The dawn of an uncertain new era in Syria after the fall of the Assad regime intensifies the urgency of resolving a long-simmering issue: the fate of the alleged Islamic State affiliates and their family members, including children, who have languished in massive, crowded, unlawful detention camps and makeshift prisons in northeastern Syria for six years or more years. The West and other States have a particular responsibility for their approximately 8,500 children and women stranded there who are from countries other than Syria and Iraq. The Syrian regime’s collapse is opening opportunities to remove previous barriers and re-establish diplomatic channels, so there are now no justifiable reasons for States such as Sweden, Tunisia, Australia, and others to continue delaying repatriating their citizens and their families. It is a matter not only of justice, law, and human dignity, but also an obligation to relieve Syrians of this war legacy as they rebuild their society.
For years, Syria has been a battleground full of suffering and destruction. During the past decade, tens of thousands of people traveled from across the globe to join armed opposition groups and designated terrorist organizations. At its height, the self-styled “Islamic State” (IS) group occupied an area roughly the size of the U.K. across Syria and Iraq. The Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), backed by a U.S.-led coalition, fought to militarily dismantle the IS threat in Syria. Following the successful territorial defeat of IS in 2019, the Kurdish-led Democratic Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (DAANES) and SDF was left, albeit reluctantly, to bear the immense responsibility of managing the remnants of the global jihadist threat of alleged IS-affiliated prisoners, and their families, all while grappling with persistent instability and threats to their region. Although DAANES repeatedly appealed for more assistance — particularly for an international legal process to bring justice to those responsible for the horrors of IS — the international community has largely failed to respond in a meaningful way.
And now, the prospects are hampered by another inflammatory dynamic – the uncertain effects of the announcements by the Trump administration to abruptly and drastically slash U.S. foreign aid. U.S. assistance had provided the vast majority of support for security and humanitarian relief in the camps.
Syria will hopefully embark on a national process of reconciliation, which will require addressing all forms of violence and its perpetrators, including IS. Prosecutions of third-country national IS members have so far only proven possible when they have been repatriated and brought to national courts. A key element of preventing the resurgence of violent extremists and terrorist groups is the repatriation of all third-country nationals to their countries of origin, where those suspected of crimes must face justice, and those who are not must be reintegrated into their communities. Repatriation is thus one element of a larger process that will feed into broader accountability and justice in Syria.
Western Hypocrisy
When Middle Eastern and European diplomats recently met in Saudi Arabia to discuss Syria’s post-Assad future, European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas set conditions for any easing of sanctions, including the transitional Syrian government’s commitment to “no radicalization.” This highlights a glaring hypocrisy: Western democracies are demanding Syria tackle extremism, while ignoring the alleged IS foreign fighters in Syria — many of them EU citizens. That neglect risks exacerbating radicalization in the region. Although some 20 European countries have successfully repatriated a portion of their citizens, it is hard to deny that leaders have failed to fulfill their responsibility: repatriating all of their citizens and their family members.
The fact that the majority of detainees are young children highlights the profound injustice of the situation — the children are victims of war and terrorism. A key principle of international law is that States have a responsibility to protect and uphold the rights of their citizens, both domestically and abroad, within the framework of international agreements and human rights standards. It is baffling to witness governments essentially tolerating the continued suffering of their own child citizens in such inhumane conditions, especially when repatriation could have ensured their safety and protected their future. Stranded in devastating conditions, these children are not only denied their basic rights but also deprived of the opportunity to escape the cycle of violence that has defined their lives.
For families who are at risk of persecution should they be repatriated to their country of origin, international cooperation should establish safe and rights-based third-country resettlement pathways, appropriately within the Global Coalition Against IS. Lessons from the resettlement of former Guantanamo Bay detainees from the post-9/11 wars must be considered to prevent the repetition of past mistakes and to avoid further human rights violations.
Further complicating the situation, many children remain in the camps, even though the States of their citizenship have offered repatriation to their mothers or would do so if the mothers could be located. For various reasons, some mothers have hesitated or rejected the opportunity for repatriation, effectively resulting in children being indefinitely stranded in the camps. The solution is not to forcibly separate children from their mothers, but rather for the responsible State to engage in dialogue and cooperation with the authorities in Syria to facilitate the returns. The ultimate goal must be the closure of the unlawful makeshift camps and prisons.
For the affected Syrian and Iraqi families, the States within the Global Coalition Against IS must step up to not only contribute the immediate humanitarian aid these children and their families desperately need, but also support sustainable, long-term solutions that address their psychological, educational, and social reintegration, ensuring they are given a chance in life and an opportunity to be included members of society. A necessary step in this effort is strengthening stabilization initiatives, with clear local leadership and aligned with the needs and aspirations of the people in Syria and Iraq. This has been the clarion call of international law and human rights advocates all along, and it now risks becoming an even-more distant goal considering the shift in U.S. policy and priorities and the cuts in foreign assistance that already were underway as well in the U.K. and the EU, though the EU did decide recently to lift some sanctions to aid Syria’s recovery.
States’ Repatriation Policies and the Impact on Children’s Rights
States have approached the situation of children in the camps in varying ways. One challenge concerns how to address the situation of families with mixed nationalities, a common characteristic among the detainees. This issue can be illustrated through the examples of two neighboring European countries.
In 2021 and 2022, Sweden and Denmark respectively repatriated the majority of their children with their mothers. However, both countries left behind children whose mothers were not citizens, because the countries had revoked citizenship or residency for the mothers, even as the children retained citizenship because of their fathers’ nationality. Since then, the outcomes for these left-behind families have been markedly different.
In Denmark, the children’s rights organization, Repatriate the Children – Denmark (RTC Denmark, which is the sister organization of my organization RTC Sweden), sued the government for denying repatriation of Danish children and their non-Danish mothers, a case that ultimately reached the Supreme Court. In the midst of that process, the Danish coalition government reached a political compromise, agreeing to repatriate some children with their mothers, yet leaving one child and its mother to remain in the camp. This political decision was heavily criticized by human rights organizations, and later also by the former operational chief at the Danish Security and Intelligence Service (PET).
The Danish Supreme Court in August 2024 ruled in favor of RTC Denmark, finding that the Danish government had violated the rights of the children by unlawfully withholding repatriation. The ruling was based on the European Convention on Human Rights, and grounded in a child’s right to enter their own country, as established in a 2022 ruling by the European Court of Human Rights. The Danish Supreme Court thus emphasized Denmark’s fundamental obligation to protect the child’s rights, effectively requiring the government to make every effort to bring the child home — even if this meant repatriating its non-Danish mother as well. Following the verdict, the Danish child and his mother were brought to Denmark.
The former PET chief concluded: “It happens with a deeply coldly cynical resistance from the state’s side, which shamefully had to ultimately admit its humanitarian defeat.”
In a similar case, Sweden refused to repatriate Swedish children and their non-Swedish mother from the same camp. In a communication issued in October 2024, by multiple U.N. special rapporteurs, including the special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism, the Swedish government was urged to fulfill its legal obligations under international law, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The communication emphasized that Sweden must repatriate the children together with their mother, as separating them would violate the best interests of the children and expose them to further harm. It described the physical and mental suffering due to the conditions in the camps as an “imminent and foreseeable threat to the lives of the child victims,” and called on Sweden to recognize the children’s citizenship and ensure their safe repatriation together with their mother.
The Swedish government continued to maintain its position in its response to the U.N. special rapporteurs, published in December 2024. The Swedish government argues that it cannot be held responsible for the jurisdiction or obligations under international human rights law in relation to individuals in northeast Syria. Swedish Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time, Tobias Billström, had already in March 2024 asserted publicly that the ministry had conducted an analysis “and concluded that there is no obligation for Sweden and the Swedish government to act in order for these individuals to return home.” Although the European Convention, on which the Danish Supreme Court relied in its ruling, also constitutes de facto Swedish law, the Swedish government’s response reflects a political priority rather than an aim to safeguard the rights of the children.
The examples of Denmark and Sweden illustrate how different countries approach the situation, often prioritizing political considerations, to the detriment of the innocent children who bear the greatest burden. Ensuring the protection of children’s rights is not only a moral and legal obligation but also a fundamental element of long-term security and stability, both for the children involved and for the societies that will ultimately be shaped by their futures.
Existing Repatriation Experiences Show Positive Results
In many countries, politicians often cite security concerns as a reason for their reluctance to repatriate. They argue that bringing back individuals would pose a national security risk. This argument not only undermines a country’s image of strength and resilience, but also overlooks the benefits of a comprehensive approach that combines security measures with rights focused rehabilitation and reintegration strategies.
The successful reintegration of repatriated children has proven that, with the right support, recovery and healing are possible. Many of the repatriated children and mothers have shown resilience and adapted well. A key aspect is that interventions from authorities and organizations must enable a stable foundation for recovery and reintegration, which can best be done by including the family in the planning and avoiding unnecessary family separations. Mothers, along with other family members, have played a crucial role in the children’s recovery. While children may have faced significant early-life trauma due to exposure to violence, displacement, and loss of family members, a proper, holistic, and child-focused reception provides an opportunity to rebuild their lives in a safer and more supportive environment. Closeness to extended family and other important relationships, along with stable housing, access to education and prosocial activities, psychological support, and, above all, freedom and security, have not only helped them survive but also thrive.
While challenges remain, these children have shown remarkable resilience, underscoring the effectiveness of comprehensive support in overcoming early adversity. Many cases have shown that multi-agency collaboration generates good results, with relevant authorities coordinating with civil society organizations, including faith communities, that can build trust and that have contextual knowledge and understanding.
Changes in the Repatriation Issue Post-Assad
Repatriating individuals during the Assad regime presented significant challenges, as it required navigating a non-recognized, non-state entity, DAANES, within a State with which diplomatic relations were either nonexistent or highly fraught. Many States used these circumstances as a pretext for not taking responsibility, whether in repatriating their own citizens or in supporting the SDF and DAANES, who were left to deal with the detainees. Now, with the fall of the Assad regime and the possibility for States to re-establish diplomatic relations with Syria, new circumstances have emerged. The situation in northeast Syria remains highly unstable. Attacks by Turkey (which sees the SDF as among its Kurdish adversaries) and the Turkey-controlled and -supplied SNA, as well as IS attacks, plus the transition to a new U.S. administration are examples of escalating tensions. Many questions remain unresolved; What will the new Syrian government’s position be on how to deal with the camps and prisons in northeast Syria? Will The Global Coalition and U.S. forces continue to be stakeholders in the issue of the foreign detainees? Who will control the camps and prisons in six months’ time? Or even next week? Dynamic shifts can happen at a rapid pace.
At this juncture, the list of known unknowns has grown lengthy. But the rights of children must be upheld. Addressing the repatriation of children and their families could provide an ideal entry point for foreign States to engage with the new Syrian government. It should be a straightforward matter that avoids contentious political issues, does not require significant financial commitments, and does not alter the broader dynamics of international relations. Rather, it is a consular matter, one that can be resolved through routine diplomatic channels. There is little need for high-level diplomatic gestures or bold new declarations. Treating the issue as routine and moving forward also would establish practical, low-level contacts that could prove valuable for future diplomatic engagements.
This represents a clear and manageable opportunity for progress. Before the situation risks becoming even more unpredictable, and to prevent this issue from escalating into a broader crisis, immediate action on the repatriation issue is essential.