By-passing state power and neutralising state bureaucracies 57 of citizenship that termed them ‘Bengali’ and ‘made them into foreigners.’44 These approaches were perceived as part of the genocidal destruction of their identity as a people of Myanmar. Conclusion This chapter has explained how homogenised and archetypal notions of ‘the stateless person’ as a technocratically manageable object of global governance have emerged. Within this paradigm, ‘the stateless person’ is largely conceived of as ‘invisible’ to the state and to international development actors, predominantly as a result of state oversight or neglect. Accordingly, international action plans and campaigns to end statelessness have largely prescribed the same remedies for ‘the stateless person’ regardless of whether they became stateless as result of being overlooked by the state, or as a direct result of state crime. Crucially, action plans and international policies also approach the state through the same framework regardless of organisational behaviours or the abuses they have committed. This is linked to the post-war consolidation of an international legal order based on the ‘formal equality of states’(Kerber 2007; Siegelberg 2020). In showing how international conceptions of citizenship have increasingly moved towards individualism and away from notions of group identity and the group as a unit of political organisation, this chapter has set a context through which to understand the significance of citizenship and citizenship stripping to Rohingya participants of this research. It provides background as to how Myanmar’s physical and symbolic destruction of Rohingya group identity has been by-passed and avoided in international approaches to statelessness in favour of ‘reducing’ the overall number of stateless persons and promoting the expansion ‘naturalisation’ provisions. Citizenship has largely been reduced in international spheres to the provision of IDs. Additionally, it has explained how the international political order which largely defers to states has meant that the role of the state in bureaucratic violence and citizenship stripping is also frequently ignored. The chapter that follows considers the historical significance of identity documents in Rakhine State. Notes 1 This includes UNHCR (statelessness mandate as well as identity management for refugees, IDPs and humanitarian assistance), IOM (Global Compact on migration and migration management), UNICEF (child’s right to nationality and identity), World Bank Group (ID4D projects), and global tech companies (National level civil registrations and ID infrastructures). 2 Global governance is ‘the formal and informal bundle of rules, roles and relationships that define and regulate the social practices of states and non-state actors in international affairs’ (Slaughter, Tulumello et al. 1998). The United Nations (UN) is a key institution of global governance as are markets, financial institutions, and NGOs. Barnett and Duvall (2005) identify four forms of power related to global governance: compulsory, institutional, structural, and productive. Productive