Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

While encampment has become one of the most common methods of dealing with large scale refugee flows, the reality is that the word “camp” is not mentioned in the 1951 Convention, and it appears as though the framers did not envision encampment to become a common response to displacement. This paper will question the legality of LTE on the grounds that it denies refugees’ basic human rights in an arbitrary and discriminatory way, and is therefore inconsistent with international human rights law. Additionally, it will explore an argument for placing time limits on rights restrictions in camp settings, following the three-year limit set out in Article 17 of the Convention as a point of departure. It will argue that not only would time limits on rights restrictions enable a closer adherence to international law, but that they may also improve conditions for refugees, host states and regional actors.

More information


Working paper


Refugee Studies Centre

Publication Date




Total pages