6 Introduction of genocide. The latter understanding, however, was most often the thread of Rohingya narratives in this research. Following the 2017 wave of mass violence against the Rohingya in Myanmar (UNHRC Sept 2018), academic and human rights research relating to crimes against humanity, genocide, and statelessness mushroomed. With the majority of Rohingya now residing outside the country in Bangladesh, research participants became more accessible to researchers, journalists, and humanitarian workers. Rohingya voices internationally increased and, in some cases, Rohingya framings of their own experiences were incorporated into academic and human rights research (e.g. Fortify Rights 2019; Olney, Haque et al. 2019). At the same time, the increased use of Rohingya voices in international public fora did not necessarily lead to ‘control over representation, interpretation and dissemination’ (see also Spivak 1988; Gready 2008:2). With the research for this study, there were two key areas of debate and contestation relating to the international representation of Rohingya voices. First, participants debated how Rohingya voices continued to be interpreted and influenced by the international agencies, governments, INGOs, and their donors. Second, they contested which Rohingya voices and narratives were privileged over others to fit the existing narratives and priorities of international agencies and governments. So, throughout the period of my research, international discourses and approaches to Rohingya statelessness have been in a process of intense flux, negotiation, and contestation. I have been fortunate enough to be a part of some of those discussions and conversations, both observing the changes and continuums and seeking to influence the conversations myself through the type of engaged and activist research that is a feature of state crime scholarship activism (Grewcock 2012:113). The language of advocacy surrounding Rohingya statelessness shifted in some circles over the course of the research. Technical legal support on reducing statelessness through engagement with the state, such as ‘pathways to citizenship’ for ‘stateless Rohingya,’ gave way to the language of international criminal justice including notions such as ‘citizenship restoration,’ ‘accountability,’ and ‘restitution.’ There were also significant pushbacks and counterclaims as different approaches were contested and challenged by various advocacy and policy-making groups vying for influence with competing interests and/or strategic alliances. Such processes are a feature of emerging international discourses (Anderson and Andrijasevic 2008). How and what Rohingya activism took place on international platforms likewise shifted as a result of population movements and the moves to seek accountability through international court procedures. To capture the dynamic nature of both international discourses on statelessness and international Rohingya activism and voice, I needed to develop flexible and evolving research methods and approaches. In 2024, these framings have evolved and shifted further. The Myanmarwide violence and conflict following the military coup of 1 February 2021 resulted in a seismic shakeup of international relations with Myanmar. The