INTRODUCTION
Education occupies a central position in international human rights law as both a standalone right and a multiplier right essential for the realisation of other freedoms. Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) proclaims education as a universal entitlement, while Article 28 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) obliges States Parties to ensure access to education without discrimination. For refugee children, education is particularly significant: it offers protection against exploitation, fosters psychosocial stability, and preserves the possibility of future self-reliance and dignity.
Since the mass displacement of Rohingya Muslims from Myanmar into Bangladesh in August 2017, over one million refugees have taken shelter in Cox’s Bazar, with children constituting more than half of the population.1 Despite Bangladesh’s commendable humanitarian response in providing shelter and emergency assistance, Rohingya children have been systematically excluded from the national education system. Instead, they are enrolled in non-formal and non-certified learning arrangements, primarily Temporary Learning Centres (TLCs), which lack accreditation, progression pathways, and long-term value.
This article critically reviews existing legal and interdisciplinary literature to examine how international legal norms, host-state sovereignty, humanitarian governance, and geopolitical considerations interact to deny Rohingya refugee children meaningful access to education. By adopting a doctrinal and analytical literature review methodology, the article aims to identify patterns, contradictions, and normative gaps within the existing body of scholarship and to propose legally grounded recommendations for reform.
LITERATURE REVIEW
A. International Legal Framework Governing Refugee Children’s Education
The right to education for refugee children is firmly grounded in international law. Article 22 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees requires States to accord refugees the same treatment as nationals with respect to elementary education.2 Article 28 of the CRC also stipulates that all signatory countries must make primary education compulsory and accessible to all children, regardless of their nationality or legal status.3 Legal experts emphasize that Bangladesh, which acceded to the convention in 1990, is under legally binding obligations under the CRC. Although not a signatory to the Refugee Convention, observers believe that many of Bangladesh’s education policies are consistent with general anti-discrimination principles and prevailing international law. In addition, Article 2 of the CRC prohibits discrimination based on ethnic origin or refugee status, which further supports the right to education of Rohingya children. Nevertheless, literature reviews regularly draw attention to discrepancies between normative promises and implementation. Hathaway noted that refugee rights are often limited to “paper rights” in host countries under political, economic, and security pressure. Researchers believe that international legal obligations in the case of the Rohingya are subordinate to considerations of security, population, and sovereignty.
B. Humanitarian Education and the Politics of Temporariness
The concept of humanitarian education applied in the Rohingya camps has faced widespread criticism. According to UNICEF and Human Rights Watch, The Learning Competency Framework and Approach (LCFA) is a non-formal curriculum, used only in emergency situations, and does not provide any recognized certificate or academic status.4
Researchers claim that these beliefs institutionalize instability and legitimize long-term educational deprivation. Many have used Ticktin’s concept of “managed suffering” to explain how humanitarian aid functions as a tool of social control. According to this view, humanitarian efforts prioritize only biological survival over long-term empowerment, such as formal education and employment opportunities. In this sense, education serves only as a way to protect people from becoming inactive, not as a means of acquiring the skills necessary to become self-reliant in the future. Pradeep and Garnett claim that humanitarian education in Rohingya camps is “educational triage,” that is, some education is provided to prevent complete deprivation, butIt is so limited that people are not able to integrate into society or settle permanently.5According to a literature review, this strategy reflects the host country’s reluctance to make long-term commitments and the donor agencies’ inclination towards short-term solutions.
C. Sovereignty, Containment, and the State of Exception
The sovereignty of the host state has been considered an important element in the literary discussion. Hossain introduces the concept of the “paradox of permanence”, Which explains why host governments deliberately limit refugees’ access to formal education, so that they cannot become permanent residents.6 Examples of this discrimination include the absence of education in the Bengali language, restrictions on access to Bangladesh’s national curriculum, and limitations on the awarding of recognized degrees. Legal experts have analyzed the legal status of Rohingya refugees using Giorgio Agamben’s concept of “state of exception.” While their natural rights are theoretically applicable, emergency regulations restrict and limit them, leaving refugees in a kind of legal vacuum. Where citizens have social and political rights, such as the right to education, this right can easily be suspended or ignored. According to the literature review, although Rohingya children are included in the humanitarian system for the purposes of control and registration, rights-based institutions, They are deprived of formal educational institutions. This deprivation has been deliberately given legal and administrative legitimacy, which some researchers call “constructive exclusion.”
D. Psychosocial Consequences of Educational Exclusion
Interdisciplinary research has uncovered important psychological and social impacts of long-term educational deprivation. Research shows that levels of stress, anxiety, and depression have greatly increased among Rohingya children due to uncertainty and lack of future opportunities.7
Adolescents between the ages of 15 and 18 are known to be the most marginalized group, and almost none are attending educational institutions. Hassan uses the term “futurelessness syndrome” to explain the inability of these displaced adolescents to imagine possible futures due to their chronic stagnation. Research shows that this syndrome impairs motivation, identity formation, and social integration. Van Ertvelde describes this phenomenon as a distinct type of “temporal violence,” in which the institutionally defined concept of time clashes with the direct experience of long-term waiting. Gender-based analysis shows that girls face multiple barriers, such as child marriage, restrictions on movement, and household responsibilities. Although some studies have examined informal employment opportunities run by refugee women, “Shadow education” networks are mentioned, yet these initiatives are never recognized in formal policies.
E. Gaps and Silences in Existing Scholarship
Despite the availability of detailed documentation, significant gaps remain. Very few studies have used longitudinal methods to analyze the long-term cognitive and social effects of non-formal education. Additionally, the perspectives of the Rohingya are often ignored, which Fricker defines as “epistemological injustice,” creating a process of deliberately undervaluing marginalized populations as sources of knowledge.8 The literature review shows that there is a lack of comprehensive and targeted analysis on children with disabilities and displaced children on Bhasanchar Island, Where isolation and resource limitations create further barriers to access to education.
METHODOLOGY
This article uses doctrinal and analytical literature review methods. Source selection was purposive, including peer-reviewed journal publications, international legal instruments, UN and NGO reports, and authoritative policy documents published between 2017 and 2025. The legal analysis emphasizes contractual obligations, prevailing principles, and interpretive commentary, and uses interdisciplinary sources to contextualize legal decisions. All references are made according to OSCOLA footnote format. The purpose of this review is not only to summarize, but also to critically evaluate and integrate existing research, in order to uncover normative contradictions and policy implications.
DISCUSSION
A. Structural Production of Educational Exclusion
Inadequacy in administrative procedures or a lack of finances are not the only factors contributing to Rohingya refugee children’s lack of access to educational opportunities, according to research conducted on the literature. Within the framework of this discussion, the term “structural exclusion” refers to the policies and practices of the government and institutions that consistently restrict access to fundamental rights, so ensuring that marginalization is maintained within the framework of governance. Rohingya children in Bangladesh are frequently denied access to the education system of the country, which is an example of structural exclusion. This is the case despite the fact that there are long-term environmental limits and serious humanitarian needs. The right to education is recognized as a fundamental and universal right under international human rights legislation. This right must be protected from discrimination in order to be recognised as such. Everyone has the right to education, which includes the right to receive a primary education that is both free and mandatory, as stated in Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and other legally binding treaties highlight the significance of this right, notwithstanding the fact that Bangladesh has not yet been a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). As a consequence of this, it is essential to investigate the disparity that exists between the implementation of local policies and the duties imposed by international law in the structural analysis of exclusion. The goal of inclusionary policies that are based on sovereignty is to prevent people from living in a place for an extended period of time, which restricts their ability to participate in typical social integration paths like education.9 This is consistent with the broader geopolitical framework, which emphasizes the importance of time, especially as global urbanization has increased dramatically. Some countries, including Bangladesh, claim that the presence of refugees should be temporary and revocable, and identify education as a privilege that is only related to temporary status. This not only violates the freedom of education, but also uses education as a tool of international diplomacy. The context of exclusion is further reinforced by government decisions that prioritize emergency aid over regular rights-based distribution. Humanitarian agents, while well-intentioned, often defer to the state’s temporal preferences. As a result, inclusive strategies are legitimized under the guise of neutrality.10
B. Humanitarian Governance and the Normalisation of Temporariness
Human governance within an ecological framework has faced widespread criticism because it often institutionalizes a model of “managed temporality.” This approach meets long-standing needs only to the extent that it does not undermine the existing political structure. In Rohingya settlement areas, educational opportunities are predominantly through non-formal education, which is conducted through informal community centers or non-governmental educational programs. By nature, these programs do not provide any recognized certification, so they cannot be used as credentials for future mobility, employment, or higher academic education. This emphasis on non-formal education in humanitarian action demonstrates an “emergency logic” that assumes the temporary nature of the environment as the normal state, regardless of the actual duration. The literature review shows that these systems have been established as a permanent governance structure, which recognizes limited educational access for refugees and it divides rights into humanitarian services, rather than integrating them into a universal government system. A necessary conceptual lens in this regard is Dominique Marie Béchard and Ayelet Schar’s concept of “jurisdictional exclusion”, which states that states establish a kind of sovereign boundary within which certain populations are excluded from social and are denied access to legal spaces, which are important in building structures of citizenship and inclusion. In this view, the humanitarian system contributes to exclusion not only through neglect, but also by reproducing inequality through its governance structures. Additionally, humanitarian governance often positions itself as a neutral intermediary between refugees and host states. However, in this context, neutrality can still be tantamount to compromise with exclusion, when service delivery models do not challenge restrictive policies. By offering piecemeal and unaccredited educational alternatives, humanitarian actors inadvertently validate the temporariness embedded in state policy frameworks and reinforce the political status quo.
C. Legal Implications under the Convention on the Rights of the Child
While Bangladesh is not a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol, it is bound by the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), ratified in 1990 without reservation. The CRC explicitly recognises the right of every child to education: Article 28 obligates States Parties to make primary education compulsory and available free to all, and to encourage the development of different forms of secondary education, making them accessible to every child.¹⁰ Furthermore, Article 3 establishes that “in all actions concerning children … the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration”. Article 2 requires States Parties to ensure that the rights enunciated in the Convention are exercised without discrimination of any kind, including on the basis of status – which encompasses refugee or non-national status.11
The Committee on the Rights of the Child has repeatedly underscored that States Parties must ensure that refugee and asylum-seeking children have equal access to quality education on the basis of non-discrimination. In its General Comment No 14 (2013), the Committee stated that “States must ensure that all children, including those in vulnerable situations such as children affected by migration and displacement, have equal access to educational institutions and programmes at all levels”.12 Similarly, the Committee’s concluding observations to Bangladesh have emphasised the need to eliminate barriers to education for refugee children and to ensure that schemes of education are inclusive, non-discriminatory and comply with the best interest principle.
The persistent exclusion of Rohingya children from accredited education arguably contravenes these obligations. It not only denies them the substantive enjoyment of education but also violates the holistic realisation of rights guaranteed under the CRC. This exclusion raises profound legal questions about state compliance and whether Bangladesh’s policy can be reconciled with its binding treaty obligations.
D. Psychosocial Harm and Intergenerational Consequences
The psychosocial literature about prolonged educational deficiency in displacement contexts indicates numerous long-term detrimental effects, including emotional trauma, diminished self-esteem, disturbed identity development, and pervasive sentiments of pessimism.13 The term “futurelessness syndrome” describes the increasing psychological and social harm that occurs when youngsters are compelled to endure prolonged waiting periods without access to adequate education or employment opportunities.This condition is not merely a descriptive term; it signifies profound relational trauma resulting from exclusionary policies that deny children the typical experiences integral to childhood and development. Legally speaking, the psychological and social harm that comes from not getting an education goes against the CRC’s holistic view of child development, which includes mental, moral, and social well-being (Article 6).14 The Committee on the Rights of the Child has said many times that education should be built on rights, include everyone, and protect a child’s identity, dignity, and growing skills. So, not letting someone get a recognized education not only breaks the rules about how to get one, but it also damages the system in a way that makes it harder to reach the real goals of the CRC.
Moreover, the impacts of this psychosocial harm extend across generations. Both the short-term effects on children’s mental and emotional growth and the long-term effects on the community’s economic and social standing are negative outcomes of low-quality education. A person’s future employment prospects, social engagement, and capacity for self-determination are all diminished as a result of educational exclusion, which perpetuates a vicious cycle of marginalization. This shows that the systematic exclusion of Rohingya children is more than just a policy failure; it is a violation of human rights and social justice that affects the entire system.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Legal and Policy Reform
Bangladesh needs to make big changes to its refugee education policy, especially to make sure it follows the rules set by the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).Bangladesh is a party to the CRC and must guarantee the right to education for all children, including refugees and non-nationals, without discrimination.15 This includes recognized certificates, approved courses, and equal access to high school and college. Article 2 says that refugees can’t get formal education, which goes against the non-discrimination duty and the best interests of the child premise of Article 3.
Changes to the law will let Rohingya kids go to national schools or, if necessary, to parallel systems that the Ministry of Education fully recognizes and that are tied to the national credentials framework. These steps do not need to provide refugees citizenship or the ability to stay permanently, but they must make sure that refugee children are not forever barred from getting a good education. As a result of the fact that it further perpetuates structural inequality, the denial of the right to formal education is a breach of the General Comment No. 14 of the Committee on the Rights of the Child. According to General Comment No. 14, it is imperative that all children, especially children who have been displaced, be provided with equitable access to educational opportunities.16 To successfully execute these reforms, Bangladesh should establish a phased policy framework. This strategy will gradually implement the certification process and establish criteria for teacher recognition, while simultaneously preserving administrative flexibility. This strategy will tackle concerns regarding sovereignty and social cohesion, while concurrently performing the obligation to safeguard fundamental rights.
B. Rights-Based Humanitarian Education
Humanitarian organizations that are operating in Rohingya camps need to make the transition from an emergency-based approach to a rights-based framework, which places equal importance on procedural fairness and real outcomes. Temporary learning environments and remedial programs are necessary for providing urgent help; however, they are not sufficient unless they guarantee the development of psychosocial skills, the acquisition of recognized capabilities, and possibilities for advancement. With regard to economic, social, and cultural rights, the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights has produced four frameworks: availability, accessibility, acceptability, and adaptability. A rights-based approach must have these as its foundation in order to be successful.17 That is to say: The availability of a secure and well-developed educational system that is equipped with sufficient facilities, knowledgeable personnel, and educational materials. All persons, regardless of their location, gender, handicap, or linguistic ability, shall have equal access to education. This is referred to as accessibility. Acceptability refers to the degree to which the curriculum and teaching techniques are adaptable to the culture of the students and focused on the needs of the children. Capacity for adaptation refers to the ability to modify instructional strategies in accordance with the requirements of the student, which may include age-appropriate development and psychosocial support. The implementation of this technique ensures that educational activities are not restricted to enrollment statistics. Instead, it begins with the evaluation of student performance, which includes the attainment of a recognized diploma, which may prove to be beneficial for refugees in the future. Furthermore, in order to construct bridging competencies and equivalence assessment systems, both humanitarian and development organizations need to work together with governments and international partners. Within the context of the national framework, this will make it possible to acknowledge abilities that have been gained outside of the context of formal schooling. These initiatives are in line with Article 29 of the CRC, which states that children should be educated in a way that enables them to “live responsibly in a free society” and to protect human rights and cultural diversity.
C. Participatory Educational Governance
Refugees have both a right and a practical need to participate in the planning, administration, and evaluation of educational programs. Article 12 of the CRC recognizes the right of children to express their views on matters affecting them and stipulates that the views of the child must be given due weight, taking into account the age and maturity of the child. This participatory approach is related to educational governance, which ensures that students, parents, and teachers can play a significant role in curriculum development, teaching methods, and accountability systems. Participation will be implemented through the following: The Community Education Council will be formed by Rohingya parents, youth representatives, and teachers, who will set educational priorities and monitor their implementation. The feedback and complaint resolution process will be readily available in the Rohingya language. This will make sure that kids and caregivers can securely voice their issues and that they will be dealt with quickly and openly. Making sure that all students feel included in the curriculum by include the viewpoints of refugees, cultural heritage, and their own goals. This makes the material more relevant and interesting. This kind of participatory governance follows international standards for education and children’s rights, making sure that programs are based on real-life situations rather than outside rules. It also encourages ownership and sustainability, strengthening the capacity of refugee communities to contribute to educational resilience.
D. International Responsibility-Sharing
Addressing the educational exclusion of Rohingya children cannot rely solely on host states or humanitarian agencies; This requires strong international responsibility-sharing based on the principles of solidarity and international cooperation .Article 24 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Article 28 of the CRC similarly emphasize the obligation of States to progressively implement the right to education, Which naturally requires cooperation and assistance in the context of displacement and resource constraints.18
This responsibility-sharing should manifest through: Sustainable financial support from bilateral partners, multilateral institutions and pooled humanitarian funds to ensure long-term, predictable funding for education in emergencies. Technical assistance to support alignment with standards and national education standards in curriculum development, teacher training, certification systems, and data monitoring. Political Advocacy aimed at mainstreaming refugee education within national development plans, global education agendas (e.g., SDG 4), and human rights frameworks. Failure to strengthen responsibility-sharing perpetuates disproportionate burdens on frontline states like Bangladesh, whose resources are strained by protracted displacement. It also risks legitimising a humanitarian paradigm in which refugee education is seen as discretionary rather than as a universal human right with corresponding international duties.19The global community’s obligation to uphold education as a fundamental right is not a charitable concession; it is a legal and moral imperative reflected in treaty commitments and customary international law principles requiring cooperation to realise economic, social, and cultural rights.
CONCLUSION
As a result of the conclusions of the critical legal literature study that is described in this article, it has been determined that the fact that Rohingya refugee children in Bangladesh are not permitted to attend official schools that are recognized by the government represents a systematic and structural violation of their fundamental human rights. This exclusion is a planned effect of the political, legal, and humanitarian frameworks that overlap with one another. These frameworks place an emphasis on confinement, temporariness, and sovereignty at the price of children’s rights and futures. Children are excluded as a result of these frameworks. The purpose of this research is to investigate the psychological repercussions of educational deprivation in connection with international legal requirements, including those that are specified in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The findings of this review indicate that the current model of humanitarian education does not meet the requirements of legal standards or the developmental needs of a generation that has been displaced for an extended period of time. It is important to note that the consequences of this denial will be felt across multiple generations. Rohingya children are not only denied certification and opportunities for the future, but they also suffer psychological harm, which is called to as “futurelessness syndrome.” This harm affects their sense of identity, hope, and agency. With the provision of non-formal, non-certified schooling that adheres to the political reasoning of temporariness of the host state rather than fighting it, the humanitarian response has unwittingly normalized exclusion. This is despite the fact that it has delivered essential basic services. Bangladesh’s commitments under the Convention on the Rights of the Child are unequivocal and non-negotiable, but they continue to be unfulfilled in both policy and practice. This indicates that Bangladesh has failed to adequately comply to both its internal and international responsibility-sharing obligations. The resolution of this issue will ultimately need a major paradigm shift, moving away from containment and toward reparation, as well as moving away from emergency aid and toward rights-based inclusion. The advancement of participatory governance that prioritizes refugee perspectives, the enactment of legal and regulatory reforms to incorporate Rohingya children into formal educational systems, and continued international collaboration to equitably allocate responsibilities and resources The advancement of participatory governance that prioritizes refugee perspectives, the enactment of legal and regulatory reforms to incorporate Rohingya children into authorized educational systems, and sustained international collaboration to allocate responsibilities and resources equitably are all crucial measures that must be undertaken to achieve this goal. In the absence of decisive action, the world risks jeopardizing the legitimacy of an entire generation’s future, while perpetuating cycles of marginalization and eroding the fundamental principles of human rights and dignity that international law seeks to uphold. There are all necessary measures to accomplish this goal. If the world doesn’t take urgent action, it will put the future of an entire generation at risk, keep cycles of marginalization going, and undermine the underlying ideals of human rights and dignity that international law is meant to protect.
*****
Footnotes
1. UNHCR, Rohingya Refugee Response Bangladesh (2024).
2. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (adopted 28 July 1951) 189 UNTS 137 art 22.
3. Convention on the Rights of the Child (adopted 20 November 1989) 1577 UNTS 3 art 28.
4. Human Rights Watch, ‘Are We Not Human?’ (2019).
5. M A Prodip and J Garnett, ‘Emergency Education for Rohingya Refugees’ (2021).
6. A N M Zakir Hossain, ‘Educational Crisis of Rohingya Refugee Children’ (2023) 9 Heliyon e18346.
7. M M C Shohel, ‘Education in Emergencies’ (2022) 13 Education Inquiry 104.
8. Miranda Fricker, Epistemic Injustice (OUP 2007).
9. J Crisp, ‘A State of Insecurity: The Political Economy of Violence in Kenya’s Refugee Camps’ (2015) 47 Journal of Refugee Studies 336.
10. V Malkki, ‘Speechless Emissaries: Refugees, Humanitarianism and Dehistoricization’ (1995) 12 Cultural Anthropology 377.
11. CRC art 2, art 3.
12. Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No 14: The Right of the Child to Have His or Her Best Interests Taken as a Primary Consideration (Art 3, Para 1) (2013) CRC/C/GC/14, para 64.
13. C Miller et al, ‘Child Development in Complex Humanitarian Emergencies’ (2017) 22 Annual Review of Public Health 249.
14. CRC art 6.
15. Convention on the Rights of the Child (adopted 20 November 1989, entered into force 2 September 1990) 1577 UNTS 3, arts 2, 28.
16. Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No 14: The Right of the Child to Have His or Her Best Interests Taken as a Primary Consideration (Art 3, Para 1) (2013) CRC/C/GC/14, para 64.
17. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No 13: The Right to Education (1999) E/C.12/1999/10, paras 6–7.
18. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976) 999 UNTS 171, art 24.
19. United Nations, Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (Resolution adopted 25 September 2015) UN Doc A/RES/70/1, SDG 4.