Access to Justice Courts, legal recourse, accountability mechanisms No legal standing in Myanmar courts No access to Bangladeshi courts for most claims Note: Assessment based on author field research (2024-2026), UNHCR (2025), and legal framework analysis. Scale reflects structural rights access, not individual variation. Source: Author assessment based on field research (2024-2026), UNHCR (2025), and legal framework analysis. Scale 0-10: 0=complete denial, 10=full realization. 2.3 Constructive Statelessness and Structural Violence Blitz (2009) distinguishes inadvertent statelessness from constructive statelessness — deliberately produced through state policy aimed at the legal elimination of an ethnic group. Table 2 demonstrates that when assessed across four key dimensions, the Rohingya case represents an extreme of constructed statelessness unmatched by other documented populations. Galtung's (1969) structural violence framework provides the unifying analytical lens: the harm of statelessness operates through the normal functioning of legal institutions rather than identifiable acts of aggression. Table 2: Comparative Analysis — Stateless Populations Across Key Dimensions Population Type (Blitz 2009) Deliberateness (1=low,5=high) 5 Severity International Response Durable Solution