The Rohingya Refugees in Bangladesh: A Vulnerable Group in Law and Policy

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/272026723
The Rohingya Refugees in Bangladesh: A Vulnerable Group in Law and Policy
Article · January 2014
CITATIONS READS
12 27,137
3 authors, including:
Al- Imran N. Mian

Hajee Mohammad Danesh Science and Technology University Islamic University (Bangladesh)
1 PUBLICATION 12 CITATIONS 19 PUBLICATIONS 44 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Book Chapter View project
All content following this page was uploaded by N. Mian on 06 October 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Studies in Social Sciences
ISSN 2201-4624
Volume 8, Number 2, 2014, 226-253
The Rohingya Refugees in Bangladesh: A Vulnerable Group in Law

and Policy
Hassan Faruk Al Imran, Md. Nannu Mian

Department of Law, Uttara University, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Corresponding author: Md. Nannu Mian, Department of Law, Uttara University, Dhaka,
Bangladesh
Abstract. Bangladesh is an over populated country of South Asia. India and Myanmar are the
closest neighboring states of Bangladesh with whom it shares its borders. Right after her
independence in 1971, Bangladesh has started experiencing the constant refugee flight of Muslim
Rohingya from Myanmar because of the fear of religious as well as ethnic persecution. Bangladesh
has mostly welcomed them and provided them protection under the ad hoc decisions,
notwithstanding there is no statutory law for the refugees. But till 2013, no solution has been found
and the numbers of refugee flights have been gradually increasing to the extent it is said, Rohingya
refugees are spoiling the reputation of Bangladesh in the international arena besides committing
various crimes under the guise of fake Bangladeshi passport. Bangladesh is in a quandary over the
refugee issues: firstly being the human rights issue and secondly the national security issue. I am of
the positive and proactive opinion that it is now the appropriate time that Bangladesh should enact
strict domestic laws to prevent the indirectly forced entrance of the Rohingyas from Myanmar.
Qualitative and analytical research methods have been applied primarily; besides, non-doctrinal
method has also been applied in this research.
Keywords: Refugee, Non-Refoulement, Rohingya, State Policy, National Security.
© Copyright 2014 the authors. 226

Journal of Studies in Social Sciences 227
Introduction
Bangladesh has started experiencing the problems of the issues of Refugees since
1978; almost 200,000 refugees came into Bangladesh and took shelter. These
refugees fled from Myanmar and known as “Rohingya”. Again in 1991-92
approximately 250,000 refugees fled from Myanmar‟s western Rakhine state and
this ethnic, linguistic and religious minority of the Myanmar community started
living in the south east district of Cox‟s Bazaar. That was just the beginning of the
journey of the refugees and it is still proceeding unabated. But this Rohingya issue
has now assumed an alarming proportion in Bangladesh which being a densely
populated state faces various social and economic difficulties while giving them the
needed refuge. In fact, legally Bangladesh is not bound to be the final sanctuary for
the refugees from Myanmar or from any other state. As with many other countries
in Asia, Bangladesh is not a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention or its 1967
Protocol. Neither is it a party to the 1954 and 1961 Statelessness Conventions.1
Even though Bangladesh is not a member of the 1951 Refugee Convention, yet
Bangladesh has quite often widely opened its arms to welcome theses refugees only
on humanitarian ground, and no more no less. But the reality of the scenario is that
Bangladesh still has not the luxury to afford these refugees the political neither the
economic comfort of accommodation as a political asylum. In the absence of any
strict domestic law, to save its image in the international arena, Bangladesh is
struggling very hard indeed to overcome this refugee issue.2 The vision of this write-
up is to highlight the problems of Rohingya refugees and also to recommend the
framing of a strict domestic law to specifically handle this situation.
Definition of Refugee
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Office of the (UNHCR),
was established on Dec. 14, 1950 by the General Assembly which is also known as
The UN Refugee Agency. Since its establishment till now the UNHCR is one of the
specialized organs of the United Nations which deals with the refugee issues. It
228 Journal of Studies in Social Sciences
seeks permanent solutions to the refugee problems, offers international protection

to refugees, coordinates the activities of voluntary agencies, and assists the most
needy refugee groups, particularly, in their voluntary repatriation, local integration
or resettlement to a third country. The UNHCR is a voluntary organization of the
United Nations that works all over the world. 3
In July 1951, a diplomatic conference in Geneva adopted the Convention relating to

the Status of Refugees4 („1951 Convention‟), which was later amended by the 1967
Protocol. The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees is the key legal
document in defining who are termed as the refugees, their rights and legal
obligations of states.5 Initially, the 1951 Convention was more or less limited to
protecting European refugees in the aftermath of World War II, but the 1967
Protocol expanded its scope as the problem of population displacement spread
around the world. 6 The 1967 Protocol removed the geographical and temporal
restrictions from the convention.7
The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol has
become the preliminary instruments in the development of international refugee
law. At present, there are 148 countries that subscribe to one or both of these
instruments, expressing a worldwide consensus on the definition of the terms
refugee and the fundamental rights to be granted to the refugees.8 According to the
1951 Refugee Convention, a refugee is defined as a person who:
Owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion,

nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is
outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear,
is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country or to return
there because there is a fear of persecution...9
The reasons of persecution must be one of the five grounds listed in article 1 A(2) of
the Refugee Convention, namely: race, religion, nationality, membership of a
particular social group or political opinion. Persecution based on any other ground
will not be considered as this is the limitation of the definition. Lately, it has been
observed that other numerous reasons cause or, to be exact, force the person to flee
due to the existence of critical situational circumstances, such as, civil war, natural
disaster, unmitigibable poverty, mass unemployment and multifarious other causes
which need additional inclusion under the definition of a refugee.10 According to the
definition, certain person will not get the status of refugees if he/she- a) has a record
to commit a crime against humanity or any other crime defined under international
instruments; b) has committed a non-political crime; c) or has connectivity or
allegation to commit any other crime which is contradictory with the provision of
the United Nations.11
A refugee has to prove four elements of situational circumstances according to the

definition of Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Refugee Convention, i.e., i) “well founded fear
of persecution”, ii) “flee across the border of one's country”, iii) “discriminations
based on race, sex, and religion” and iv) “unwilling to return to one's country unless
safety is guaranteed”. Firstly, the term well founded fear of persecution usually
indicates a state of mind which means there must be a reason of fear to be
persecuted and of course with the reality of its existence. This implies that it is not
only the fear of the person seeking the status of a refugee but this fear must be
supported by an objective situation. Secondly, the refugees flee from their own
nationality or from the place they are residing to seek refuge in another country, i.e.,
one must cross the border of the state from which he/she fled. Thirdly, the refugees
are forced to flee because they are being unfairly discriminated on the basis of
his/her race, sex, religion or membership in a social or political group. And finally,
the refugees are not willing to return until and unless they get an assurance of the
ending of that unrest situation which makes them bound to flee from their own
place until it is satisfied by the UNHCR that there exists a reasonableness in the
situation which makes it possible for theses refugees to go back to their own state.12
International Instruments and Supportive Authority of Refugees

The international refugee law is a part of the human rights law the aim of which is
to promote human rights. In simple words, human rights are those basic rights of
human which they own from the very moment of their birth (mostly) and without
which a human cannot survive and among the human rights are right to life and
equality before the law social security. Hence, states, instead of not being part of
1951 convention relating to the status of refugees, still provide shelter to refugees
whenever it is needed as a respect under the obligations of the international law
and the humanitarian ground. According to the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (UDHR) 1948 of Article 14(1), “Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in
other countries asylum from persecution”. The UDHR is the first ever international
human rights document which represents the rights which are entitled to all human
beings. It was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10th December,
1948.13 Article 3 of the 1984 Convention against Torture states,
No state parties shall expel, repel, return (refouler), or extradite a person to

another state where there are substantial grounds for believing that he
would be in danger of being subjected to torture.14
Article 26 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Right, 1966 states
that “All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any
discrimination to the equal protection of the law”. In this respect, the law shall
prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective
protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language,
religion, political or other opinion of national or social origin, property, birth or
other status.”15
As per the principle of non-refoulement, a state is obliged to provide shelter to a

refugee as customary international law. The principle of non-refoulement is often
referred to as the cornerstone of asylum and of international refugee law.16 Article
33 (1) of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, states:
No Contracting State shall expel or return (refouler) a refugee in any manner

whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be
threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a
particular social group or political opinion.
In fact, the respect for the principle of non-refoulement requires that asylum
applicants be protected against return to a place where their life or freedom might
be threatened until it has been reliably ascertained that such threats would not
exist and that, therefore, they are not refugees. The protection against refoulement
under Article 33(1) applies to any person who is a refugee under the terms of the
1951 Convention, that is, anyone who meets the requirements of the refugee
definition contained in Article 1A (2) of the 1951 Convention (the “inclusion” criteria)
and does not come within the scope of one of its exclusion provisions as per Article
1A (2) of the 1951 Convention.17
The non-refoulement obligation under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention is binding

on all organs of a State party to the 1951 Convention and/or the 1967 Protocol as
well as any other person or entity acting on its behalf.18 Within the framework of
the 1951 Convention/1967 Protocol, the principle of non-refoulement constitutes an
essential and non-derogable component of international refugee protection. The
central importance of the obligation not to return a refugee to a risk of persecution
is reflected in Article 42(1) of the 1951 Convention and Article VII(1) of the 1967
Protocol, in which list Article 33 as one of the provisions of the 1951 Convention to
which no reservations are permitted.19
While the principle of non-refoulement is basic, it is recognized that there may be

certain legitimate exceptions to the principle. Article 33 (2) of the 1951 Convention
provides that the benefit of the non-refoulement principle may not be claimed by a
refugee. Article 33 (2) states that:
The benefit of the present provision may not, however, be claimed by a

refugee to whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding him/her as a
danger to the security of the country in which he/she is, or who, having been
convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a
danger to the community of that country.
According to Article 33(2), refugees can exceptionally be returned on two grounds: (i)
in case of threat to the national security or public order of the host country; and (ii)
in the case that their proven criminal nature and record constitute a danger to the
community.20
Non-refoulement has been defined in a number of international refugee instruments,

both at the universal and regional levels, notably the 1969 OAU Convention
Governing Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa, 21 the 1969 American
Convention on Human Rights,22 the 1984 Cartagena Declaration on Refugees,23 and
the Declaration on Territorial Asylum adopted by the United Nations General
Assembly on 14 December 1967.24
Bangladesh and Refugee Issues

Bangladesh has the familiarity to deal with this refugee issue both as a sending
state as well as a receiving state. In 1971, during the liberation war between
Bangladesh (East Pakistan) and Pakistan, where approximately 10 million people
fled from Bangladesh and to India as refugees. The Indian government reported
that around 8 to 9 million migrants took refuge in 829 refugee camps. It can also be
added that around 20 million people were displaced within the country.25 Just after
the ending of the liberation war, all those Bangladeshi nationals staying in India as
refugees came back to Bangladesh voluntarily. Upon independence, around 300,000
Biharis who considered themselves as “Stranded Pakistanis” were stuck in
Bangladesh. However, these Biharis could not be considered as Refugees because
they did not comply with the requirements provided under Article 1 of the 1951
convention, i.e., Bihari people did not cross the broader and they did not flee from
their habitual residence. 26 In May 2003, in Abid Khan and Others vs. the
Government of Bangladesh,27, a significant ruling was given by the honorable High
Court Division of Bangladesh which allowed 10 Bihari voting rights and declared
that they were still the citizens of the country in Bangladesh.28
Refugees coming from Myanmar are called Rohingyas who are an ethnic group of
people and considered as a minority community living in North Arkan in Myanmar.
This minority community is not regarded as the citizen of Myanmar in spite of their
residence in Myanmar for centuries. Rohingyas have no freedom of movement and
need to apply for passes (even for traveling purposes in their country of domicile)
which are not free of charge, limited marketing access and limited employment
opportunities.29
Rohingya Refugees in Bangladesh

Recently, the plights of the Muslim Rohingya30 refugees have caught the attention
of the world community. Suddenly hundreds of people from neighboring Myanmar
State were fleeing by boat through Naf River, which is the common coastal area
between Bangladesh and Myanmar, into the south coasts of Bangladesh,
particularly, St. Martin Island, Teknaf, Shahpori Island and Cox's Bazar areas
because of persecution. A state of emergency was declared in Rakhine on June 2012
after deadly clashes between the Buddhist and the Muslim communities. Violence
flared after the rape and murder of a Buddhist woman in May 1212, followed by an
attack on a bus carrying Muslims. Communal unrest continued for weeks as
Muslims and Buddhists were engaged in attacks and reprisals, leaving many dead
and forcing thousands of people on both sides to flee their homes.31 According to the
Myanmar government, 211 people had been killed in Rakhine since June 2012;
although Rohingya activists estimated the number to be closer to 1,000. There were
140,000 internally displaced persons (IDPs) 94% of whom were Muslims.32
Beginning of the Journey of Rohingya to Bangladesh at Present

Rohingya issue is not, however, a new phenomenon for Bangladesh. The first wave
of Rohingya refugees fleeing from Arakan to the area of Cox‟s Bazar occurred in
1784 when the Burmese King Bodawpaya invaded and annexed Arakan to the then
Kingdom of Ava in central Burma. Apart from the inflow of refugees in 1942, two
major influxes of Rohingya people took place in Bangladesh in 1978 and during the
warring period from 1991 to 1992 to escape the Myanmar governed backed
systematic genocidal and ethnic cleansing programme. Now around 0.5 million
documented and undocumented Rohingya people are living in Cox‟s Bazaar,
Bandarban and its adjacent areas under the generosity of Bangladesh for over 30
years.33
Most notably, during 1991 and 1992, more than 270,000 Rohingya refugees crossed
the border from Burma into Bangladesh. However, the most detestable part of it is
their characteristic evil habit of bringing along with them their experiences of
horrible violence in the repulsive form of forced labour, rape, executions and torture.
As a persecuted group of refugees from Myanmar who shares a similar Muslim
identity, Bangladesh initially welcomed them with open arms as fellow Muslims.
There was no domestic law in Bangladesh to regulate the administration of refugee
affairs or to guarantee refugee rights. UNHCR‟s legal status in the country was
based solely on a Memorandum of Understanding that was concluded in 1993 and
which was originally intended to remain valid for a year, with a second year‟s
extension if required.34 Initially Bangladeshi Government welcomed the UNHCR,
the Red Cross and various other international agencies to assist the refugees.35 By
then about 258,000 Rohingyas were registered by the government of Bangladesh
and granted refugee status through an executive order, however, without any
proper legal sanction. In addition to that, more thousands of Rohingyas arrived in
Bangladesh and allowed to freely mix with the local population over the years.36
The Cause of Flight of Rohingyas from Myanmar

The Rohingya, an ethnic minority of Myanmar (previously known as Burma) is one
of the most persecuted groups of people in the world.37 They speak a version of
Chittagonian, a regional dialect of Bengali which is also used extensively
throughout south-eastern Bangladesh. The Rohingyas are virtually friendless
amongst the Myanmar group of other ethnic, linguistic and religious communities.
They were not formally recognized as one of the country‟s official national groups
when the country gained independence in 1947, and they were excluded from both
the full and the associate citizenship when these categories were introduced by the
1982 Citizenship Act. As well as being stateless, Myanmar‟s Rohingyas are
confronted with other forms of persecution, discrimination and exploitation.38
The 1982 Citizenship law of Myanmar left the Rohingyas as stateless and rendered
them illegal migrants in their own country. According to the new citizenship law,
there were three categories of citizens, namely, i) full, ii) associated, and iii)
naturalized citizens. The Rohingyas do not fulfill any of these three criteria.39 They
are the only ethnic group in Myanmar restricted from marriage, traveling beyond
their village or building as well as maintaining religious structures. In addition,
they are subject to frequent forced labor, arbitrary taxation, and sexual violence and
land confiscations by the Nasaka. Even, Rohingya women cannot become pregnant
without official permission. Some deliver their babies secretly in Bangladesh and
many young couples flee to Bangladesh because of the inability to obtain permission
to marry in Myanmar.40
It has been criticized that the effect of the Burma Citizenship Law 1982 is to make
it almost impossible for the Rohingya to gain citizenship. This violates the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child
and international norms prohibiting discrimination of racial and religious
minorities. The legal and practical constraints imposed by the Burma Citizenship
Law 1982 render it “almost impossible” for the Rohingyas to be recognized as the
legitimate citizens of Burma.41
As a result of such discrimination, large numbers of Rohingyas have left Myanmar

and taken up residence elsewhere. While there is a general lack of precision with
respect to the number of people involved, they are estimated to be up to 400,000 in
Bangladesh, a similar number in the Gulf States, some 200,000 in Pakistan, 20,000
in Thailand and 15,000 in Malaysia. UNHCR estimates some 750,000 Rohingyas
remain in northern Rakhine state and other parts of Myanmar.42
The Discreetly Rational Reasons of Refusal by the Bangladeshi

Government to Accommodate Rohingya Refugees
In 2012, for the first time Bangladesh refused to accommodate the Rohingyas. The
Government of Bangladesh decided not to welcome the Rohingya refugees in the
territory of Bangladesh because of national security and unmitigatingly over
burdening the country due to the Rohingya refugees, who have been staying in
Bangladesh for more than 20 years without contributing any economic and social
benefit to the host country.43 In June 2012, Bangladeshi security forces turned back
16 boats carrying more than 660 Rohingya people, most of them women and
children as they tried to enter from neighboring Burma a crossing the Naf River.44
A senior official of the Foreign Ministry said, "Our position is clear that we won't
accept any more refugees in Bangladesh. There are already 400,000 Rohingyas here
and we cannot allow anymore. Rather, we are in a process to send back the existing
refugees." 45 It was criticized that “on June 10, 2012, Myanmar declared a state of
emergency in the western state of Rakhine after clashes between the Buddhists and
the Rohingyas that left 50 people dead. Ten days later, on June 20, 2012, more than
90,000 Rohingya refugees fled Myanmar to the Bangladeshi border, only to be

denied access. The irony is that June 20 is coincidentally the World Refugee Day.”46
On June 2012, the Foreign Minister of Bangladesh, Dipu Moni, expressed anxiety
that it would be a serious problem for Bangladesh if there was any fresh influx of
Rohingyas, as there were already a huge number of them in the country. The
Foreign Minister also pointed out, "Bangladesh is a densely populated country and
the Rohingyas have seriously impacted on our society, law and order, and
environment. Considering all aspects, it will create serious problems for us," adding,
"We are not interested in more people coming to Bangladesh.”47
On 9 August 2009, Foreign Minister Dipu Moni, in a statement said that around
400,000 illegal Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh have been causing law and order
to slide including environmental damage in the form of illegal clearing of forested
land for habitation and that statement was released after a meeting between Dipu
Moni and Raymond Hall, the regional representative of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).48
On 17 August 2012, the Foreign Minister further said that Rohingyas would
definitely be sent back to Myanmar soon, categorically adding, „We have finalised to
send them back to their homeland through discussion with the Myanmar authority
but could not do so due to the occurrence of a riot there,‟ Dipu Moni further said,
„We have already urged Myanmar about the safe return of the Rohingyas so that
they can come back to their homeland voluntarily with their rights and dignity,‟ she
said.49
On 29 August 2013, Foreign Minister Dipu Moni continued further, “Bangladesh

was already hosting a huge population of Rohingya refugees from Myanmar and
cannot take in any more,” to newly appointed country representative of the UN
refugee agency UNHCR, Stina E Ljungdel.50 Bangladesh turned down the requests
made by some international agencies, NGOs and friendly countries to open its
border to Rohingyas fleeing sectarian violence in Myanmar. Foreign Minister Dipu

Moni in a statement in Parliament requested those agencies and friendly countries
to request the Myanmar government to resolve their internal problem without
overspilling it into its peaceful neighbouring countries. She also advised the donor
agencies to extend their help to the Rohingya victims in Myanmar instead of in
Bangladesh.51
Refugees and National Security

The Myanmar refugees and undocumented nationals are posing a serious threat to
the security, stability, prosperity, welfare and image of the country through their
involvement in serious crimes including drug and human trafficking, smuggling,
robbery and other organized crimes. There have also been confirmed reports that
these illegal Myanmar nationals are obtaining Bangladeshi passports to go to Saudi
Arabia through fraudulent means, falsification of national ID cards and birth
certificates and are causing huge embarrassments to the Bangladeshi community
living in Saudi Arabia following their arrests of unruly and unethical behavior and
practices all of which are summarily blamed on the Bangladeshi nationals. Recently
some Myanmar refugees had been arrested, while they were trying to go abroad
using forged Bangladeshi passports. The Rohingyas offer services at a much lower
rate than the local population and such practices are upsetting the job market in
the region. About 90% of the lower skilled laborers and staff employed in local
hotels, motels, ports and small business are all of Rohingya origin. They also work
as rickshaw pullers and day laborers. As a result, Bangladeshi workers are losing
out on their jobs. The Rohingyas refugees are adding extra pressure on the existing
crisis of the land and forests in the Cox‟s Bazar region. Bangladesh has lost
considerable area of reserve forest for providing land to the refugees for
construction of their shelter. Moreover, the refugees and undocumented Myanmar
nationals are regularly cutting off valuable trees and destroying woods in the
reserve forests in the Bandarban and Cox‟s‟ Bazar areas causing serious harm to
Bangladesh‟s environment, ecology and bio-diversity.52
Rohingya refugees impose quite a heavy burden on Bangladeshi economy and scant
resources. It is reported that many local people do not want to accept Rohingya
refugees, some of whom are allegedly involved in undesirable activities either
within the local area or on the border, posing a threat to peace and security of the
local people.53
Imtiaz Ahamed, Professor of International Relations of Dhaka University, identified

that Rohingya refugees are a serious threat to the security of Bangladesh. He
pointed out four dimensions of security threat caused by the Rohingyas, namely, i)
Politico-Military Dimension of Security, ii) Economic Dimension of Security, iii)
Social Dimension of Security and iv) Environmental Dimension of Security.54
Politico-Military Dimension of Security includes Insurgency and Islamic Militancy,

Drugs and Arms Smuggling, Terrorism and Refugee Camp related security
measures.55 Economic Dimension of Security includes Illegal Trade/ Smuggling
and Employment Issue.56
The Rohingya camps in Cox‟s Bazar District are fertile ground for recruitment of
dissident members by the Islamic militants. With little love for Myanmar, and
alienated from Bangladesh, the stateless Rohingyas are vulnerable and desperate,
and likely become militant themselves in an effort to uphold their interests. The
militancy of the Rohingya Solidarity Organization (RSO) and the Arakan Rohingya
Islamic Front (ARIF) are well known for their militant activities. They were
fighting for an autonomy or independence for the Rohingyas. When founded, the
activities of both organizations were restricted to Arakan, but following a series of
pushes and the disappointment of not finding a refuge in Bangladesh, they have
expanded their operations well beyond the Southeastern region of Bangladesh.
Illegal small arms trade, a flourishing business along the border, is also a security
concern for Bangladesh whose Border Guard has only one border outpost (BOP) to
keep vigil on the 129-km border. Those pushed back refugees live in the border
jungle and get involved in smuggling.57
Constitutional Provisions, Role of Judiciary & State Policy

Bangladesh does not have any domestic or national law which can cover the issue of
asylum seekers. In Bangladesh, foreigners irrespective of asylum seekers or simply
visitors are treated under some old laws (e.g., The Passport Act, 1920; The
Naturalization Act, 1926; The Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939; The Foreigners
Act, 1946; The Registration of Foreigners‟ Rules, 1966; The Bangladeshi Citizenship
Act, 1951; The Bangladeshi Control of Entry Act, 1952; The Bangladeshi
Citizenship (Temporary Provision) 1972; The Bangladeshi Passport Order, 1973;
and the Extradition Act, 1974). 58 This is particularly caused by Bangladesh‟s
refusal to be a party to the UN Convention Relating to the Status of the Refugees,
1951 or its 1967 Protocol. 59 Thus, Bangladeshi government has irrefutably valid
reason to refuse the Rohingya refugees.
In 2003, in the landmark judgment of Abid Khan decision,60 the Supreme Court of
Bangladesh (High Court Division) held that the ten Urdu-speaking petitioners, born
both before and after 1971, were Bangladeshi nationals pursuant to the Citizenship
Act of 1951 61 and the Bangladeshi Citizenship (Temporary Provisions) Order of
1972, 62 and thereby directed the Government to register them as voters. The
Supreme Court further stated that residents of the camps and settlements had not
“attained any special status so as to be excluded from the operation of the laws of
the land”, and hence “mere residence” in the camps could not be deemed as
allegiance to another State.
The effect of the 2003 decision was limited to the ten petitioners. Subsequently, on
18 May 2008, in the case of Md. Sadaqat Khan, the Supreme Court of Bangladesh
(High Court Division) reaffirmed that all members the Urdu-speaking community
were nationals of Bangladesh in accordance with its laws and directed the Election
Commission to “enroll the petitioners and other Urdu-speaking people who want to
be enrolled in the electoral rolls and accordingly, give them National Identity Card
without any further delay.”63
However, the Rohingya issue is entirely different from the Urdu-speaking Bihari
issue. The Bihari people were already in Bangladesh and have been living there
since 1947 and afterwards. On the other hand, the Rohingyas are foreighners as
they were being pushed back by the Myanmar Government.
Article 27 of the constitution of Bangladesh states that “All citizens are equal before
the law and are entitled to equal protection of the law.” The Citizenship Act 1951
provides details on the procedure to be a citizen of Bangladesh. The Rohingya
people do not fall within the categories.64 According to Article 25 of the constitution
of Bangladesh:
“The state shall base its international relations on the principles of respect
for national sovereignty and equality, non-interference in the internal affairs
of other countries, peaceful settlement of international disputes, and respect
for international law and the principles enunciated in the United Nations
Charter….”
It is pointed out that probably Article 25 of the constitution of Bangladesh is the

only reason of obligation for Bangladesh to continue with the refugee issue coming
from other states. International commitment mentioned in the decision merits to be
interpreted not only as a commitment arising out of the obligation under the UN
charter but also as commitments and obligations under the customary international
law which Bangladesh is a party to.65 But the question is how far should a country
abide by the international law? And in the case where obligation arises under the
terms of treaties, it depends on the internal policy which literally means the
domestic law of the land.
Bangladesh v. Unimarine S.A. Panama and Others 66 relates to the Bangladeshi

position on the international custom. The court in this case declared that the
customary international law is binding on the state, and generally gives effect to the
rules and norms of the customary international law. The court cited the rule of
immunity of foreign missions, envoys, etc., as good examples of the customary
international law which would be binding on the states. The question arises in this
case whether private foreign companies enjoy immunity from arrest and seizures.
The court denied such immunity to be accorded to the private foreign companies
and denied to protect them from arrest and seizures. The court observed, “Immunity
is available under the public international law to persons and properties of
classified companies as mentioned in the list which is usually filed by foreign
missions and international agencies.”67
However, where there is a clear domestic legislation on a disputed issue, the court
gives effect to the domestic law, not to the customary norms of the international
law.68 This particular aspect of the domestic law is vis-à-vis an international custom
which was raised in Bangladesh and Others v Sombon Asavhan. 69 Bangladeshi
navy captured three Thai fishing trawlers for illegal entrance and fishing in the
territorial waters of Bangladesh. The question was whether the trawlers were
within the territorial waters or the exclusive economic zone of Bangladesh. Instead
of applying the existing international law regarding the territorial waters, the
Supreme Court settled the issue on the basis of Bangladeshi Territorial Waters and
Maritime Zones Act, 1974, which laid down specific provision for maritime
boundaries for Bangladesh. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court observed ,
“it is well settled that where there is a municipal law on an international subject
the national court‟s function is to enforce the municipal law within the plain
meaning of the statute‟.
In Saiful Islam Dildar v Government of Bangladesh and Others70 the High Court
Division considered the issue of the customary international law's right to self
determination vis-a-vis the provision of the Constitution of Bangladesh. Justice A.M.
Mahamudur Rahaman interpreted Article 25 of the Constitution of Bangladesh,
and opined that the fundamental principle of the State Policy cannot be enforced by
the court.71
A significant judgment regarding the implementation of the international human

rights law by the domestic courts in Bangladesh was given by Justice Bimalendu
Bikash Roy Chowdhury. 72 In Hussain Muhammad Ershad v. Bangladesh and
Others, Justice Chowdhury observed, “True it is that the universal human rights
norms, whether given in the universal declaration or in the covenants, are not
directly enforceable in the national courts. But if their provisions are incorporated
into the domestic law, they are enforceable in the national courts. The local laws,
both constitutional and statutory, are not always in consonance with the norms
contained in the international human rights instruments. The national court should
not, I feel, straightway ignore the international obligation, which a country
undertakes. If the domestic laws are not clear enough or there is nothing there in
the national courts, only then should the national courts draw upon the principles
incorporated in the international instruments. But in the cases where the domestic
laws are clear and inconsistent with the international obligations of the state
concerned, the courts will be obliged to respect the national laws, but shall draw the
attention of the law makers to such inconsistencies.”73
Therefore, in the light of the discussion, it could be concluded that the Bangladeshi
government has had a legitimate security concern regarding the Rohingya issue. By
denying the Rohingya to cause a refugee influx, Bangladesh did not violate the
principle of the non-refoulement a s p er Ar t i cl e 3 3 ( 2 ) ; rather Bangladesh gave
priority to its national security. However, Bangladesh is not only the states who
„push back‟ the Rohingya refugees as the same treatment was also meted out by
Thailand and Malaysia to the Rohingya. It is said that the Rohingya refugees are „a
threat to and a burden for Thailand.‟74 In 2009, the Malaysian Prime Minister has
called for the repulsion of the Myanmar's Muslim boat people to be pushed back if
they attempted to land on any Southeast Asian shores in search of asylum.75
Conclusion
There is no refugee law and policy in Bangladesh which, incidentally, is not a party
to the 1951 Refugee Convention/1967 Protocol. The provisions of the municipal law
have always been given priority over the customary international law where the
existence of domestic law is present. Bangladesh has been criticized for not opening
its doors to the Rohingya refugees in recent times. If Bangladesh wants to overcome
the situation regarding these refugee issues, firstly, it has to enact a strong
domestic legislation on the refugee and the immigration law, which may restrict the
flow of refugees. Secondly, it has to find out all the unlisted and unregistered
refugees living within its territory. Thirdly, Bangladesh can go for some bilateral or
multilateral treaties with its neighbor countries as well as other countries of Asia
for dealing with the refugee influx. And finally, Bangladesh will have to convince
the international communities to put pressure on Myanmar to resolve the Rohingya
refugee problem that Bangladesh has been carrying for the last 20 years without
any foreseeable economic and social benefits whatsoever.
Nonetheless, it is to be seriously and rationally viewed through the economic and

social perspectives that it is mainly because of the large Rohingya refugee influx
into Bangladesh for over 20 years that has critically over spilled its disastrous effect
on the social economic stability of the home citizens who have been situationally
displaced due to the pressure brought about by the Rohingya refugees that
ultimately causes the Bangladeshi citizens themselves to seek better livelihood
elsewhere, especially into Malaysia and the Middle East countries. This
phenomenon is brought about by the fact that as the Rohingya refugees are
critically desperate to earn a living for their very survival, they would quote a much
lower fee or salary for any job offered to them and this, incidentally, has seriously
upset the wage pattern in the labor market of the host country. A similar analogy
could be drawn in the form of water being constantly poured into a glass of milk in
which the milk would ultimately be spilled out of the glass by the water which
would then ultimately occupy the glass. Before the situational circumstances can be
fully dictated by the external influence of the Rohingya refugee influx and possibly
develop into immitigable proportion, it is highly timely for Bangladesh to take a
convincingly effective proactive and preventive measure to restore the viability of
its national economy, prosperity, welfare and security so as to curtail the brain
drain of Bangladeshi specialists from exploring further afield in the international
labor market.
References
[1] Ahamed, Imtiaz. The Plight of the Stateless Rohingyas, Dhaka: The University Press Ltd, 2010.
[2] Akhtaruzaman, Md. Legal Protection of Refugees under Bangladesh Laws, in Mizanur Rahman
(ed), Human Rights & Domestic Implication Mechanisms,, ELCOP, Dhaka, 2006.
[3] Alam, Shah M. Enforcement of International Human Rights Law by Domestic Court, Dhaka:
New Warsi Book Corporation, 2007.
[4] Amin, Khairul. Dhaka Rules out Shelter for Rohingya.
<http://news.priyo.com/national/2012/06/15/dhaka-rules-out-shel-53558.html>.
[5] Bikash, Udatta. Rohingya Refugees, The Daily Star, Sunday, March 2, 2008;
<http://archive.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=25644.>.
[6] D'Costa, Bina. Rohingyas and the 'Right to Have Rights', The Daily Star, Forum, Volume 6 |
Issue 08 | August 2012; <http://archive.thedailystar.net/forum/2012/August/rohingyas.htm. >.
[7] Gill, Goodwin. The Refugee in International Law, London: Oxford Press, 1996.
[8] Goodwin-Gill, Guy S., Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and Protocol Relating to the
Status of Refugees: Introductory Note, <http://legal.un.org/avl/ha/prsr/prsr.html.>.
[9] Hamid and Emma Crichton, The Rohingya Crisis of June 2012: A Survivor's Testimony, Open
Democracy, 6 March 2013; <http://www.opendemocracy.net/opensecurity/hamid-emma-
crichton/rohingya-crisis-of-june-2012-survivors-testimony.>.
[10] Haque, Emdadul. Humanitarian vs. Legal Deals: Human Rights Monitor Rohingya people, The
Daily Star, Tuesday, July 2, 2013; <http://www.thedailystar.net/beta2/news/humanitarian-vs-
legal-deals/.>.
[11] Hossain, Md Zakir. Journey towards Solution of Rohingya Refugee Crisis. Dhaka University,
2012.
[12] Huda, Mirza Sadaqat. The Rohingya Refugee Crisis of 2012: Asserting the Need for
Constructive Regional & International Engagement, South Asian Journal, Issue 7 - January
2013.
[13] Islam, Md Zahirul. Rohingya Refugee Problem: A Burden on Bangladesh, The Daily Sun, Dhaka,
Monday 18 June 2012; <http://www.daily-sun.com/details_yes_18-06-2012_Rohingya-refugee-
problem:-A-burden-on-Bangladesh_178_2_17_1_1.html.>.
[14] Khan, Abid and Others vs. Government of Bangladesh and Others, (2003) 55 DLR (HCD) 318
[15] Naser, Mostafa Mahmud & Afroz, Tanzima. Protection of Refugees in Bangladesh: Towards a
Comprehensive Legal Ragime, Dhaka University Law Journal Studies, 2007 Part 1. Vol. – XVIII
(Issue No-1).
[16] O'Sullivan, Kira. The Plight of Refugee: The Uncertain Future of Rohingya Refugees,
<http://www.fairobserver.com/article/uncertain-future-rohingya-refugees.>
[17] Rahman, Latifur, The Constitution of Peoples Republic of Bangladesh with Comments & Case
Laws, Dhaka: Mullic Brothers.
[18] Rahman, Utpala. The Rohingya Refugee: A Security Dilemma for Bangladesh, Journal of
Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 2010.
[19] Rashid, Harun Ur. Why are Rohingyas being refused entry into Bangladesh? The Daily Star,
Wednesday, 20 June, 2012. <http://archive.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-
details.php?nid=238943>.
1States of Denial, A review of UNHCR‟s Response to the Protracted Situation of Stateless Rohingya
Refugees in Bangladesh, UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES POLICY
DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION SERVICE (PDES), Geneva, Switzerland, Published on
December, 2011, page 1; http:// www.unhcr.org/4ee754c19.pdf [accessed 06 January 2013].
2 Dhaka Rules out Shelter for Rohingya Refugees, Khairul Amin on 15/06/2012;
http://news.priyo.com/national/2012/06/15/dhaka-rules-out-shel-53558.html. [accessed 06 January
2014].
3General Assembly Resolution 428 (V) of 14 December 1950.
4Convention relating to the Status of Refugees [hereinafter Refugee Convention], adopted on July 28,
1951 by the U.N. Conf. of Plenipotentiaries on the Status of Refugees & Stateless Persons convened
under U.N.G.A. Res. 429 (V) (Dec. 14, 1950), 189 U.N.T.S. 150 (entered into force Apr. 22, 1954).
5Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees [hereinafter Refugee Protocol], adopted by U.N.G.A. Res.
2198 (XXI) (Dec. 16, 1966), Jan. 31, 1967, 606 U.N.T.S. 267 (entered into force Oct. 4, 1967).
6 The 1951 Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol, UNHCR, September 2011;
www.unhcr.org/4ec262df9.pdf [accessed 06 January 2013].
7The 1951 Refugee Convention, Published by UNHCR; www.unhcr.org/pages/49da0e466.html.
[accessed 06 January 2013].
8Guy S. Goodwin-Gill, Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and Protocol Relating to the
Status of Refugees: Introductory Note, http://legal.un.org/avl/ha/prsr/prsr.html. [accessed 06 January
2014]
9Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Refugee Convention.
10Ibid.
11Article 1 (F), 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

12Goodwin Gill, The Refugee in International Law, 2nd edition, Oxford Press, 19.
13The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a milestone document in the history of
human rights. Drafted by representatives with different legal and cultural backgrounds from all
regions of the world, the Declaration was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in
Paris on 10 December 1948 General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) as a common standard of
achievements for all peoples and all nations. It sets out, for the first time, fundamental human rights
to be universally protected. http://www.ohchr.org/en/udhr/pages/introduction.aspx; [accessed 06
January 2014].
14 The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 December 1984
(resolution 39/46). The Convention entered into force on 26 June 1987.
15 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, adopted and opened for signature,
ratification and accession by General Assembly Resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966, entry
into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 49.
16Advisory Opinion on the Extraterritorial Application of Non-Refoulement Obligations under the
1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, UNHCR;
http://www.unhcr.org/4d9486929.pdf. [Accessed on 06 January 2014].
17 Ibid, p-2.
18 Article I (1) of the 1967 Protocol provides that the States Party to the Protocol undertake to apply
Articles 2–34 of the 1951 Convention.
19 Ibid, supranote 21, p – 5.
20Goodwin Gill, The Refugee in International Law, 2nd edition, Oxford Press, 139
21OAU Convention Governing Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa, 1969, 1001 U.N.T.S. 45,
entered into force 20 June 1974 [“1969 OAU Convention”]. Article II(3) reads: “No person shall be
subjected by a Member State to measures such as rejection at the frontier, return or expulsion,
which would compel him to return to or remain in a territory where his life, physical integrity or
liberty would be threatened for the reasons set out in Article I, paras. 1 and 2 [concerning
persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or
political opinion or who is compelled to leave his country of origin or place of habitual residence in
order to seek refuge from external aggression, occupation, foreign domination or events seriously
disturbing public order].”
221969 American Convention on Human Rights “Pact of San José, Costa Rica”, 1144 U.N.T.S. 123,
entered into force 18 July 1978 [hereinafter, “ACHR”]. Article 22(8) reads: “In no case may an alien
be deported or returned to a country, regardless of whether or not it is his country of origin, if in that
country his right to life or personal freedom is in danger of being violated because of his race,
nationality, religion, social status, or political opinions.”
23 Cartagena Declaration on Refugees, 22 November 1984, Annual Report of the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights, OAS Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.66/doc.10, rev. 1, at 190-93 (1984-85)
[hereinafter, “Cartagena Declaration”]. The Conclusion set out in section III(5) reads: “To reiterate
the importance and meaning of the principle of non-refoulement (including the prohibition of
rejection at the frontier) as a corner-stone of the international protection of refugees…” While not
legally binding, the provisions of the Cartagena Declaration have been incorporated into the
legislation of numerous States in Latin America.
24A/RES/2312 (XXII), 14 December 1967, at Article 3 ( “No person referred to in Article 1, para. 1,
shall be subjected to measures such as rejection at the frontier or, if he has already entered the
territory in which he seeks asylum, expulsion or compulsory return to any State where he may be
subjected to persecution.”).
25Bangladesh Genocide Archive: Refugees Escaping from the Genocide:
http://www.genocidebangladesh.org/?page_id=46 [accessed 06 January 2014].
26 Mostafa Mahmud Naser & Tanzima Afroz, Protection of Refugees in Bangladesh: Towards a
Comprehensive Legal Ragime, Dhaka University Law Journal Studies (2007) Part 1. Vol. – XVIII
(Issue No-1) p-112.
27Abid Khan and Others vs. Government of Bangladesh and Others, (2003) 55 DLR (HCD) 318
28 Rahman, Waliur, Vote for Stranded Pakistanis, BBC News, Tuesday, 6 May, 2003,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3003949.stm [Accessed on 06 January 2014].
29 Md Zakir Hossain, “Journey towards Solution of Rohingya Refugee Crisis” (paper presented on the
discussion on Rohingya issue, organized by National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) of
Bangladesh. The title of discussion was „Journey to Solution of Rohingya Refugee Crisis: A National
Consultation United Nation High Commission for Refugee,' at Dhaka University Nabab Nawab Ali
Chowdhury Senate Bhaban, September 23 2012).
30There are two basic concepts regarding the origins of the Rohingyas in Myanmar. One suggests
that the Rohingyas are descendents of Moorish, Arab and Persian traders, including Moghul, Turk,
Pathan, and Bengali soldiers turned migrants, who arrived between the ninth and fifteenth
centuries, married local women, and settled in the region. They also trace their ancestry to Central
Asians and some Indo-Mongoloid people. So, it shows that Rohingyas are the mixture of many kinds
of people. The another concept suggests that the Muslim population of the Rakhine state is mostly
Bengali migrants from the erstwhile East Pakistan and now Bangladesh, with some Indians coming
during the British period. Most of them speak Bengali with a strong „Chittagong dialect‟ as they
went there from Chittaogong region. The government of Myanmar and the majority Burman –
Buddhist population of the country subscribe to this position. See: Md.Shahabul Haque, Forced
Migration to Mainstream: A study on Rohingyas Refugees in Bangladesh, 16 Sep, 2012;
http://www.bdtoday.net/english/thisweekdetail/detail/31.[Accessed on 06 January 2013].
31BBC News Asia, 2 August 2012; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19092131
32Kira O'Sullivan, The Plight of Refugee: The Uncertain Future of Rohingya Refugees, 22 June 2013;
http://www.fairobserver.com/article/uncertain-future-rohingya-refugees. [Accessed on 06 January
2014].
33 Emdadul Haque, Humanitarian vs. Legal Deals : Human Rights Monitor Rohingya people, The
Daily Star, Tuesday, July 2, 2013; http://www.thedailystar.net/beta2/news/humanitarian-vs-legal-
deals/.[accessed 06 January 2014].
3410 Years for The Rohingya Refugees in Bangladesh: Past, Present And Future, by Médecins Sans
Frontières is a Private, International, Non-governmental, Humanitarian Organisation,
http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/publications/reports/2002/rohingya_report.pdf. [accessed 06
January 2014].
35Bina D'Costa, Rohingyas and the 'Right to Have Rights', The Daily Star, Forum, Volume 6 | Issue
08 | August 2012; http://archive.thedailystar.net/forum/2012/August/rohingyas.htm. [Accessed on 06
January 2014].
36 Udatta Bikash, Rohingya Refugees, The Daily Star, Sunday, March 2, 2008;
http://archive.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=25644. [Accessed on 06 January
2014].
37Hamid and Emma Crichton, The Rohingya Crisis of June 2012: A Survivor's Testimony, Open
Democracy, 6 March 2013; http://www.opendemocracy.net/opensecurity/hamid-emma-
crichton/rohingya-crisis-of-june-2012-survivors-testimony. [Accessed on 06 January 2014].

39Burmese nationality law currently recognizes three categories of citizens, namely citizen, associate
citizen and naturalized citizen, according to the 1982 Citizenship Law. Citizens, as defined by the
1947 Constitution, are persons who belong to an "indigenous race", have a grandparent from an
"indigenous race", are children of citizens, or lived in British Burma prior to 1942. Under this law,
citizens are required to obtain a National Registration Card (NRC), while non-citizens are given a
Foreign Registration Card (FRC). Citizens whose parents hold FRCs are not allowed to run for public
office. Burma has a stratified citizenship system (from the 1982 Citizenship Law), based on how
one's forebears obtained it: (i) Full citizens are descendants of residents who lived in Burma prior
1823 or were born to parents who were citizens at the time of birth. (ii) Associate citizens are those
who acquired citizenship through the 1948 Union Citizenship Law. (iii) Naturalized citizens refer to
persons who lived in Burma before 4 January 1948 and applied for citizenship after 1982. Dual
citizenship is not recognized by Burma. Naturalization in another country immediately voids
Burmese citizenship. Foreigners cannot become naturalized citizens of Burma, unless they can prove
a close familial connection to the country. The law does not recognise Rohingyas as one of the 135
legally recognised ethnic groups of Burma,thus denying most of them Burmese citizenship. Available
at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burmese_nationality_law [accessed on 19 January 2014
40 Peter Ras, Caught Between a Crocodile and a Snake, The Burma Centre Netherland, 2009;
http://www.independentworldreport.com/2009/09/caught-between-a-crocodile-and-a-snake/. [Accessed
on 06 January 2014].
41Interim Report on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, prepared by the Special Rapporteur
of the Commission on Human Rights, UN Doc A/52/484, 16 October 1997, para. 140.
43Mirza Sadaqat Huda, The Rohingya Refugee Crisis of 2012: Asserting the Need for Constructive
Regional & International Engagement, South Asian Journal, Issue 7 - January 2013;
http://southasiajournal.net/2013/03/the-rohingya-refugee-crisis-of-2012-asserting-the-need-for-
constructive-regional-international-engagement/.[Accessed on 06 January 2013].
44 Bangladeshi Authorities Turn Away Rohingya Refugees, 13 June 2012;
http://www.dvb.no/news/bangladeshi-authorities-turn-away-rohingya-refugees/22428; [Accessed on
06 January 2014].
45 Riot in Rakhine State: No more refugees, The Daily Star, Wednesday, June 13, 2012;
2014].
46 Rohingya Refugees Refused Access on World Refugee Day, Asian Society, 20 June 2012;
http://asiasociety.org/blog/asia/multimedia-rohingya-refugees-refused-access-world-refugee-day.
[Accessed on 06 January 2014].
47 Riot in Rakhine State: No more refugees, The Daily Star, Wednesday, June 13, 2012;
2014].
48 400,000 illegal Rohingyas in Bangladesh: Dipu Moni, By News Editor, www.bdnews24.com, 9
August 2009,
http://bdnews24.com/bangladesh/2009/08/09/400000-illegal-rohingyas-in-bangladesh-dipu-moni.
[Accessed on 06 January 2014].
49 Rohingyas to be sent back to Myanmar soon: Dipu Moni, New Age, Sunday, August 18, 2013,
http://www.newagebd.com/detail.php?date=2013-08-18&nid=61459#.UssJu7T6tdg. [Accessed on 06
January 2014].
50 Bangladesh Can‟t take in more Rohingyas, The Daily Star, Friday, August 30, 2013,
http://archive.thedailystar.net/beta2/news/bangladesh-cant-take-in-more-rohingyas/. [Accessed on 06
January 2014].
51 Bangladesh won‟t open border to Rohingyas, Priyo News, 14 June 2012;
http://news.priyo.com/politics/2012/06/14/bangladesh-won-t-ope-53531.html. [accessed 06 January
2014].
52Md Zahirul Islam, Rohingya Refugee Problem: A Burden on Bangladesh, The Daily Sun, Dhaka,
Monday 18 June 2012; http://www.daily-sun.com/details_yes_18-06-2012_Rohingya-refugee-
problem:-A-burden-on-Bangladesh_178_2_17_1_1.html.[Accessed on 06 January 2014].
53Barrister Harun Ur Rashid, Why are Rohingyas being refused entry into Bangladesh? The Daily
Star, Wednesday, 20 June, 2012; http://archive.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-
details.php?nid=238943. [Accessed on 06 January 2014].
54Imtiaz Ahamed (ed.), The Plight of the Stateless Rohingyas, The University Press Ltd, Bangladesh,
2010, p 69 – 85.
2010, p 69 – 77.
2010, p 77-80.
57 Utpala Rahman, The Rohingya Refugee: A Security Dilemma for Bangladesh, Journal of
Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 2010, p 233. http://www.creatingaroadhome.com/new/the-rohingya-
refugee-a-security-dilemma-for-bangladesh/ [accessed 19 January 2014].
58 Md. Akhtaruzaman, Legal Protection of Refugees under Bangladesh Laws, in Dr. Mizanur
Rahman (ed), Human Rights & Domestic Implication Mechanisms,, ELCOP, Dhaka, 2006, pp 175.
2010, p 103.
60Abid Khan and others v. Govt. of Bangladesh and others, (2003) 55 DLR (HCD) 318, available at
http: Pakistan Citizenship Act, Act II of 1951, 13 April 1951, available at
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b52a8.html. [Accessed on 06 January 2014].
61 The Citizenship Act, Act II of 1951, 13 April 1951, available at
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b52a8.html. The Act is still applicable in Bangladesh by
virtue of the Adaptation of Existing Bangladesh Laws Order 1972. [Accessed on 06 January 2014].
See Paulsen, above footnote 1, 54-68.
62Bangladesh Citizenship (Temporary Provisions) Order, No. 149 of 1972, 26 March 1971, available
at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b51f10.html. [Accessed on 06 January 2014].
63 Md. Sadaqat Khan (Fakku) and others v. Chief Election Commissioner, Bangladesh Election
Commission, Writ Petition No. 10129 of 2007, 18 May 2008 (Bangl), available at
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4a7c0c352.html. [accessed 06 January 2014]. Md. Sadaqat Khan
(Fakku) and others v. Chief Election Commissioner, 2008 BLD 261; See also Daily Star, Stranded
Biharis now Bangladesh citizens, 19 May 2008, available at
http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=37206 [accessed 06 January 2014];
BBC, Citizenship for Bihari refugees, 19 May 2008, available at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7407757.stm. [Accessed on 06 January 2014]. See: Note on the
nationality status of the Urdu-speaking community in Bangladesh, Publisged by UNHCR, The
Refugee Agency, 2009; available at: www.refworld.org/pdfid/4b2b90c32.pdf. [Accessed on 06 January
2014].
64Section 3 of the Citizenship Act, 1951 provide that every person shall be deemed to be a citizen of
Bangladesh-
(a) who or any of whose parents or grandparents was born in the territory now included in
Bangladesh and who after the fourteenth day of August, 1947, has not been permanently resident in
any country outside Bangladesh; or
(b) who or any of whose parents or grandparents was born in the territories included in India on the
thirty-first day of March, 1937, and who, except in the case of a person who was in the service of
Bangladesh or of any Government or Administration in Bangladesh at the commencement of this Act,
has or had his domicile within the meaning of Part II of the Succession Act, 1925, as in force at the
commencement of this Act, in Bangladesh or in the territories now included in Bangladesh; or
(c) who is a person naturalised as a British subject in Bangladesh; and who, if before the date of the
commencement of this Act he has acquired the citizenship of any foreign State, has before that date
renounced the same by depositing a declaration in writing to that effect with an authority appointed
or empowered to receive it; or
(d) who before the commencement of this Act migrated to the territories now included in Bangladesh
from any territory in the Indo-Pakistan sub-continent outside those territories with the intension of
residing permanently in those territories. Section 4 provides citizenship by birth. Section 5 states
about citizenship by descent, and section 6 provide citizenship by migration.
65 Shah M. Alam, Enforcement of International Human Rights Law by Domestic Court, New Warsi
Book Corporation, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2007,p-108
66 Bangladesh v. Unimarine S.A. Panama and Others, 29 DLR (1977) p. 252.
67Ibid. p. 259.
68Shah M. Alam, Enforcement of International Human Rights Law by Domestic Court, New Warsi
Book Corporation, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2007,p-103.
69Bangladesh and Others v Sombon Asavhan, 32 DLR (1980), p. 198.
70Saiful Islam Dildar v Government of Bangladesh and Others, 50 DLR (1998), p.318.
71Justice Latifur Rahman, The Constitution of Peoples Republic of Bangladesh with Comments &
Case Laws, Mullic Brothers. 2nd Edition, p- 48.
72Shah M. Alam, Enforcement of International Human Rights Law by Domestic Court, New Warsi
Book Corporation, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2007,p-108
73Hussain Muhammad Ershad v. Bangladesh and Others 21 (2001) BLD(AD),p-69
74Myanmar: Rohingya Refugees and Thailand‟s „Push-Back‟, Panchali Saikia, 30 December 2011,
available at http://www.ipcs.org/article/southeast-asia/myanmar-rohingya-refugees-and-thailands-
push-back-3539.html. [Accessed on 19 January 2014].
75 UNHCR, Refugees Daily: Refugees Global Press Review, 27/02/2009; http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-
bin/texis/vtx/refdaily?pass=463ef21123&id=49a78c228. [Accessed on 19 January 2014].
View publication stats

The Rohingya Refugees in Bangladesh: A Vulnerable Group in Law and Policy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Rohingya Refugees in Bangladesh: A Vulnerable Group in Law and Policy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Rohingya Refugees in Bangladesh: A Vulnerable Group in Law and Policy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

The Rohingya Refugees in Bangladesh: A Vulnerable Group in Law and Policy

Article · January 2014

Al- Imran N. Mian

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Book Chapter View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Rohingya Refugees in Bangladesh: A Vulnerable Group in Law

Hassan Faruk Al Imran, Md. Nannu Mian

Keywords: Refugee, Non-Refoulement, Rohingya, State Policy, National Security.

© Copyright 2014 the authors. 226

seeks permanent solutions to the refugee problems, offers international protection

In July 1951, a diplomatic conference in Geneva adopted the Convention relating to

Owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion,

A refugee has to prove four elements of situational circumstances according to the

International Instruments and Supportive Authority of Refugees

No state parties shall expel, repel, return (refouler), or extradite a person to

As per the principle of non-refoulement, a state is obliged to provide shelter to a

No Contracting State shall expel or return (refouler) a refugee in any manner

The non-refoulement obligation under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention is binding

While the principle of non-refoulement is basic, it is recognized that there may be

The benefit of the present provision may not, however, be claimed by a

Non-refoulement has been defined in a number of international refugee instruments,

Bangladesh and Refugee Issues

Rohingya Refugees in Bangladesh

Beginning of the Journey of Rohingya to Bangladesh at Present

The Cause of Flight of Rohingyas from Myanmar

As a result of such discrimination, large numbers of Rohingyas have left Myanmar

The Discreetly Rational Reasons of Refusal by the Bangladeshi

90,000 Rohingya refugees fled Myanmar to the Bangladeshi border, only to be

On 29 August 2013, Foreign Minister Dipu Moni continued further, “Bangladesh

border to Rohingyas fleeing sectarian violence in Myanmar. Foreign Minister Dipu

Refugees and National Security

Imtiaz Ahamed, Professor of International Relations of Dhaka University, identified

Politico-Military Dimension of Security includes Insurgency and Islamic Militancy,

Constitutional Provisions, Role of Judiciary & State Policy

It is pointed out that probably Article 25 of the constitution of Bangladesh is the

Bangladesh v. Unimarine S.A. Panama and Others 66 relates to the Bangladeshi

A significant judgment regarding the implementation of the international human

Nonetheless, it is to be seriously and rationally viewed through the economic and

11Article 1 (F), 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION SERVICE (PDES), Geneva, Switzerland, Published on

View publication stats

You might also like