State Counsellor Daw Aung San Suu Kyi from becoming President of the Union, on the discriminatory and arbitrary basis that her children are foreign nationals. The effects of sections 120(b) and 152(b) are more widespread, by excluding citizens from standing as candidates for the national parliament if they cannot satisfactorily prove to the authorities that both of their parents are/were citizens (and these arrangements are mirrored at lower levels of government).102 These restrictions are also contrary to section 347 of the Constitution, to rule of law principles and to the State’s international human rights law obligations. The constitutional provision against discrimination is itself discriminatory, as well as being contradictory, because its application is limited based upon citizenship status: “The Union shall not discriminate [sic] any citizen… based on race, birth, religion, official position, status, [emphasis added] culture, sex and wealth” (section 348). This violates the rule of law and international human rights law principles that States are duty-bound to respect and protect the rights of all persons within their jurisdiction, irrespective of their legal status, including citizenship status (with exceptions to this rule being narrowly defined and generally limited to specific political rights). While the Constitution privileges “national races,” importantly its provisions do not prescribe what these groups are, nor do they exclude members of other groups from citizenship. Myanmar’s national legislature has clear authority to determine matters related to citizenship, such as its issuance and its revocation, including through law reform. 103 The executive branch, the “Union Government,” is also empowered to direct ministries to interpret existing laws inline with the Constitution, including provisions affirming the applicability of the State’s international human rights law obligations.104 Section 347 of the Constitution, which affirms the rule of law and non-discrimination principle that “any person” shall enjoy equal rights and protections, offers a sound legal basis for the interpretation of the Myanmar’s Constitution on citizenship matters, as well as to ground the necessary reforms of the Constitution itself, in line with Myanmar’s international human rights law obligations and rule of law principles. 5.2 The 1982 Citizenship Law The 1982 Law is highly discriminatory and arbitrary for its use of race or ethnicity as the basis to assess the rights of people in Myanmar, and the State’s obligations toward them. The “associate” and “naturalized” categories of citizenship, described above in part four, are better understood as second-class citizenship. Under the 1982 Law, persons attributed with these categories may be subject to prosecution for a range of criminal offenses that are not applicable to full citizens, which is discriminatory. And unlike full citizens, their rights are qualified in the 1982 Law, with their citizenship subject to revocation on a range of grounds. Many of these grounds – for example “showing disaffection or disloyalty to the State by any act or speech or otherwise” – are vague or overly broad, and so do not conform to the rule of law principle of legality. “Associate” and “naturalized” categories of citizenship under the 1982 Law are available to persons not recognized as a member of a “national race”, but who can nonetheless prove an unbroken ancestral link dating back almost two centuries (to 1824) to the territory of modern-day Myanmar, or who can prove a link that predates the establishment of the State in 1948. Both of these scenarios tend to be difficult to prove to the satisfaction of authorities, particularly if the law is being interpreted in the discriminatory manner for which it appears to have been designed, in a context whereby, to date, more than 25 percent of the population reportedly lacks official documentation, let alone seven decades ago. 105 People are effectively rendered stateless if they cannot meet these criteria to the satisfaction of authorities, even if they and or their family have an established relationship with Myanmar, through, for example, long-term residence. In each of these scenarios, the intent and the effect of the laws violate several of the State’s international human rights law obligations, including the right to nationality under article 7 of the CRC, and the principle of the best interests of the child enshrined in that same convention. Compounding these challenges is the reality that most people in Myanmar do not use a family name, 11