Absent citizenship: A case study of the Rohingya domination and exclusion through the nationalisation of assets and deportation of alleged aliens.’29 The concept of ethnic nationalities has had a profound effect how membership of Myanmar as a political entity is understood, and as Cheesman argues, has surpassed citizenship as a unit of belonging (2017). It is now so embedded in policy that the 2008 constitution preamble text refers to the political community in Myanmar ‘not as an aggregation of citizens, but of taingyintha, thereby elevating taingyintha membership above citizenship.’30 This shift in policy towards citizenship as an exclusive notion of ethnic belonging was enshrined in legislation through the 1982 Citizenship Law, which created tiers of ‘full’, ‘associated’ and ‘naturalised’ citizenship, conferring different entitlements.31 The new legislative arrangements did not allow for ‘ius soli’ acquisition of citizenship for Rohingya or for any other minority not included in the official recognised list of ethnic nationalities.32 This limiting of citizenship by birth to members of ethnic nationalities only, is a key cause of statelessness, and is singled out by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, Chair of the Advisory Commission on Rakhine, as a critical issue in urgent need of reform in the Commission’s final report to the Government of Myanmar.33 Whilst the Law states that those who were already citizens when the law came into force shall remain citizens, as observed by the Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion (ISI), ‘a lack of documentary evidence of citizenship together with the arbitrary removal and destruction of state-issued documents by state authorities leaves many of those entitled to citizenship under the 1948 framework, in practice, unrecognised as citizens under the 1982 Citizenship Law.’34 Under the Law, Rohingya, along with other groups that do not fit its ‘rigid ethnic criteria’,35 may also apply for associated or naturalised citizenship if they fulfil certain conditions and hold the necessary documentation. The rights of associate and naturalised citizens are however qualified,36 and unlike full citizens, authorities can draw on a range of provisions to revoke the citizenship of these groups.37 Evidently, this legislation plays a central role in the denial of citizenship to the Rohingya and other minorities. It is both inconsistent with international law and with Myanmar’s own obligations in that 29 Cheesman, N. (2017), ‘How in Myanmar “National Races” Came to Surpass Citizenship and Exclude Rohingya’, Journal of Contemporary Asia, 47(3): 465-66. 30 Ware, A. & Laoutides, C. (2018), Myanmar's Rohingya Conflict. Oxford Scholarship Online.16. 31 Cheesman, N. (2017), ‘How in Myanmar “National Races” Came to Surpass Citizenship and Exclude Rohingya.’ Journal of Contemporary Asia, 47(3): 461–483. 32 Advisory Commission on Rakhine State (2017), Towards a peaceful, fair and prosperous future for the people of Rakhine. Final Report of the Advisory Commission on Rakhine State; Arraiza J. M. & O. Vonk (2017), Report on Citizenship Law: Myanmar. Country Report 2017/14. Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies. European University Institute. 33 Advisory Commission on Rakhine State (2017), Towards a peaceful, fair and prosperous future for the people of Rakhine. Final Report of the Advisory Commission on Rakhine State. 30. 34 ISI (2019). Country Position Paper. Statelessness in Myanmar. 6. 35 Ibid., 12. 36 For further discussion on the differences between the classes of citizenship outlined in the 1982 Law, see ICJ (2019) Citizenship and Human Rights in Myanmar: Why Law Reform is Urgent and Possible. A Legal Briefing. 37 Whilst the provisions in the Law make it easier to revoke the citizenship of naturalised or associate citizens than full citizens, there does not appear to be significant evidence that the Government of Myanmar has systematically employed the use of formal citizenship revocation provisions as outlined in the Law to legally remove the citizenship of the Rohingya. As the case study argues, the Rohingya have experienced a progressive revocation of their citizenship primarily through a wholesale redefinition of what citizenship for Myanmar is imagined to be, as well as through discriminatory procedures and an uneven implementation of an already discriminatory law, which has prevented those who would legally qualify for citizenship from doing so for administrative or documentation related reasons. In this sense, the use of formal, legal revocation procedures has been superseded by other strategies for removing citizenship from the Rohingya (and other groups). European University Institute 21