This paper aims to rethink the definition of refugees and discuss the anthropological perspective of refugee studies. The best-known definition of refugee is contained in the international convention on the status of refugees, the pact of which treats only political refugees. This paper defines refugees as those who have asylum status in a host country, and who receive aid from humanitarian organizations. I focus especially on the creation of de-facto refugees through aid from non-state actors. Previous studies have examined refugees as transitional beings who eventually will be integrated into a nation. However, that assumption doesn't reflect the current situation. Currently, most refugees remain in an in-between status, regardless of their nationality. Internally displaced persons are excluded from their own country, and camp refugees are driven away at the periphery. Even though refugees have resettled to a third country, they are still in a marginal position there. This paper will define refugees as follows: (1) those who are in an asylum status in a host country, and (2) those who are in an unstable, in-between condition, because of the lack of protection in their original country or the lack of asylum status in their host country, thus having the right to receive aid for survival, regardless of their statelessness. The objects of aid include refugees in the following three categories: (a) those who will no longer be refugees after their integration into another nation, (b) regardless of their integration, those who still are characterized by an in-between instability, and (c) those who are in a 'stable' condition in a transitional stage through aid. This paper examines category (c), visualizing it through aid provided by non-state actors. The protracted condition of being in transition is created by aid from the International Refugee Regime (IRR). IRR treats people as objects of aid, then labels them as refugees, presuming their vulnerability. In that sense, the vulnerability of refugees is constructed in connection with the IRR. Previous studies have overlooked the fact that people internalize that constructed vulnerability. In this paper, I describe the framework of refugees as formulated by IRR as "refugee-ness 1" and "refugee-ness 2," in response to that categorization. The practices of refugees ("refugee-ness 2") are not driven by a given, essential vulnerability, but rather is a response to a constructed vulnerability ("refugee-ness 1"). "Refugee-ness" is conspicuous at refugee camps. Camps are top-down, bureaucratically-managed social spaces, where refugees are visualized through enclosed geographical spaces and a standardized framework of aid. For example, an analysis of a refugee camp along the Thai-Burmese border shows that the camp is not only managed by the Thai government and the IRR, but also by an armed organization that resists the home government in Burma. The camp has a dual power structure, so there is a limit to analyzing the camp only using the framework of the IRR or "refugee-ness 1." The micro aspect, or "refugee-ness 2," is seen in such refugee initiatives as self-help activities among the refugees using their position as objects of aid, being categorized as refugees. Vulnerability is a label that is not only used by aid agencies, but also by the refugees themselves, who use it to improve their lives. In that sense, vulnerability is another aspect of refugee practice. Considering the dialectic aspect of vulnerability and refugee practices can lead to a better understanding of refugees from their own perspective.