ICJ Legal Briefing | 9 July 2019 Given the Bill’s stated objective to protect the rights of the child, if passed into law in its current form, its provisions with respect to child rights should nonetheless prevail over any conflicting provisions in domestic law, in accordance with legal principles. However, to avoid confusion, and to conform to the principle of legality, which requires laws to be formulated clearly and precisely, the ICJ recommends removing the term “in accordance with provisions under existing law” in section 22 of the Bill. Background The Child Rights Bill has been under development since at least 2011, and has gone through various drafts. On 7 June 2019, the Union Parliament passed and submitted the Bill to the President of the Union for review. The President returned the Bill with comments, which are now being considered by the Joint Bill Committee of the Union Parliament. The ICJ does not know if these comments or discussions include consideration of section 22 of the Bill. The Bill is likely to be tabled again during the upcoming session of the parliament in mid-July, during which time Members of Parliament may be able to participate in a discussion on the Bill. If adopted by the parliament in this session and submitted again to the President, depending on whether or not substantive amendments are made, the Bill would likely become law. “Citizenship” is a legal concept describing an individual’s relationship to the State. In contrast, “statelessness” is when somebody does not have citizenship of any State. Terms such as “nationality,” “race” or “ethnicity” are generally culturally embedded concepts, understood differently by different people and in different contexts. These terms are often, but not uniformly, conflated or used interchangeably. In many countries, particularly those with diverse populations, the right to citizenship is defined broadly to include persons with different ethnicities and even nationalities. In post-independence Myanmar, the concept of being a “national” or “indigenous” had a generally broad definition, allowing persons of different backgrounds to become citizens, including but not limited to the descendants of persons who immigrated to Myanmar. In 1982, the current narrow definition of citizenship was introduced, which generally links citizenship acquisition to membership of a prescribed “national race.” For a more detailed analysis of Myanmar’s legal framework for citizenship, and recommendations on how to align this with rule of law principles and international human rights law, see the ICJ’s report published on 25 June 2019, entitled: “Citizenship and Human Rights in Myanmar: Why Law Reform is Urgent and Possible.” The ICJ promotes and protects human rights through the rule of law, by using unique legal expertise to develop and strengthen both national and international justice systems. The ICJ’s first report on Myanmar was published in 1963, and the ICJ has had an in-country presence since early 2014. The ICJ engages with a variety of actors including government, judges, civil society groups, legal professionals and UN organs. Contact: Senior Advocate Daw Hnin Win Aung, ICJ legal adviser, hninwin.aung@icj.org, 09428122794 | Sean Bain, ICJ legal adviser, sean.bain@icj.org | Dr Ja Seng Ing, ICJ legal researcher, jaseng.ing@icj.org. See also: ICJ, “Citizenship Law and Human Rights in Myanmar: Why Law Reform is Urgent and Possible,” 25 June 2019, available at: https://www.icj.org/wpcontent/uploads/2019/06/Myanmar-Citizenship-law-reform-Advocacy-Analysis-Brief2019-ENG.pdf The Burmese language version of this legal briefing is available at: https://www.icj.org/country/asia-pacific/southeast-asia/Myanmar.