THE 1982 CITIZENSHIP LAW Myanmar’s 1982 Citizenship Law has been widely criticised both domestically and internationally. It is sometimes described as a relic of the military junta era. The law is not grounded in a democratic mandate of any sort. It was drafted and implemented without consulting Myanmar’s diverse multi-ethnic and multireligious peoples, and served the military’s own agenda being excluded from Myanmar citizenship. The focus on such ethnic categorisation has also led to confusion, discrimination and arbitrariness in the categorisation of persons of mixed-ethnic or religious heritage. All people from Myanmar should be able to enjoy the right to Myanmar citizenship, without being excluded because of their ethnicity or being forced to claim only part of their mixed heritage in order to be included. a hierarchy of belonging. UN and other actors have criticised it as failing to comply with international standards. The current citizenship framework in Myanmar does not meet international standards in the following ways: 1) Discrimination on the Grounds of Race/Ethnicity Under the 1982 Citizenship Law, nationality in Myanmar is primarily acquired on the basis of race or ethnicity rather than objective, non-discriminatory criteria. The ethnic criteria is not adequately balanced by other avenues through which to acquire nationality for those with strong ties to the country. As such, those who do not belong to the 135 ‘national ethnic groups’ recognised by the state are disadvantaged and discriminated against. The prohibition of race discrimination is a norm of customary international law.3 Since the 1990s, international experts including UN Special Rapporteurs have recommended replacing race/ethnicity in Myanmar’s Citizenship Law as a determining factor for citizenship with objective criteria, such as the passing of citizenship through parents who are citizens or as a result of birth within the territory. The citizenship laws of most countries in the world base acquisition of citizenship on such objective criteria, while also making provisions for people to naturalise on the basis of residence, marriage or other criteria. The groups included on the list of ‘national ethnic groups’ are decided at the complete discretion of the Council of the State (section 4), without consultation with Myanmar’s peoples. This has created an arbitrary and Additionally, the 1982 Citizenship Law has a tiered system of citizenship. ‘Full citizenship’ in Myanmar is reserved for those who belong to one of the ‘national ethnic groups’ who are listed by the state as having settled in Myanmar before 1823, or before British colonial rule (section 3) and for the children of citizens. ‘Naturalised’ and ‘Associate’ citizens – those who do not meet the threshold for full citizenship but can prove multiple generations of ties to Myanmar - have fewer rights. They cannot transmit citizenship to their children easily, and their citizenship can be revoked more easily. Further, ‘naturalised citizenship’ is acquired through an application process which is characterised by decisionmaking processes that are discretionary, arbitrary and corrupt. This results in the exclusion of many applicants. 2) Failure to Prevent Childhood Statelessness Under the 1982 Citizenship Law, children born of a parent who is not recognised as a member of one of the ‘national ethnic groups’ are 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), violating the child’s right to retain their nationality. These factors result in the number of children born into statelessness in Myanmar spiralling or increasing over time. The Committee on the Rights of the Child has made recommendations on the right to nationality and childhood statelessness in Myanmar, including the removal of discriminatory categories of citizenship, addressing the gaps in the law that lead to statelessness and removing ethnic and religious identities from ID cards.4 3) Lack of Naturalisation Provisions realities in Myanmar and does not allow the diverse peoples of Myanmar to self-identify. This process has resulted in groups with long histories in Myanmar The 1982 Citizenship Law’s approach to ‘naturalisa- The Tunis Conclusions stated that “loss or deprivation of nationality may not be based on discrimination on any ground prohibited in international human rights law, either in law or in practice.” The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Expert Meeting - Interpreting the 1961 Statelessness Convention and Avoiding Statelessness resulting from Loss and Deprivation of Nationality ("Tunis Conclusions"), March 2014, available at: https://www.refworld.org/ docid/533a754b4.html. 4 Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding Remarks: Myanmar, 59th session, 2012, CRC/C/MMR/CO/3-4 (CRC 2012) https://tbinternet.ohchr. org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CRC/C/MMR/CO/3-4&Lang=En; 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%2f4- 5&Lang=en. 3 3