Brothers, Guests, or Invaders? An Analysis of Strategic Ambiguity within Jordanian Refugee Policy

Abstract

There are currently over 3.5 million displaced persons living in Jordan, with the majority having fled violent conflict in the region. These individuals sought refuge within the Jordanian state, instead encountering a highly stratified, ambiguous, and discretionary refugee governance framework. This study examines how and why refugee populations in Jordan experience unequal legal status and access to rights across three major waves of displacement. Drawing on an analysis of Jordanian refugee laws, bilateral and international agreements, data from international organizations and local NGOs, as well as qualitative interviews with academics and legal aid practitioners, this thesis examines groups of refugees from Palestine, Iraq, and Syria. Four key variables of government framing, international aid, citizenship, and labor access are tracked throughout each case study in order to assess how rights and protections are differently distributed across groups. Ultimately, this thesis finds that strategic legal and political ambiguity permeates every fundamental aspect of refugee governance in Jordan. Vague statutory language, conflicting legal authorities, and uneven implementation each enable the state to maintain political flexibility while adapting to shifting domestic, international, and economic pressures. Simultaneously, state discourse framing refugees as “guests” rather than rights-bearing individuals under international law reinforces this system by legitimizing conditional protection without requiring any formal protection obligation for the state. Together, these mechanisms produce a rights-based hierarchy across refugee groups with significant variation in access to citizenship, employment, and social services. By conceptualizing Jordan’s refugee governance as a system of strategic vagueness upheld by legal ambiguity, selective adherence to international norms, and cultural traditions of hospitality, this research proposes a new framework for understanding refugee policies within the nation. These findings suggest that ambiguity functions as a deliberate governance strategy, with important implications for global refugee law, foreign aid allocation, and the need for increased clarity and equity in Jordan’s refugee policy.