Challenges in protecting Rohingya refugees: Pathways for international intervention

Öz

This study examines the efficacy of international legal frameworks in preventing human rights abuses against the Rohingya in Myanmar. Despite global human rights conventions, the ongoing crisis highlights a stark disconnect between international norms and their enforcement. The study scrutinizes the limitations of key international bodies, particularly the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), and the challenges posed by national sovereignty and geopolitical dynamics that hinder effective human rights protection. Utilizing qualitative analysis of existing literature, this research identifies the systemic shortcomings within international mechanisms and the inadequate application of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle in Myanmar's context. The findings suggest an urgent need for reform within international legal frameworks and the implementation of more effective measures to uphold human rights universally and ensure the safeguarding of vulnerable groups like the Rohingya. The paper concludes with recommendations to strengthen international legal measures, increased accountability for human rights violators, and a more assertive global stance against violations, aiming to bridge the gap between international legal commitments and real-world implementation.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Human rights violations
• Ineffective mechanisms
• International law
• Rohingya

Kaynakça

1. Bellamy, A. J., & Williams, P. D. (2011). The new politics of protection? Côte d'Ivoire, Libya and the responsibility to protect. International Affairs, 87(4), 825-850. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2346.2011.01006.x
2. Callahan, M. P. (2018). MYANMAR IN 2017 Crises of Ethnic Pluralism Set Transitions Back. Southeast Asian Affairs, 243-264. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26492780
3. Cetindamar, D. (2007). Corporate social responsibility practices and environmentally responsible behavior: The case of The United Nations global compact. Journal of Business Ethics, 76(2), 163-176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9265-4
4. Chit, W., & Kean, T. (2017). Communal conflict in Myanmar: The legislature’s response, 2012. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 47, 413-439.
5. Corominas, J., van Westen, C., Frattini, P., Cascini, L., Malet, J. P., Fotopoulou, S., Catani, F., Van Den Eeckhaut, M., Mavrouli, O., Agliardi, F., Pitilakis, K., Winter, M. G., Pastor, M., Ferlisi, S., Tofani, V., Hervás, J., & Smith, J. T. (2014). Recommendations for the quantitative analysis of landslide risk. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, 73(2), 209-263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-013-0538-8
6. Evans, G. (2004). The responsibility to protect: Rethinking Humanitarian Intervention. Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting, 98, 78-89. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272503700060857
7. Fair, C. C. (2018). Rohingya: Victims of a Great Game East. The Washington Quarterly, 41(3), 63-85. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163660X.2018.1519356
8. Goldmann, M. (2012). We need to cut off the head of the king: Past, present, and future approaches to international soft law. Leiden Journal of International Law, 25(2), 335-368. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156512000064

9. Gowlland-Debbas, V. (1994). Security council enforcement action and issues of state responsibility. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 43(1), 55-98. https://doi.org/10.1093/iclqaj/43.1.55
10. Groenleer, M. (2016). The United States, the European Union, and the International Criminal Court: Similar values, different interests? International Journal of Constitutional Law, 13(4), 923-944. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mov054
11. Haacke, J. (2009). Myanmar, the responsibility to protect, and the need for practical assistance. Global Responsibility to Protect, 1(2), 156-184. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1163/187598409X424289
12. Hampson, F. J. (2007). An overview of the reform of the UN Human Rights Machinery. Human Rights Law Review, 7(1), 7-27. https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngl030
13. Holliday, I. (2014). Addressing Myanmar’s Citizenship Crisis. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 44(3), 404-421. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472336.2013.877957
14. Hunt, C. T. (2019). Analyzing the Co-Evolution of the Responsibility to Protect and the Protection of Civilians in UN Peace Operations. International Peacekeeping, 26(5), 630-659. https://doi.org/10.1080/13533312.2019.1659734
15. Ibrahim, H., & Nordin, R. (2015). The principle of responsibility to protect: The Case of Rohingya in Myanmar. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 2(1), 1-18. https://core.ac.uk/reader/153832270#page=15
16. Khairi, A., Askandar, K., & Wahab, A. A. (2018). From Myanmar to Malaysia: Protracted refugee situations of rohingya people. International Journal of Engineering and Technology (UAE), 7(3), 192-196. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Aizat-Khairi/publication/327202087_From_Myanmar_to_Malaysia_Protracted_refugee_situations_of_rohingya_people/links/5b8e967e299bf114b7f422d6/From-Myanmar-to-Malaysia-Protracted-refugee-situations-of-rohingya-people.pdf
17. Kipgen, N. (2014). Addressing the Rohingya Problem. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 49(2), 234-247. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021909613505269
18. Negrón-Gonzales, M., & Contarino, M. (2014). Local Norms Matter: Understanding National Responses to the Responsibility to Protect. Global Governance, 20(2), 255-276. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24526281
19. Nishikawa, Y. (2020). The Reality of Protecting the Rohingya: An Inherent Limitation of the Responsibility to Protect. Asian Security, 16(1), 90-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/14799855.2018.1547709
20. Olivier, M. l. (2002). The relevance of 'soft law' as a source of international human rights. Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa, 35(2), 289-307. https://doi.org/doi:10.10520/AJA00104051_164
21. Othman, M. F., Othman, Z., Hashim, K. F., & Azhar, A. (2015). Between Non-Interference and Resposibility To Protect: The Plight of the Rohingya People. In 2 nd International Conference on Innovation and Sustainability, 12-13th November 2015, Duangtawan Hotel, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
22. Pandiaraj, S. (2016). Sovereignty as Responsibility: Reflections on the Legal Status of the Doctrine of Responsibility to Protect. Chinese Journal of International Law, 15(4), 795-815. https://doi.org/10.1093/chinesejil/jmw038
23. Rana, M. S., & Riaz, A. (2023). Securitization of the Rohingya Refugees in Bangladesh. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 58(7), 1274-1290. https://doi.org/10.1177/00219096221082265
24. Sohel, M. S. (2017). The Rohingya crisis in Myanmar: Origin and emergence. Saudi J. Humanities Soc. Sci, 2. https://doi.org/10.21276/sjhss.2017.2.11.1
25. Szurlej, C. (2016). Preventing genocide against the Rohingya muslim minority in Myanmar. Język–Szkoła–Religia, 11(2), 89-116. https://czasopisma.bg.ug.edu.pl/index.php/JSR/article/view/525
26. Trihartono, A. (2018). Myanmar’s Worsening Rohingya Crisis: A Call for Responsibility to Protect and ASEAN’s Response. In B. McLellan (Ed.), Sustainable Future for Human Security: Society, Cities and Governance (pp. 3-16). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5433-4_1
27. Tritto, A., & Camba, A. (2022). State-facilitated Industrial Parks in the Belt and Road Initiative: Towards a framework for understanding the localization of the Chinese development model. World Development Perspectives, 28, 100465. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wdp.2022.100465
28. Zahed, I. U. M. (2021). Responsibility To Protect? The International Community’s Failure To Protect The Rohingya. Asian Affairs, 52(4), 934-957. https://doi.org/10.1080/03068374.2021.1999689