Search

Begin New Search Topic Rohingya Publication Year within 5 Years

11. Q&A: The Gambia v. Myanmar, Rohingya Genocide at The International Court of Justice, May 2020 Factsheet

Author:
Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Publication Date:
05-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Abstract:
According to the UN Human Rights Council-mandated Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar (FFM), the treatment of the Rohingya population during the “clearance operations” amounts to genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, the commission of which evoke specific obligations and responsibility under international law. In its final report, published in September 2019, the FFM concluded that “the State of Myanmar breached its obligation not to commit genocide” and found that Myanmar “continues to harbor genocidal intent” towards the Rohingya, emphasizing the need for accountability. This fact sheet answers fundamental questions about the ongoing ICJ case, Myanmar’s responsibility for genocide and its impact on the Rohingya population. (Answers to questions about the early stages of the lawsuit are here.)
Topic:
Security, Responsibility to Protect (R2P), International Court of Justice (ICJ), and Rohingya
Political Geography:
Myanmar, Global Focus, and Gambia

12. Burma’s 2020 Elections and Ongoing Atrocity Risks Facing the Rohingya Population

Author:
Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide
Publication Date:
10-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Abstract:
Burma’s 2020 national elections, scheduled for November 8th, will take place in a fragile context of ongoing risk of genocide for the country’s minority Rohingya population and continuing mass atrocities—including war crimes and crimes against humanity—against other ethnic populations. While the elections themselves may not be a trigger for mass atrocities in Burma, the responses to the elections from within the country and internationally has the ability to either exacerbate or mitigate future atrocityrelated risks. Parliamentary seats at the national and state level will be voted upon in the November elections. Only 75% of the total seats will be contested, as the country’s constitution reserves 25% of seats for the military.1 At the time of writing, it appears as though most Rohingya within Burma—members of an ethnic and religious minority that has been the victims of genocide—will be denied the right to vote.2 The approximately one million Rohingya who now live as refugees in Bangladesh will likewise be unable to vote in the elections. At least six Rohingya candidates have been prevented from running for office by the Union Election Commission (UEC), despite some of them having been approved candidates in the past and, in one case, having won a parliamentary seat. These candidates were blocked from running because they were unable to confirm the citizenship of their parents at the time of their birth.3 The UEC has applied such policies in a discriminatory fashion against Rohingya politicians,4 raising concerns that key Rohingya politicians will be unable to contest seats in the elections. This is not the first time the government has denied these rights, and the continued disenfranchisement and exclusion of Rohingya heightens their vulnerability to future atrocities. An election in which a people, who have been the victims of genocide, are denied the right to vote on the basis of their identity, is not a free, fair, or inclusive election. Any foreign government’s praise and support of Burma’s elections would be seen as endorsing a discriminatory process and lending support to the policies and behaviors that contributed to the genocide of the Rohingya and to ongoing risk. Instead, leaders around the world should use their available levers to mitigate atrocity risks, press for inclusivity regarding voting and political participation, and encourage other changes within Burma that advance the protection of the Rohingya and other vulnerable groups.
Topic:
Genocide, Elections, Risk, Atrocities, and Rohingya
Political Geography:
Burma and Southeast Asia

13. Rohingyas and the (Il)Legal Quest for an Indian Identity

Author:
Tejal Khana
Publication Date:
12-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Statelessness & Citizenship Review
Institution:
Peter McMullin Centre on Statelessness, Melbourne Law School
Abstract:
The arrests of Rohingyas who have tried to obtain Indian identity documents, like the Aadhaar card,1 has been on the rise. Across several states of India, and particularly in the city of Hyderabad, Rohingyas have been held by police under allegations that they are in possession of fake Aadhaar cards.2 Apart from the Aadhaar card, there have also been reported cases of the community acquiring other Indian documents such as the PAN Card,3 Voter ID card and even the Indian passport. Just last year, in May 2019, Mohammed Faisal, a young Rohingya, was arrested at Delhi’s Indira Gandhi International airport for posing as an Indian national with a fake passport in an attempt to travel to Indonesia.4 It was later revealed during an investigation that he was able to acquire the Indian passport through his contacts in Hyderabad while his asylum application to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (‘UNHCR’) was still under consideration. Similar cases continue to occur even in times of the COVID-19 public health emergency. For example, in June 2020, in the southern state of Telangana, five Rohingyas, including three women, were arrested for illegal immigration when they procured Aadhaar cards and Indian passports through the provision of false information.5Prima facie, there seems nothing wrong with these arrests; these are acts of forgery, cheating and giving false declaration — all of which violate Indian laws, particularly the Indian Penal Code and the IndianPassports Act.6 However, it is important to note the overall context within which these crimes have been committed. Two entities are prominent in this context. On the one hand are the Rohingyas, one of the world’s most persecuted stateless minorities, who have been arbitrarily denied nationality by Myanmar and are without the citizenship of any country. On the other hand, is India, the world’s largest democracy, which has held a good reputation for being a host to refugees for several years. This commentary does not justify crime in any way. Rather, by examining the case of Rohingyas committing crimes against Indian laws, it seeks to draw attention to responsibility on the part of sovereign states when stateless persons — that is, persons without the citizenship of any country — commit crimes against sovereign laws
Topic:
Rohingya, Identity, Stateless Population, and Migrants
Political Geography:
India and Asia