Statelessness, Treaty Law, Customary International Law and The Rohingya Crisis

Abstract

The Rohingya crisis proves that international human rights law has not been implemented since World War II. The 1951 Refugee Convention plays an important role in protecting people, but it doesn't always work when a country revokes someone's citizenship and expels them. In such situations, customary international law exerts significant influence. The principle of non-refoulement, which initially was a proposal to refrain from returning individuals in dangerous situations, later evolved into a strong legal obligation. Countries should adhere to this principle, both in their domestic legal framework and in the context of international law. The prohibition of arbitrary revocation of citizenship will soon become an important element of international law. Current study examines the endeavors of humanitarian practitioners and displaced populations in Bangladesh as they strive to ascertain meaningful solutions to the Rohingya crisis, encompassing the reinstatement of citizenship, the guarantee of individual safety, and the promotion of self-determination. The enforcement of customary international law to resolve the Rohingya crisis through diplomatic means can help stop this ongoing cycle of human rights violations.