PRESS FOR TRANSPARENCY AND LEGAL CERTAINTY Many of the challenges shared across the six countries stem from a lack of understanding of what policies are legally binding on refugees, service providers, and even the government itself. For example, the ban on marriage registration between Rohingya and Bangladeshis in Bangladesh and the 1997 Circular in Pakistan do not make clear whether the Foreigners Act of 1946 applies in full or in part to non-citizens with protection needs. In Bangladesh, the government’s apparent decision to leave the border open in August 2017 to allow over 600,000 Rohingya to cross and take residence in Cox’s Bazaar has never been confirmed with a publicly circulated written order. In many instances, progressive policies exist, but are not accessible or available to the general public, as evidenced by a number of unpublished or private orders and circulars.124 Where policies do exist, they can be ambiguous in their construction, leaving questions concerning scope of coverage and implementation. Unclear policies are open to varying interpretation by administrative or judicial officials and may be applied in conflicting or inconsistent ways. While strategic ambiguity can be deployed progressively or adversely depending on the outcome sought, justice is best served through a policy of clarity and transparency that bestows rights holders with certainty over the content and scope of their rights and entitlements of services—in other words, empowering them with the knowledge that is the necessary precursor to their ability to claim and enjoy said rights and entitlements. As such, clarifying existing policies and addressing outstanding questions would benefit a range of actors, including refugees, aid agencies, and the various government officials who implement them. Advocates may benefit from concerted efforts to push for clarity alongside calls for broader reform. In some instances, seeking clarity on existing practices may be a useful starting point for campaigns. Where consistent engagement with relevant agencies or ministries proves unsuccessful, employing right to information legislation (if it is available) may offer a successful alternative. Complementing attempts to clarify law and policy, actors within the region could clearly benefit from broader awareness of governmental determinations. Several judicial opinions remain unpublished or inaccessible to other practitioners and NGOs, as well as other government agencies. Advocates may seek to embark on broad awareness-raising efforts, elevating knowledge of judicial opinions or policies taken by the government, strategically targeted at those who may be reluctant to be seen as pushing the envelope and therefore would be positively influenced by the existence of judicial precedent. The complex political environments across the region may well benefit from concerted efforts to promote existing or previous action and focus on what has been done in order to build on those efforts, while also looking to prospective action to be taken. CONSIDER UNHCR AS A TARGET OF ADVOCACY UNHCR’s role varies significantly among various countries in the region. In some contexts, such as Indonesia and Malaysia, UNHCR has generally positive and cooperative working relationships with the government and civil society, and is engaged with all refugee populations in the country. In other contexts, such as Thailand and India, UNHCR has a seemingly more selective role, working with only certain protection-seeking populations in specific parts of the country, while the respective government entities manage other populations of concern and geographic areas. In Pakistan, UNHCR does not conduct refugee status determination or resettlement operations, and populations other than Afghan refugees are not well documented. 38 UND OING PRECARIT Y: ELE VATING P OSITIVE PR ACTICES FOR REFU GEE PROTECTION IN SO U TH AND SO U THE AST ASIA