We focus on both the more conventional and the more alternative forms of durable solutions that individuals, communities and institutions may pursue to end forced mobilities and migration. Our goal is to centre the voices of the people who navigate(d) refugeehood in the first person (Bradley et al 2019; Fee 2025), thus integrating existing, predominantly top-down approaches with bottom-up strategies and grassroots knowledge (Maple & Hovil 2025). We welcome researchers’, artists’, activists’, NGO and institutional workers’ inquiries into questions of e.g. trust, mistrust, distrust, belonging, hope, refusal, rule of law, accountability and protection in relation with ending forced mobilities and migration. In addition, we appreciate if workshop participants can reflect on the spatio-temporalities of trust and on the possible interconnections between the local and the global in yearned and enacted durable solutions.

Some of the questions that the workshop addresses include, for example:

• Which disciplinary, theoretical and methodological approaches have been used and can be used to investigate questions of trust broadly understood in relation with ending forced migration and mobilities?
• How do individuals and communities striving for durable solutions navigate trust, mistrust, distrust, belonging, hope, refusal, rule of law, accountability and protection?
• How do institutional policies aimed at ending forced migration and mobilities shape trust, mistrust, distrust, belonging, hope, rule of law, accountability and protection?
• What do relations of trust, mistrust and distrust look like in durable solutions at the local, national, transnational and global scales?
• What spatial and temporal dimensions of trust, mistrust and distrust can be observed in durable solutions?
• What (un)sustainable relations are desired, challenged and (re)created by individuals, grassroot communities and by institutions in their efforts to end forced migration and mobilities?

The primary language for this workshop is English.
Possible contributions in other languages can be considered, if the proponent can provide some form of translation into English, too. This workshop is part of the art and research project “Endings: Refuge, Time, and Space” (implemented at the Migration Institute of Finland, 2023-2026, funded by the Kone Foundation): the project has been investigating, through art and research, the question whether refugeehood may ever end and, if yes, when, where, how and for whom it ends.

For populations such as the Rohingya, for whom displacement has become intergenerational, trust emerges as a multifaceted and contradictory phenomenon, connected to hopes as well as discouragement. This paper draws on qualitative research examining the role of civil society organisations (CSOs) in advancing the right to education for stateless children. Although the project was not initially designed to investigate trust, interviews with representatives of six CSOs working with the Rohingya community across five countries highlighted it as a central aspect affecting the relationships between communities, grassroots organisations, and external actors.
Many interviewees reported that the Rohingya community tends to place considerable trust in external actors, who provide substantial though short-term support. At the same time, some acknowledged that externally designed temporary projects, tied to limited cash flows, risk disempowering the community and limiting sustainable capacity-building. Therefore, trust becomes both a resource that enables access to aid and a mechanism that may reproduce dependency.

The findings highlight the need for deeper dialogue with Rohingya-led CSOs because, even though some of their representatives are already invited to institutional events, panels, or consultations, this is not enough for meaningful participation. The paper argues that, for solutions to be both durable and effective, trust must flow in both directions: from communities towards institutions and from institutions towards grassroots initiatives. In particular, Rohingya-led CSOs need to be recognised as actors capable of identifying priorities, designing interventions, and exercising long-term ownership over initiatives affecting their communities, including in the field of education.

Forced displacement is an escalating global challenge and ensuring safe and dignified shelter remains a central component of humanitarian response. Refugee shelters are commonly portrayed by humanitarian actors as spaces intended to provide security, dignity, privacy, and protection from the weather and violence. Yet everyday life within shelters may also be marked by conflict and different forms of violence, raising questions about refugees’ trust in the institutions responsible for their protection. This paper asks: How do humanitarian governance and everyday institutional practices for addressing conflict and violence within refugee shelters shape refugees’ trust and distrust in humanitarian actors, and how do these dynamics influence refugees’ experiences of everyday peace and conflict within these spaces? The research draws on ethnographic fieldwork conducted in a refugee shelter in Warsaw accommodating Ukrainian refugees following Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022. Grounded in a decolonial approach centred on refugees’ lived experiences and situated knowledges, the study combines participant observation, interviews, a survey, and photography. The findings show how distrust is shaped by broader power relations embedded in shelter governance. Top-down conflict-resolution mechanisms, inconsistent responses, and institutional inaction reduced residents’ confidence in humanitarian actors’ ability to address conflict and protect them from violence. At the same time, refugees developed their own strategies for navigating and responding to conflict through everyday peace practices. The paper argues that trust and distrust are therefore central to understanding the possibilities and limitations of everyday peacebuilding in humanitarian spaces.

Protracted displacement is a grim reality for millions of people worldwide. Durable solutions and complementary pathways have been envisaged to end displacement and refugeehood – besides the strategies enacted by refugees themselves. However, both durable solutions and complementary pathways present several challenges, such as their dependence of states’ political will to implement truly durable solutions for refugees. Through a case study carried out in Finland, this contribution asks: does refugeehood as lived experience ever end? This study combines the literatures on durable solutions and complementary pathways, on the refugee label, and on legalities, socialities, materialities, and emotions in refugeehood, asylum, and migration. By centring the voices of people living in Finland who (have) navigate(d) refugeehood, it shows how legalities are fundamental in “starting to end” refugeehood: for some research participants, refugeehood as lived experience ended gradually when they left the camp for a home of their own, started studying or obtained a degree, became employed, and learned the local language(s). However, racism in everyday encounters keeps many in a refugeehood-like state, reproducing borders and preventing them from “arriving existentially” in Finland (Drangsland & Karlsen 2026). These participants yearn (hooks 1990) for endings rooted in fairer immigration policies and welcoming socialities for themselves and their loved ones: in this way, they can more fully live, belong, and feel safe in Finland.

Trust is a key ingredient for functioning democratic institutions, but how can institutions gain the trust of refugees who are only temporarily admitted? Here we examine institutional trust of Ukrainian refugees in Switzerland, a context characterized by high levels of trust. Theory suggests that culturally embedded predispositions or performance-based evaluations of public authorities may play a role, but the mechanism und temporary protection is far from clear. We use a survey of Ukrainian refugees carried out between march and December 2025 (N=2,300). We conceptualise trust under forced displacement as a context-dependent evaluation shaped by cross-national institutional discontinuity and legal liminality. Positive interactions with Swiss institutions are strongly associated with higher levels of trust in Swiss governmental institutions, while structural access shows a smaller but statistically significant link. Trust in social services and case manager functions as a mediating mechanism linking institutional interaction experience to broader governmental trust. By contrast, perceived stability of temporary protection does not significantly moderate these relationships. The results suggest that in under conditions of institutionalised temporariness, trust in host-state institutions is not primarily shaped by inherited orientations or formal legal status, but by the perceived quality of everyday administrative practice.
Keywords: institutional trust, refugees, temporary protection, Switzerland