Introduction
The Rohingya are a Muslim minority ethnic group from Myanmar, who have been denied citizenship under the 1982 Citizenship Act, making the Rohingya the largest stateless group in the world (over 3.5 million people).
The 1982 Citizenship Act established a tier system in which citizenship was based on ancestry, as opposed to territorial birth. This rendered the Rohingya population stateless and denied them certain fundamental rights. This system has been widely criticised by the international community for being discriminatory in nature, particularly towards the Rohingya. According to this system, there are 135 ‘national ethnic groups.’ Excluded from this list are the Rohingya, Hindus, speakers of Bengali or other Indian dialects, ethnic Chinese, and people of South Asian appearance. Furthermore, the Rohingya were never referred to by local authorities as ‘Rohingya,’ instead being referred to as ‘foreigners’ or ‘Bengalis.’
As a result of this systemic discrimination, and as an attempt to escape persecution, the Rohingya are often forced to flee to other nations, such as Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Thailand, Saudi Arabia, and Malaysia. Bangladesh hosts the largest Rohingya population – over 1.6 million people – who are denied basic fundamental rights and are forced to live in refugee camps, all stemming from their statelessness.
The United Nations, the European Union, China, India, and other powers have stated that in order to resolve the Rohingya crisis, nations must make a conscious effort to ensure that the Rohingya state of statelessness comes to an end.
This report aims to highlight the consequences of the Rohingya’s stateless identity, the functionality of Myanmar’s citizenship laws, and the struggles affecting the Rohingya in this ongoing crisis.
The 1982 Citizenship Act
Under the 1982 Citizenship Act, nationality is acquired on the basis of ethnicity, rather than through an objective, non-discriminatory criteria. Myanmar created a list of 135 ‘national ethnic groups’ that qualify for full citizenship, a list that excludes the Rohingya, as well as other ethnic groups. Additionally, the 1982 Citizenship Act created a tier system in which different forms of citizenship are categorised. This categorisation consists of ‘full citizenship,’ ‘naturalised’ and ‘associate’ citizens. Full citizenship is reserved for those who belong to one of the ‘national ethnic groups’ listed as having settled in Myanmar before 1823, or before the British colonial rule. Naturalised citizens are those that went through the process of applying for citizenship. This process of acquiring citizenship through naturalisation has been reported as being corrupt, and resulting in the exclusion of many of the applicants. Associate citizens are those who fall outside the list of ‘national ethnic groups’. Associate citizens are not permitted to transfer their citizenship to their children and the state is allowed to revoke their citizenship if they deem it to be necessary. Therefore, children born in Myanmar whose parents are ‘associate citizens’ are automatically stateless, a clear violation of article 7 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the deprivation of nationality. The statelessness crisis therefore becomes a multi-generational issue.
The 1982 Citizenship Act perceives naturalisation differently from other countries. Whereas most countries provide an avenue for citizenship through residency or marriage, Myanmar reserves citizenship for those that can prove a multi-generational connection to the country. Even though, in principle, naturalised citizens should be able to acquire full citizenship, that is rarely the case. Moreover, under section 8(b) of the 1982 Citizenship Act, the state can revoke the citizenship of associated and naturalised citizens in certain circumstances, such as serving a year or more in prison or having ties to an organisation deemed ‘hostile’ by the state. Furthermore, Myanmar does not permit dual-citizenship, nor does it have a provision that protects citizens from becoming stateless. This ongoing practice has been deemed to be a clear violation of the right to nationality and is perceived as highly discriminatory in nature.
In 1995, after pressure from the international community, Myanmar issued a ‘Temporary Registration Card’ to the Rohingya, which allowed them to vote in the 2010 general elections. However, these cards were subsequently revoked in 2015. Thus, rendering the Rohingya fully stateless, and depriving them of one of their last remaining human rights.
Current State of Affairs
Many believe that the Rohingya crisis stems from Islamophobia or racism, and while that is certainly a factoring element, the root cause of the issue can rather be traced back to statelessness. When people are stateless, they lose access to basic human rights protections such as right to healthcare access, right to education, right to vote, the ability to seek legal redress, and right to assemble, which ultimately can hinder the protection of other fundamental rights such as the right to life.
Due to a series of violent campaigns conducted against the Rohingya by the Myanmar armed forces, roughly one million Rohingya refugees sought refuge in Bangladesh. Cox’s Bazar in Bangladesh has become the world’s largest refugee camps, out of which half of the population are children. Some of these military campaigns targeting the Rohingya are under the pretence of a ‘fight on terrorism’ or the doctrine of ‘Islamic terrorism.’ Myanmar is a Buddhist majority nation. In turn, nationalist Buddhist fundamentalist political leaders have referred to the Rohingya population as ‘subhuman’ and see the Rohingya as a threat to the Buddhist faith, under the dogma of the threat of the ‘Islamisation of Myanmar’. Even though the Myanmar government categorically denies the claim of genocide, following the 2017 attacks in the Rakhine State, many of the Rohingya refugees believe that the attacks were religiously motivated.
A report produced by UN investigators in 2018 accused Myanmar’s military of carrying out mass killings and rapes in the Rakhine State with a “genocidal intent.”
According to a study by the United Nations Refugee Agency, the conditions in the Cox’s Bazar refugee camp have worsened. People at the camp report a lack of safety, overcrowding, cross-border recruitment into terrorist organisations has risen, as well as unemployment, leading to many families choosing to migrate illegally in search of safety and a better life outside of the camp.
In 2018, Myanmar and Bangladesh reached a repatriation agreement, with the intent of returning some Rohingya refugees to Myanmar. However, protests broke throughout the camp, with protestors claiming that they were being sent to Myanmar to die. The consensus among the Rohingya in the Cox’s Bazar camp is one of fear of repatriation. Considering that if they are to be repatriated, they would be living among the same Buddhist mobs that previously burned down their villages, under the protection of the same military that is accused of committing genocidal acts against them.
Alas, as long as there is an ongoing conflict in the Rakhine State, and as long as no strides or efforts are made by the Myanmar government regarding persecution, violent conflicts, and the issue of statelessness, the Rohingya crisis is likely only going to worsen.
Myanmar and International Law
It is a well-known fact that the actions of the Myanmar government against the Rohingya amount to a violation of a series of international treaties and standards. The ongoing persecution of the Rohingya is a direct violation of article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which states that “all persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law.” Furthermore, according to article 27 of the ICCPR,
[…] in those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own language.
To that end, the actions of the Myanmar government directly violate those rights. Additionally, as per article 2 of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, killing, and or the creation of practices that are intended to bring about the destruction of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, constitute genocide.
In November 2019, a case was brought before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against Myanmar for perpetrating genocide against the Rohingya. The claim was supported by the United States, United Kingdom, the European Union, and Canada. Despite the claims, Myanmar still has not acknowledged its genocidal intent, or any wrongdoing for that matter.
It must be noted that despite the obvious legal claims against Myanmar, other than sanctions, none of the actions taken by the international community have been truly effective in deterring the Myanmar government, whether through repatriation efforts, or positive action to halt the persecution of the Rohingya. This strengthens the calls for a more decisive approach from the international community, as without it, the harm suffered by the Rohingya will likely persist.
Conclusion
In conclusion, taking the aforementioned facts into account, it can be concluded that the Myanmar government still has a long way to go to ensure equal protection for the Rohingya population, in terms of civil, political and fundamental human rights. Moreover, it can be concluded that the international community still has to take more strides to ensure that the Rohingya rights are protected in accordance with the standards set by international treaties. As it stands, there is an air of impunity surrounding the ongoing genocide against the Rohingya.
Myanmar still has laws and practices in place that blatantly target the Rohingya, such as a differentiation set by their hierarchical citizenship system, which places minority groups at a disadvantage from a legal standpoint. Despite the claims of new elected officials to address the issues surrounding the Rohingya community, positive efforts were not made, with promises of a safe environment for repatriation going unfulfilled. There are still military campaigns against the Rohingya in the Rakhine State that lead to the death, torture, rape, arbitrary arrest, and displacement of the Rohingya population.
Lastly, it must be noted that the root cause of the issue affecting Rohingya refugees is their statelessness. To that end, additional efforts must be made. The international community, including courts and other nations, must pressure the Myanmar government to ensure that the Rohingya have equal protection before the law.
Bibliography
BBC News ‘Myanmar Rohingya: What you need to know about the crisis’ (23 January 2020) https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41566561 accessed 7 August 2025.
BBC News ‘Rohingya return to Myanmar: Confusion and fear in refugee camps’ (15 November 2018) https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46217505 accessed 7 August 2025.
Doctors Without Borders, ‘The Rohingya: The World’s Largest Stateless Population’ (2022) https://msf.org.au/rohingya-worlds-largest-stateless-population#:~:text=The%20Rohingya%20refugee%20crisis&text=Around%20900%2C000%20people%20live%20in%20camps%20in%20Cox’s%20Bazaar.&text=The%20Rohingya%20have%20been%20described,%2C%20state%20education%2C%20and%20jobs. Accessed 7 August 2025.
Himel Rahman, ‘SAV Explainer: International Law Has Failed to Protect the Rohingya Refugees’ (10 October 2023) South Asian Voices https://southasianvoices.org/rohingya-refugees/ accessed 7 August 2025.
Institute Statelessness and Inclusion (ISI) ‘Towards an Inclusive Citizenship in a Federal Democratic Myanmar’ (July 2021) https://files.institutesi.org/Towards_an_Inclusive_Citizenship_in_Myanmar.pdf accessed 7 August 2025.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976) 999 UNTS 171 (ICCPR) arts 26 & 27.
Md Mahbubur Rahman, ‘Statelessness – the Root Cause of the Rohingya Crisis – Needs to Be Addressed’ (2014) New Lines Institute https://newlinesinstitute.org/state-resilience-fragility/statelessness-the-root-cause-of-the-rohingya-crisis-needs-to-be-addressed/ accessed 7 August 2025.
Mowsume Bhattacharjee, ‘Statelessness of an ethnic minority: the case of Rohingya’ (28 June 2024) Department of Sociology, Jagannath University https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/political-science/articles/10.3389/fpos.2024.1144493/full accessed 7 August 2025.
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (entered into force on 2 September 1990) 1577 UNTS 3 art 7.
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees ‘Interpreting the 1961 Statelessness Convention and Avoiding Statelessness resulting from Loss and Deprivation of Nationality’ (31 October 2013).
United Nations Office of the High Commissioner (OCHR) ‘About Nationality and Human Rights’ https://www.ohchr.org/en/nationality-and-statelessness accessed 7 August 2025.
United Nations Refugee Agency ‘‘Don’t cut the aid’: Insecurity worsens for stateless Rohingya, says UNHCR’s Grandi’ UN News (24 March 2025) https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/03/1161446 accessed 7 August 2025.
