Marginalized and Misunderstood: How Anti‑Rohingya Language… 291 genocide. These standards offer important foundations for conceptualizing the “right to language” and identifying how linguistic rights can be violated both in situ and in displacement. Second, the case of the Rohingya in Myanmar highlights how language policies are weaponized to oppress unwanted minorities, including through the use of mass atrocity crimes. Denied “national race” status and thus Burmese citizenship, the Rohingya’s outsider status is reinforced by the country’s Burmese and English language-oriented education policy—in combination with a coordinated array of further human rights abuses. In displacement, the Rohingya are further denied their language rights while facing additional challenges for accessing humanitarian aid. Lastly, important work to alter negative perceptions of the Rohingya (including their language and culture) is being undertaken in a variety of innovative ways, and existing norms associated with self-determination and language offer a conceptual foundation for shifting attitudes. Language Rights Although there are no binding international conventions specifically on linguistic rights, several international human rights standards impact language policies and outline minimum protections for minority linguistic groups. Restrictions on the use of a particular language in private affairs are a violation of freedom of expression, for instance. Banning private educational instruction in a minority language or prohibiting the use of names in non-official languages also violates such freedom. State services should be available when a linguistic group is sufficiently large. Such minimum standards are reflected in documents such as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious or Linguistic Minorities, the Oslo Recommendations Regarding the Linguistic Rights of National Minorities, and the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention on the Rights of National Minorities (de Varennes 2012, pp. 43–44).2 Fernand de Varennes (2012) contends that “international law has developed in such a way that governments no longer have carte blanche in relation to language policies and planning. They have legal and political – even moral – obligations to not only respect, but in some cases use other languages and even promote others” (pp. 44). Indeed, the continuing evolution of language rights follows three basic trends: human rights instruments for the protection of individual rights, the protection or promotion of linguistic diversity, and the protection of endangered languages (de Varennes 2012, pp. 44). The issue of language rights in education is a key concept in broader discussions of children’s rights, at home and during displacement. Article 30 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child guarantees children from ethnic, religious, or religious minorities the right to enjoy their own culture, which includes the right to “use his or her own language” (United Nations Human Rights 1989). Zehlia Babaci-Wilhite (2015) contends that using the local language in education satisfies the rights 2 Language rights are also prominently featured in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as discussed in the final section of this article. 13