Humanitarian migration relates to the movement of people who feel somehow forced to move. Yet, distinguishing which migration forms fall under the label of humanitarian migration is not straightforward. Migration research has a history of separating between ‘forced’ and ‘voluntary’ migration flows, however, this distinction has been challenged since the 1990s (Richmond, 1994; Van Hear, 1998). Instead of treating this pair of concepts as binary opposites, both classic (Zolberg, 1989) and recent contributions see them as extremes on a continuum (Erdal & Oeppen, 2018). The concept of mixed flows (Van Hear, 2014; Sharpe, 2018) captures this complexity, as several motivations may be present for the individual at the time of migration (Carling & Talleraas, 2016).

In this chapter, we describe five forms of humanitarian migration: (1) refugees, (2) asylum seekers, (3) internally displaced people (IDPs), (4) victims of trafficking, and (5) unaccompanied migrant minors. We provide a systematic and cross-national knowledge review of humanitarian migration research. The main portion of the literature presented in this chapter stems from the Migration Research Hub database, which has been supplemented with additional publications, other research outputs, and relevant datasets.

In the following sections, we first provide an overview of the development of research on humanitarian migration. This includes a summary of research trends in terms of disciplines, methodologies, and analytical levels, and further provides a brief outline of the datasets and sources available in the field. Next, we summarise key research trends on the mentioned five humanitarian migration forms. The chapter concludes by identifying gaps and frontiers in the research field.

1 Development and Trends

Humanitarian migration has a long history. As a research area, humanitarian migration covers the movement of people who feel somehow forced to move. It is often stated that he two World Wars in the twentieth century established humanitarian migration as a distinctively modern phenomenon (Bessel & Haake, 2009). Despite an important number of works addressing refugees and IDPs in the post-War period, events in the 1980s, including the fall of the Berlin Wall, helped solidify humanitarian migration as a field of study, and prepared the ground for its growing institutionalisation as a discipline.

The study of humanitarian migration often relates to international humanitarian law, which defines, protects and regulate humanitarian flows, such as refugees. To a certain extent, these international protection regimes have structured the field, which is noticeable through the significant number of policy-oriented studies on the matter, and the growth of research concerning the governance and policies of humanitarian migration (see e.g. the recent growth in studies focusing on ‘governance’, ‘policy’ AND ‘refugees’ included in the Migration Research Hub). Contemporary studies on humanitarian migration also often gravitate toward the European asylum system and other “Western” receiving country governance systems concerning asylum seekers and refugees (Triandafyllidou, 2016). An apparent critique of this focus is that the policy-orientation limits the scope of research and analysis, seeing that humanitarian migration research only captures the categories with legal rights. Moreover, the separation between ‘refugee’ and ‘asylum seeker’ as distinct categories, not only in legal studies but also sociological and ethnographic research, limits the research as it not capture the more ambiguous and individual experiences or situation migrants with humanitarian needs may be in.

Another critique of the trends in humanitarian migration research is the asymmetry in geographic focus and the inevitable bias produced by funding schemes and geopolitical power dimensions. Indeed, the European refugee regime is ‘only one part of a larger picture’ (Holian & Cohen, 2012, p. 316). In fact, developing countries host 84% of the world’s refugees, not developed ones (UNHCR, 2017a). To counter a Western/Eurocentric bias in humanitarian research, scholars have also made a case for wider understandings of refugee issues, such as postcolonial and feminist refugee narratives (Hyndman, 2010). Yet, more reflectivity in this regard is needed to overcome the historical and policy-driven divisions between categories and geographic analytical scope.

Besides refugees, asylum seekers and IDPs, the field of humanitarian migration research also accounts for the study of unaccompanied minors and victims of human trafficking. An unaccompanied minor may be an asylum seeker, a refugee, an IDP, or a victim of trafficking. Yet, most countries grant them specific protection given their specific vulnerabilities. In 2017, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) reported that minors (both accompanied and unaccompanied) accounted for 52% of the world’s refugee population (UNHCR, 2018). Despite their statistical and humanitarian importance, researchers argue that studies unaccompanied minors have been done at an “overwhelmingly small scale” (Kulu-Glasgow et al., 2019).

Human trafficking is a transnational organised criminal activity and it is, by its nature, difficult to track. Global estimates in 2016 held that more than 40 million people worldwide had been victims of intra- and international trafficking as ‘modern slaves’ (25 million people in forced labour and 15 million people in forced marriage) (ILO, 2017). Most victims of human trafficking are forced to do sex work, which affects women and girls in particular. Academics and policymakers have voiced the need for more systematic and reliable data on human trafficking, especially on other labour-related forms trafficking, such as agriculture, mining, construction, manufacturing, and domestic servitude (WHO, 2012).

Refugees and asylum seekers remain the principal topics of enquiry in the field of humanitarian migration, easily noticeable by the number of publications, research projects, and research funding available for this topic. However, this research field is consolidating and widening its scope by covering more geographical areas, different scales, and methodological approaches.

1.1 Disciplines, Methodologies, and Analytical Levels

Law has had a strong influence on humanitarian migration studies since the outset. One can see this in the privileging of governmental, institutional, and international spheres within the field (Fiddian-Qasmiyeh et al., 2014, p. 5). Policy-oriented and policy analysis research have been a constant topic of researchers within the field. Besides law, history was also a precursor in refugee and IDP research. As part of the gradual institutionalisation of the field of humanitarian migration studies, postgraduate programmes, several journals, and yearly conferences were established. While migration studies were largely populated by social scientists, scholars in the humanities transformed the field of research by contributing to the diversification of theories, methodologies, approaches, and analytical levels.

Anthropology and human geography promoted the ethnographic approach in the field, exploring the individual, familial, and collective (ethnic, religious, or national affiliations) underpinnings of forced migration. There is a perception within the field that qualitative methods dominate humanitarian migration studies, often privileging single-case studies. Forced migration studies have also attracted economists, political scientists, and sociologists, providing both individual data, qualitative research, and more large scale and systemic analysis. Perhaps as a reaction to a tradition of large-scale, national, or institutional level of analysis, researchers have voiced the need for a careful examination of the local sphere as an arena for implementing asylum and reception policies (Hinger et al., 2016).

1.2 Datasets and Sources

The main data sources in the field of humanitarian migration are organised by international or regional bodies: the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) (annual reports and statistics); the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) (Migration Data Portal); the Eurostat webpage (statistics); and national websites such as the one from the Department of Homeland Security in the US.

The graph (Fig. 9.1) below shows the number of journal articles published from 1980 to 2018 with reference to asylum seekers and refugees. The exponential increase in publications right after 2013 illustrates how scholarship responded rapidly to the conflict in Syria described by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Antonio Guterres, as “the most dramatic humanitarian crisis that [the UNHCR has] ever faced”.

Fig. 9.1
A line graph for the number of journal articles on humanitarian migration. Around 2018, the refugee and asylum seeker lines peaked at around 900 and 300, respectively.

Number of journal articles on humanitarian migration (1980–2020). (Source: migrationresearch.com)

Full size image

For unaccompanied minors, the key data source is the United Nations Children’s Fund’s website (UNICEF). The Separated Children in Europe Programme also provides a summary of minors’ migration to Europe. Key data sources for victims of trafficking can be found on the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime’s (UNODC) webpage and on the pages of the International Labour Organization (ILO). The ILO produces yearly reports on forced labour, modern slavery, and human trafficking. A number of anti-slavery activist associations also gather up-to-date information on human trafficking.

2 Refugees

A refugee is a person who is forced to flee his or her country and unwilling or unable to return because of a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group (UNHCR, 1951). Refugee studies predate the 1951 UN convention, but the number of institutions, journals, and publication on refugees have increased dramatically over the last few decades (Black, 2001). Recent trends in refugee research include refugee displacement as a global challenge, exploring the effects of technological development (e.g., social media platforms), the mechanisms of onward migration, and the processes of local integration. The ensuing sections each summarise the core focus in the more developed research topics pertaining the academic discourse on refugees, namely; refugee drivers, regional displacement and camp life, the international protection regime, refugee resettlement and durable solutions.

2.1 Refugee Drivers

What drives refugees to cross borders to seek protection in other countries? The classical drivers connected with refugee movements include conflict, violence, political oppression, and persecution (Zolberg et al., 1989). However, over the past 10 years, much research has examined other complex drivers of forced migration, including root causes, poverty and lack of life chances, failed states, environmental changes, and natural disasters (De Haas, 2010). The mixed set of drivers pushing refugees across borders has led researchers to revisit discussions on the distinction, or lack thereof, between forced and voluntary migration.

2.2 Regional Displacement and Camp Life

There is substantial literature on the topic of life (and protracted lives) in refugee-camps (Feldman, 2015). Researchers have highlighted the spatial and temporal aspects of camp life. While being spatially defined, camps frequently shift from being temporary constructions to a status of semi-permanence (Turner, 2016). The organisation and management of camps constitute one key area of research. Here we find questions about self-organisation (Corbet, 2016), in-camp democracy (LeCadet, 2016), participation in urban life (Santana de Andrade, 2020), and other challenges (Holzer, 2012). Other key questions include: How are we to understand the refugees’ well-being in camps (Crea et al., 2015)? What are their links to networks in other parts of the world (Horst, 2006)? What management challenges do camps represent as they assume a state of permanency (Derluyn & Broekaert, 2007)?

2.3 The International Protection Regime

Since 1951, the UN Refugee Convention and later, its 1967 Protocol, have constituted the cornerstones of the international refugee protection regime. The UNHCR has since promoted accession to and compliance with these instruments. Following the record number of asylum arrivals to Europe in 2015, however, the focus of decision-makers and researchers turned again to the state level and to advancing the international protection regime. This research would inspire the UN to develop the Global Compacts on refugees (2018) and migrants (2018).

Traditionally, researchers in this field have studied the development of the UNHCR (Loescher, 2017), its operations, and its cooperation with global and local partners around the world (Betts et al., 2012). After 2015, researchers have pointed to what they see as a failed international protection regime. Suggested reforms include increased focus on local integration; on empowerment and re-establishing for normalcy; and stronger international support for neighboring countries that house refugees (Betts & Collier, 2018).

Recent research has also focused on normative aspects of regional solutions to refugee protection (Kneebone, 2016). While regional protection norms fall under the global normative regime, these regulations have necessarily adapted to regional political realities and cross-boundary cooperation (Scheel & Ratfisch, 2013). A Comprehensive Regional Protection and Solutions Program, for instance, accompanied the development of the UN Global Compact on Refugees, which reflects trends in research and political sentiment (UNHCR, 2017b).

2.4 Refugee Resettlement/UN Quota-Refugees

Many refugees registered by the UNHCR cannot go home because of continuing conflict, wars and persecution (UNHCR, 2019a). Many of these persons live in perilous situations or have specific needs that they cannot address in the country where they have sought protection. In such circumstances, UNHCR helps resettle refugees to a third country. Following requests from the UNCHR, receiving states volunteer to admit and settle refugees.

Resettlement and resettled refugees have inspired substantive literature. Contributions often focus on the settlement, challenges, and integration process of one particular group of refugees in one specific country or region (Lenette, 2014; Betancourt et al., 2015; Garnier, 2014; Jones & Teytelboym, 2017). In Europe, the 2015 asylum reception crisis spurred renewed political interest in resettlement schemes (Hashimoto, 2018).

2.5 Durable Solutions: Resettlement, Repatriation and Local Integration

According to the UNHCR, there are three main durable solutions to protracted refugee situations: voluntary repatriation, local integration, or resettlement (UNHCR, 2019c). The concept of durable solutions has traditionally been associated with permanent settlement, whether in the host country, a third country, or the country of origin. However, lately, there has been renewed focus on local integration, and regional solutions.

3 Asylum Seekers

An asylum seeker is an individual who desires international protection in a host country, and whose request has yet to be processed (UNHCR, 2019b). Asylum seekers and the management of asylum arrivals have attracted increased academic and political attention over the past decades, and garnered increased notice following the 2015 refugee reception crisis in Europe. In contrast to the UN-organised quota refugee system, asylum seekers present their case at the border of, or after arrival in, a potential host country. If rejected, they may return voluntarily, be returned by force, may depart for a third country, or remain in the host country irregularly without a permit.

Variations in asylum flows over time and distribution across countries and regions have motivated separate strands of research. While political initiatives and institutions (e.g., European Asylum Support Office, EASO) have sought to predict such changes in asylum flows, researchers have explored a wide range of topics including regional and national asylum regulations (Peers et al., 2012), and migratory decision-making (Havinga & Böcker, 1999; Brekke & Aarset, 2009; Crawley, 2010). The ensuing sections aims to summarise some of the key topics that form part of the academic discourse on asylum seekers, namely: migration management, destination choices and secondary migration, and return and reintegration.

3.1 Migration Management

Migration management relates directly to managing the flows of migrants, and most commonly, asylum seekers. In Europe, both national governments and the EU Commission have embraced the concept (European Parliament, 2017). Migration management covers a range of phenomena, including the increased intervention of government bodies in the field of migration and their direct involvement in diverting migrant movements (Geiger and Pécoud, 2010; Brekke & Thorbjørnsrud, 2018; Hansen, 2014; Trauner, 2016; Boswell & Geddes, 2010). Despite tendencies to re-nationalise asylum policies following the record number of asylum arrivals in 2015 (Brekke & Staver, 2018), researchers have found migration management regimes, particularly in Europe, to be converging (Eule, 2014; Chetail et al., 2016; Ashutosh & Mountz, 2011).

3.2 Destination Choices and Secondary Migration

In the wake of the 2015 refugee reception crisis, politicians and bureaucrats across Europe revitalised the classic discussion within migration studies of what drives migrants’ decisions to migrate, and why they go to a particular destination (De Haas, 2011; Koser & McAuliffe, 2013; McAuliffe, 2013; Kuschminder et al., 2015).

The question of destination choices for asylum seekers includes the wider topic of travel routes and transit migration. Many studies have shown that the structural constraints experienced by irregular migrants make them less able to reach their ideal final destination, and they therefore end up in other destinations permanently or ‘in transit’ (Hamood, 2006; Collyer, 2007; Schapendonk, 2012; Düvell, 2014; Brekke & Brochmann, 2015; Kcushminder et al., 2015).

3.3 Return and Reintegration

Return migration is a field on its own and encompasses all categories of migrants (Cassarino, 2004; Constant & Massey, 2002). In the case of asylum seekers, some distinctions regarding return migration are particularly relevant, including the situations for rejected asylum seekers, options of assisted voluntary return (AVR) or forced return, and questions about the degree of actual voluntary action in AVR (Strand et al., 2011). Scholars have also pointed to the underexplored link between integration and return migration (de Haas & Fokkema, 2011).

4 Internally Displaced People (IDPs)

An internally displaced person (IDP) is someone who has been forced to flee their home but has not crossed an international border. These individuals are not protected by international law because they are legally under the protection of their own government (UNHCR, 2019c). Indeed, people can be internally displaced due to a number of complex causes, including conflicts, natural disasters, environmental change, or development projects, and, sometimes, from a combination of these factors (inter alia Cernea & McDowell, 2000; Birkeland, 2003a, b; Haug, 2003; Lund, 2003; Muggah, 2003; Banerjee et al., 2005; Brun, 2005; Qadeem, 2005).

The issue of internal displacement has risen on the international agenda over the last three decades with a concomitant rise in the volume of research focusing IDP issues – though the literature has been dominated by international and institutional agencies (Sørensen, 2003). In contrast to refugee status, IDP is not a legal status, and these persons remain under the jurisdiction of their own government, even as their governments often fail to protect them. One recurring debate within this field has focused on whether IDPs and refugees should be included in one category, and therefore also be managed by the same institution(s) (Brun, 2005; see also Barutciski, 1998, 1999; Bennett, 1999; Kingsley-Nyinah, 1999; Rutinwa, 1999; Holbrooke, 2000; Borton et al., 2005). Other prominent policy-oriented discussions have addressed the particularly complex political space of IDP protection (Maley, 2003; Raper, 2003), including the UN’s Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement (Kälin, 2000; Mooney, 2003; Borton et al. 2005).

5 Victims of Trafficking

Victims of trafficking are people who have been threatened or forced into transportation, recruitment or exploitation for purposes including sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery, servitude, or removal of organs (UNODC, 2019a). This definition is the result of the UNODC and other actors developing and refining their efforts to bring greater clarity to an internationally-agreed understanding of trafficking. Despite efforts to harmonise national laws with international legal terms, definitional questions still complicate policy and policy implementation (UNODC, 2019b). Similarly, numerous scholarly discussions centre around defining specific elements of human trafficking (Weitzer, 2015). Check human smugglers and human traffickers at the Migration Research Hub for more information.

Despite enhanced legal protections and public concern, research on human trafficking remains limited, skewed, and lacks a solid evidence base (Laczko & Goździak, 2005; Zhang, 2009; Goździak & Graveline, 2015). The academic literature on human trafficking is marked by diversity: it spreads across specific fields of research and practice beyond the field of migration studies, focusing on a range of types of trafficking (such as prostitution or forced labour).

While some scholars point to research showing that force and coercion also occur in so-called regular and/or voluntary migration (Anderson & Rogaly, 2005; Rogaly, 2008; O’Connell Davidson, 2010), others find that the trafficking rhetoric enables states to enforce control over migrants’ mobility and labour (Hubbard et al., 2008). Researchers have also argued that studies on trafficking have led to a strong focus on female stereotypes and victimhood (Bernstein, 2007; Jacobsen and Skilbrei, 2010).

6 Unaccompanied Minors

Unaccompanied migrant minors are foreign nationals below the age of 18 who have been separated from their parents and other relatives, and who are not cared for by an adult (UNHCR, 1997). This group includes minors who are left unaccompanied after entering a new country. The group is interchangeably defined as ‘unaccompanied children’ or ‘unaccompanied minors’, but other terms can be found in the literature, including: ‘minor asylum seekers’, ‘unaccompanied refugee minors’, ‘unaccompanied foreign minors’ and ‘refugee children’. Indeed, there are several debates on the definitions of this broad category (Seugling, 2004; Bhabha & Schmidt, 2006).

Research on unaccompanied minors moves through several different sub-topics, including, but not limited to, governance and policies, migration experiences, immigration status, settlement, health and care services, education, and return. The geographic differences in national legislation and dynamics are reflected in these sub-topics as parallel strands of research developed in the United States and Europe (Chavez & Menjívar, 2010).

The bulk of research on migrant minors still focuses on post-migration experiences, particularly in relation to processes of integration (Menjívar & Perreira, 2019). Here, research topics include educational careers (Çelikaksoy & Wadensjö, 2019); social care structures; mental health issues such as depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (de Haan et al., 2019; Eide & Hjern, 2013); and the child as an active and social actor (Suárez-Orozco & Todorova, 2003; Boyle et al., 2007; Lo Bianco & Chondrou, 2019). Despite this diversity, research on unaccompanied minors is in general small-scale, as it focuses on a group that is particularly vulnerable and “difficult to reach” (Kulu-Glasgow et al., 2019).

7 Conclusions

Based on this review of humanitarian migration research, we can draw some conclusions concerning the general trends in the scholarly field, as well as some current and noteworthy research gaps. While the field originates from a juridical strand of inquiry, research on humanitarian migration now encompasses a wide range of disciplines, including human geography, economics, sociology, anthropology, ethnography, political science, and history. In line with the growth of multi-disciplinary studies, the field’s methods and methodologies have also changed: currently all variations of qualitative and quantitative research are applied in the study of humanitarian migration, and newer innovative methods have also been applied: big data, social media monitoring and machine learning. These latter three methods have been employed to study and predict the volume and direction of forced migration flows.

In terms of research gaps, under-researched topics include the latest forms of individual temporary protection; re-regularisation and revocation; receiving countries outsourcing control to transit countries or private actors; cooperation between receiving countries; and the roles of transit countries and sending countries in controlling irregular migration. There is also a need for more study of the possibilities and limitations of regional solutions for forced migrants, particularly as these concern refugee and IDP migration. As an alternative to protection in the region, more studies are needed on the possibility of scaling up the UN’s resettlement program. In relation to displacement and risks among IDPs, more accurate data and measurements are needed for effective policy action. The geographical coverage of research and data on IDPs is scattered, and does not always differentiate between first or secondary displacements (IDMC, 2019).

In general, the development of humanitarian migration research has been closely related to the development in forced migration flows and types of displacement. Scholars have studied the development of flows, the corresponding regulation and management of these flows, and the individual experiences of migrants themselves. We therefore expect this broader field of research, and the specific discourses within, to further develop our understandings of the flows, policies, and experiences of refugees, asylum seekers, IDPs, trafficking victims, and unaccompanied minors. These fields in particular are in continual evolution that responds to conflicts, structural, and interpersonal dynamics. While the gap between research on humanitarian and ‘non-humanitarian’ migration is of key relevance to understand legal differences e.g. in terms of right provision and protection needs, new awareness on mixed-flows and mixed motivations among migrants may require more interconnection between these originally distinct research fields. Furthermore, with the securitisation agenda ever-more prominently influencing migration policy agendas, particularly in Europe and North America, research on humanitarian migration will continue to play an important role to counter and enlighten prejudicial discourses on migrants who – somehow – feel forced to move.