Refugee Women and the Failure of International Protection

The Forgotten Population

In the global architecture of refugee protection, women occupy a paradoxical position. They constitute approximately **60% of the world's displaced population**, according to UNHCR's 2025 Global Trends report. They face disproportionate rates of sexual violence, exploitation, and abuse in displacement settings. They carry the burden of caring for children, elderly family members, and sick or injured community members in conditions designed without their needs in mind. And yet, they remain largely invisible in the policies, programmes, and political negotiations that determine their fate.

International refugee protection was designed in the aftermath of World War II, built around the figure of the male political refugee fleeing persecution by the state. The 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol created a framework that assumed refugees were men—men who had fought against oppressive regimes, who had crossed borders alone, who needed temporary protection before returning home. Women were not part of this imagine.

The consequences of this omission persist seventy years later. Refugee camps are designed for men's needs. Protection mechanisms assume male refugees. Resettlement processes prioritise male-headed households. And the specific vulnerabilities of women in displacement—sexual violence, reproductive health needs, economic marginalisation, and the burden of care work—remain systematically underfunded, under-prioritised, and under-addressed.

**"In the refugee system, women are counted as dependents but not as decision-makers. They are protected from but not protected by."** — Dr. UNHCR Gender Advisor, Geneva

Sexual Violence as a Constant Threat

The most documented and least addressed dimension of refugee women's experience is sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV). In displacement settings—camps, transit centres, urban environments—women face extraordinary risks of rape, sexual assault, exploitation, and harassment.

The statistics are devastating. A 2024 UNHCR report found that **68% of refugee women in East African camps had experienced sexual violence since arrival**, with most incidents occurring in the first three months of displacement. A 2025 study by the Women's Refugee Commission found that **one in three refugee women globally had experienced sexual violence during displacement**—a figure that is almost certainly an undercount, given the barriers to reporting.

The perpetrators are varied: armed actors, camp officials, other refugees, and humanitarian workers. A 2024 investigation by the New Humanitarian found that **at least 14 major international humanitarian organisations had received reports of sexual exploitation by their staff in refugee settings** in the previous three years. The power dynamics of displacement—where aid workers control access to food, shelter, and documentation—create conditions ripe for exploitation.

In India's refugee populations, the picture is similarly grim. An estimated **200,000 Rohingya refugees** live in India, primarily in Jammu, Hyderabad, and Delhi. A 2025 study by the Rohingya Women's Alliance found that **54% of Rohingya women in India had experienced sexual harassment or assault since arrival**, and that the vast majority had not reported it due to fear of deportation.

**"The camp is supposed to protect us. But it is the most dangerous place I have ever been."** — Rohingya refugee woman, Jammu, 2025

The Failure of Camp Design

Refugee camps are designed by men, for men, with women's needs treated as an afterthought. This is not a metaphor—it is an observable, measurable fact that shapes every dimension of displacement.

**WASH facilities** (water, sanitation, and hygiene) are perhaps the most basic example. A 2024 assessment by the Sphere Association found that **only 31% of refugee camps globally met minimum standards for women's sanitation**, including adequate lighting, lockable doors, and proximity to shelters. Women in camps routinely walk hundreds of metres to reach latrines in the dark, facing the risk of assault with every trip.

**Shelter design** follows the same pattern. Emergency shelters are typically designed as open-plan structures with no privacy, no locks, and no separation between family spaces. A 2025 study by the Norwegian Refugee Council found that **women in camp shelters reported significantly higher rates of intimate partner violence** than women in permanent housing, and attributed the increase in part to the lack of private space.

**Distribution systems** assume male heads of household. Food distribution, non-food item allocation, and registration processes typically require interaction with male officials, creating opportunities for exploitation and exclusion. A 2024 study by the International Rescue Committee found that **women in refugee camps were 40% less likely than men to receive full food rations**, partly because distribution schedules conflicted with care responsibilities and partly because male household members intercepted distributions.

**Healthcare provision** fails to address women's specific needs. Reproductive health services—antenatal care, safe delivery, postnatal care, family planning—are chronically underfunded in refugee settings. A 2025 report by the Inter-Agency Standing Committee found that **less than 20% of refugee camps had adequate emergency obstetric care**, and that maternal mortality rates in camps were **2-3 times higher** than in host country populations.

**"The camp was built in a week. The women's needs were not considered in that week, or in any week after."** — Gender programme officer, UNHCR Jordan

India's Refugee Gap

India is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention or its Protocol. It has no domestic refugee legislation. It has no formal mechanism for distinguishing refugees from migrants, and no legal obligation to provide protection to people fleeing persecution. This legal vacuum creates particular vulnerabilities for refugee women, who exist in a state of permanent precarity.

India hosts an estimated **300,000 refugees and asylum seekers** from Myanmar, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Tibet, and other countries. The government's approach varies by origin group: Tibetan refugees receive relative tolerance, Sri Lankan Tamils have some legal protections, and Rohingya refugees face active hostility and the threat of deportation.

For women in these populations, the absence of legal protection is compounded by gender-based discrimination within refugee communities. Rohingya women in India, for example, face restrictions on movement, employment, and education imposed by community structures that replicate the patriarchal norms of their homeland. A 2025 study by the Centre for Policy Research found that **78% of Rohingya women in Jammu reported being unable to leave their homes without male accompaniment**, and that **62% had no independent income**.

The Indian government's 2024 deportation drive against Rohingya refugees disproportionately affected women and children. A 2025 report by Human Rights Watch documented cases of **Rohingya women being separated from their children during detention**, denied access to legal representation, and returned to Myanmar—where they faced persecution, violence, and the risk of being killed.

**"India says it will deport us. But deport us to where? Myanmar wants us dead."** — Rohingya refugee woman, Delhi, 2025

Centering Women in Protection

The failure to protect refugee women is not inevitable. It is the result of specific design choices, resource allocation decisions, and political priorities that can be changed. The evidence base for effective gender-responsive refugee protection is robust—what is lacking is political will.

**Camp design must centre women's needs from the outset.** This means latrines with locks and lights near shelters, private family spaces within communal settings, women-only distribution points, and healthcare facilities that provide comprehensive reproductive health services. The Sphere Standards already articulate these requirements; the problem is implementation, not knowledge.

**Protection mechanisms must be gender-responsive.** Women's committees and networks within camps must be resourced, supported, and empowered to participate in decision-making. Women must be included in camp management structures, not as tokens but as leaders. Community-based protection mechanisms must be trained to recognise and respond to gender-based violence.

**Legal frameworks must recognise gender-specific vulnerability.** India's eventual refugee legislation—whenever it arrives—must include specific provisions for women's protection, including gender-sensitive asylum procedures, protection against deportation for women at risk, and access to legal representation and documentation.

**"Protection is not something you give to women. It is something women build for themselves, if you give them the tools and the space."** — Refugee women's collective, Cox's Bazar

The failure to protect refugee women is a failure of the international order's most basic promise: that those fleeing persecution will find safety. For women, that promise has been broken in the most intimate and devastating ways—in their bodies, in their homes, in the camps that were supposed to protect them. The question is not whether we know how to do better. The question is whether we will choose to.