Loading...

Media is loading
 

Date of Award

Spring 2020

Degree Name

Bachelor of Arts

Department

Historical & Political Studies; College of Arts & Sciences

First Advisor

Jennifer Riggan

Abstract

The Rohingya Muslims have been subject to decades of persecution, violence and expulsion from Myanmar to Bangladesh. In order to aid the Rohingya, the international refugee regime has repeatedly used repatriation, which has only served as a temporary solution. Yet, are the Rohingya actually repatriated, or are they refouled? Repatriation, the most favored of the three ‘durable solutions’, is the voluntary return of refugees to their country of origin. On the other hand, refoulement is the forced return of refugees to their country of origin, and its use is prohibited under international law. The Rohingya are forcibly repatriated, or refouled, because the international community perceives the Rohingya people as residents of Myanmar and pressures the government to allow them to return on that basis. However, forced repatriation is ineffective, as the Rohingya remain in the liminal space of statelessness, not truly belonging in Myanmar or Bangladesh. This thesis focuses on case studies of the 1991, 2012, and 2017 exoduses and consequential refoulement of the Rohingya to reveal a problematic and seemingly inescapable cycle. We can better understand this cycle by looking at Liisa Malkki’s concept of refugees' liminal positioning within ‘the national order of things’ (Malkki 1995 a). Applying Malkki’s framework to these case studies helps to illuminate why forced repatriation continues to happen and why this ‘durable solution’ is ultimately ineffective.

Comments

International Studies

Additional Files

Final Thesis Draft.pdf (341 kB)

Share

COinS
 

The Rohingya Muslims: Liminality and Statelessness

The Rohingya Muslims have been subject to decades of persecution, violence and expulsion from Myanmar to Bangladesh. In order to aid the Rohingya, the international refugee regime has repeatedly used repatriation, which has only served as a temporary solution. Yet, are the Rohingya actually repatriated, or are they refouled? Repatriation, the most favored of the three ‘durable solutions’, is the voluntary return of refugees to their country of origin. On the other hand, refoulement is the forced return of refugees to their country of origin, and its use is prohibited under international law. The Rohingya are forcibly repatriated, or refouled, because the international community perceives the Rohingya people as residents of Myanmar and pressures the government to allow them to return on that basis. However, forced repatriation is ineffective, as the Rohingya remain in the liminal space of statelessness, not truly belonging in Myanmar or Bangladesh. This thesis focuses on case studies of the 1991, 2012, and 2017 exoduses and consequential refoulement of the Rohingya to reveal a problematic and seemingly inescapable cycle. We can better understand this cycle by looking at Liisa Malkki’s concept of refugees' liminal positioning within ‘the national order of things’ (Malkki 1995 a). Applying Malkki’s framework to these case studies helps to illuminate why forced repatriation continues to happen and why this ‘durable solution’ is ultimately ineffective.