60 By-passing state power and neutralising state bureaucracies 31 See UNHCR (Feb 2012). UNHCR Style Companion. P25 ‘The term Rohingya should be avoided. The term “refugee from northern Rakhine State” could be used in the context of a regional update or in a report on activities in Bangladesh; alternatively the word “Muslim population” or “Muslim residents” could be used for a report on activities in Myanmar.’ 32 In Chapter 5, I lay out the evidence that Rohingya were previously understood to be citizens of Myanmar, despite common misconceptions. Notable in UNHCR’s Analytical Framework for Prevention, Reduction, and Protection is that although arbitrary deprivation of nationality is mentioned 13 times in the annexed human rights treaties, in the body of the framework the term is not mentioned once. Irwin and Manley (2008). 33 See footnote 30. 34 See also Thomas Reuters Foundation News Stateless: The World’s most invisible people, UNHCR What is Statelessness, UNICEF and UNHCR Being Invisible: Children Living in Statelessness. 35 Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma, 1982. Burma Citizenship Law. 36 Joppke, C. (2007) describes these as citizenship as status, citizenship as rights and citizenship as identity. 37 I use Joppke’s terms to describe the different aspects of citizenship in this instance—citizenship as status, citizenship as rights, and citizenship as identity. 38 An example of this is the joint statement in Jan 2018 of 21 Rohingya community groups on concerns over the repatriation of refugees from Bangladesh. Conditions 6 and 7 of this statement articulate the necessary pre-conditions for return relating to citizenship. Condition 6 relates to citizenship rights and condition 7 to identity citizenship. ‘6 The Myanmar government must restore their full Myanmar citizenship ensuring all rights and freedoms—security of life, property, honour, dignity, freedom of religion, movement, education, marriage, employment etc.—without any infringement, restriction, and discrimination in all affairs of their national activities. 7. The Myanmar government shall recognize the “Rohingya ethnicity” allowing them to peacefully co-exist in Arakan/Rakhine State as equals with their “collective rights” on par with other ethnic nationalities of the country.’ 39 The final article of the 1954 Statelessness Convention addresses the issue of de facto stateless persons with a non-binding recommendation: ‘that each Contracting State, when it recognizes as valid the reasons for which a person has renounced the protection of the State of which he is a national, consider sympathetically the possibility of according to that person the treatment which the Convention accords to stateless persons.’ 40 Fg6, 26/07/2018, Kutapalong. This resistance is also explored in Brinham, N. (2021). ‘We Are Not Stateless! You Can Call Us What You Like, but We Are Citizens of Myanmar!’Rohingya Resistance and the Stateless Label. 41 Personal correspondence and email exchanges, 20–26/06/2019. 42 Fg6&7, 26/07/2018, Kutapalong. 43 Fg2&3 22–23/04/2018, Kuala Lumpur. 44 Fg6, 26/07/2018, Kutapalong. Bibliography Anderson, B., M. J. Gibney and E. Paoletti (2011). Citizenship, Deportation and the Boundaries of Belonging. Citizenship Studies 15(5): 547–563. Ansong, A. (2016). The Concept of Sovereign Equality of States in International Law. GIMPA Law Review 2(1): 14–34. Arraiza, J., Phyu Zin Aye and M. Shakirova (2020). Fighting Imagined Invasions with Administrative Violence: Racism, Xenophobia and Nativism as a Cause of