Country Position Paper: Statelessness in Myanmar This includes replacing “race” as a determining factor for citizenship with objective criteria, such as birth within the territory or the passing of citizenship through parents who are citizens. 19 Arbitrary deprivation of nationality Many Rohingya and other groups not recognised by the State as belonging to one of the national ethnic groups were arbitrarily deprived of their nationality as a result of the nation-wide citizenship scrutiny exercise in 1989, during which time new identity documents were issued as proof of citizenship under the 1982 law. Prior to this time, much of the population including Rohingya held National Registration Certificates (NRCs) which, in practice, functioned as evidence of Myanmar citizenship. 20 The new 1982 law provided for Myanmar citizens to maintain their citizenship when the new law came into force. However, Rohingya and probably others, were not provided with the new identity cards. They were excluded from citizenship in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner which went against the provisions of the 1982 law. 21 The revocation of citizenship The 1982 Citizenship Law gives overly broad powers to the State to revoke citizenship from those with “associate” and “naturalised” citizenship (Section 8b). The law lists wide-ranging and looselydefined circumstances in which associate and naturalised citizenship can be revoked including communicating with a member of an organisation hostile to the State and serving more than one year in prison for an act of “moral turpitude” (section 35). Under the law, no consideration is given as to whether revocation of citizenship will lead to statelessness. Further, since dual nationality is not permitted (section 13), there is an increased likelihood that the revocation of citizenship will result in statelessness. Failure to prevent childhood statelessness Under the 1982 law, in order to acquire citizenship by birth, both a child’s parents must be members of the national ethnic groups (section 5). Further in order to qualify for citizenship, both a child’s parents must be citizens; different rules for transmission of citizenship apply in cases where one (or both) parents has associate and naturalised citizenship (section 7). Children born of a parent who is not recognised as a member of one of the national ethnic groups are thus discriminated against on the basis of their ethnicity. There is no legislation in place for children to acquire nationality where they would otherwise be stateless, violating a child’s right to acquire a nationality (CRC Art 7). In cases where a parent’s citizenship is revoked, a child’s citizenship is also revoked (Section 29). These factors result in the number of children born into statelessness in Myanmar “spiralling” or increasing over time. 22 The 2012 concluding remarks of the Committee on the Rights of the Child made a number of recommendations on childhood statelessness in Myanmar, including the removal of the ‘For more than 20 years, holders of the special procedures mandate on the situation of human rights in Myanmar have been advocating reform of the Citizenship Act of 1982. The Special Rapporteur reiterates that the Act needs reform in order to ensure equal access by all persons in Myanmar to citizenship which is fundamental to addressing the marginalisation of the Rohingya and other communicates in the country’, UNGA, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, 2013, A/68/397 para 57. Similar recommendations have been made in all SR reports since then. See also CEDAW Concluding observations on the forth and fifth periodic reports on Myanmar, 2016, CEDAW/C/MMR/CO/4-5 para 32 and 33 available: https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CEDAW%2fC%2fMMR%2fCO%2f45&Lang=en 20 UNHCR, The Statelessness Issue in Myanmar, 2014. 21 UNHCR, The Statelessness Issue in Myanmar, 2014. 22 UNHCR, The Statelessness Issue in Myanmar, 2014. 19 7