. In addition, global scholars and researchers need to bring more cases from various other places across the Global South to develop South-South collaboration and exchange learning for better refugee management, ensuring a peaceful and cohesive environment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".