Introduction 13 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 more accepted. In this book, I refer to Burma and Myanmar interchangeably. Burma is used in historical context and Myanmar in the contemporary context. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia vs Myanmar). All documents pertaining to this case are Available at: www.icj-cij.org/case/178 (accessed 05/03/2014). This article was written under my pseudonym, Alice Cowley. Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma (1982). Burma Citizenship Law. Union of Burma, The Union Citizenship Act 1948. In a discussion titled ‘The Slow-Burning Genocide of Myanmar’s Rohingya’ at Harvard Global Equality Initiative Conference, 4 Nov 2014, Amartya Sen said, ‘The Rohingya did not come to Burma. Burma first came to the Rohingya.’ Rakhine is also referred to as Arakan. Both words come from the same root. The British referred to the region as Arakan. In the 1990s, the name was formally changed to Rakhine. However, many people, particularly those opposed to military rule or the central state, continued to refer to it as Arakan. I use the terms interchangeably throughout. In historical contexts, I refer to the region as Arakan and in contemporary contexts, I use Rakhine. Kaman is an ethno-religious identity. Kaman are Muslim and originate from Rakhine State, Myanmar. Unlike Rohingya, they are included as one of the official 135 ‘ethnic races of Myanmar’ and are, according to the law if not always in practice, entitled to citizenship. (a) The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 15(2) prohibits against the arbitrary deprivation of citizenship, ‘No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.’ The Right to Nationality is considered a fundamental human right. (b) Safeguards against statelessness were first outlined in the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, for example, Article 1, ‘A Contracting State shall grant its nationality to a person born in its territory who would otherwise be stateless.’ (c) The prohibition of racial discrimination is integral to all human rights instruments. CERD has articulated this principle with regard to citizenship in various recommendations, for example, Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, 64th Session, 2004, CERD/C/64/Misc.11/rev.3 para 14 ‘deprivation of citizenship on the basis of race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin is a breach of States Parties’ obligations to ensure non-discriminatory enjoyment of the right to nationality.’ For example, UNHRC (2016: para 26). The Citizenship Law of 1982 is discriminatory and contravenes the prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of nationality. It violates the right of every child to acquire nationality, as it fails to protect the acquisition of citizenship for children born in Myanmar with no ‘genuine link’ to another State (see CRC/C/MMR/CO/3-4, paras. 41–42). It also gives overly broad power to the Government to revoke citizenship without due protection. It has led and continues to lead to statelessness. Goldston (2006:338) noted that self-determination as a concept in citizenship has maintained its popular appeal in states involved in post-WWII national liberation struggles, such as in Myanmar. In response to UNHRC comments calling for the amendment of the citizenship law, Presidential Spokesperson for Thein Sein, Ye Htut wrote on his Facebook page in 2013, ‘Any person ineligible under the law can’t be a citizen. This is our sovereign right.’ Quoted by Kyaw Hsu Mon (2013). Government Reject UN calls for Rohingya Citizenship. The Irrawaddy. An example of this approach to citizenship reform in Myanmar is Center for Diversity and National Harmony (2019). Myanmar’s Citizenship Law: An Analysis.