The Status and Rights of the Rohingya as Refugees under International Refugee Law: Challenges for a Durable Solution

Abstract

This paper examines the status of the Rohingya in Bangladesh as refugees, the rights and protections they could be entitled to under international refugee law, and the extent of responsibility and burden sharing between the host country, refugee-producing country, and the international community to ensure their rights and durable solutions. However, these rights remain unfulfilled, which hampers the ability of Bangladesh to garner international support to create the conditions for the repatriation and rehabilitation of the Rohingya in Myanmar.

Keywords:

• Rohingya
• refugees
• international refugee law
• burden sharing
• durable solutions

Notes

1 Article 145A of the Constitution of Bangladesh states that treaties with foreign countries shall be submitted to the president, who shall cause them to be laid before parliament.

2 Some non-enforceable provisions of the Bangladesh Constitution in Part II apply to anyone in its territory, including refugees—right to protection of law (Article 31), safeguards as to arrest and detention (Article 33), and prohibition of forced labor (Article 34).

3 In September 2016, following a request from Aung San Suu Kyi, the Kofi Annan Foundation and the Office of the State Counsellor established the Advisory Commission on Rakhine State. The commission’s recommendations, released in 2017, focused inter alia on citizenship verification and documentation, the situation of the IDPs, and freedom of movement, which affected the Rakhine population.

4 Bangladesh is an ExCom member for the period October 2019 – October 2020.

5 Mass Influx is undefined in the Convention, although the EU Temporary Protection Directives under Article 2(d) defines this as an arrival of displaced persons in a rapid rate from a specific geographical area. The Rohingya’s arrival in Bangladesh satisfies those features.

6 A UNHCR Situation Report stated that 84 percent of repatriations held during November and December 1992 occurred without UNHCR supervision.

7 USCR (1995) cited as many as 50 percent of the repatriations that occurred prior to August 1994 were affected by overt force or other coercive methods, including threat and intimidation by camp officials.