Jatiya Kabi Kazi Nazrul Islam University

Trishal,Mymensingh

Assignment On: Rohingya Influx In Bangladesh.

Course Title: International Relations.
Course Code: LLB-313.

Submitted To:
Gazi Arafat Uz Zaman Markony

Lecturer

Department Of Pubic Administration & Government Studies

J.K.K.N.I.U

Submitted By:
Md. Jakaria Murad
Id: 17123566
Session: 2016-17
Department Of Law & Justice
J.K.K.N.I.U
Submission Date: 05/11/2019

1|Page
Table of Content:
…………………………………………………………………………..

Content Page No.

1. Introduction 2
2. The Cause of Flight of Rohingyas from Myanmar 3
3. Main stakeholders in the conflict 4
4. Definition of Refugee 5
5. Law Enforcement 5
6. International Instruments and Supportive Authority of Refugees 7
7. The Discreetly Rational Reasons of Refusal by the Bangladeshi 9

Government to Accommodate Rohingya Refugees

8. Refugees and National Security 11
9. Constitutional Provisions, Role of Judiciary & State Policy 13
10. Conclusion 16
11. References 18

2|Page
 Introduction:
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.
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. Initially Bangladeshi Government welcomed the UNHCR, the Red Cross
and various other international agencies to assist the refugees. By then about 258,000
Rohingyas were registered by the government of 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.

3|Page
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 any 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. Here we will try to see all
the problems of ‘Rohingya’ refugees through international perspective and also to
recommend the framing of a strict domestic law to specifically handle this situation.

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. 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.
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.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
4|Page
many young couples flee to Bangladesh because of the inability to obtain permission
to marry in Myanmar.
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.
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.

Main stakeholders in the conflict:

The International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar has characterized the conflicts
in Rakhine, Shan, and Kachin states as non-international armed conflicts. This means
that International Humanitarian Law (IHL) applies. In its report from August 2016,
the Fact-Finding mission on Myanmar establishes clear patterns of violations of
international human rights and humanitarian law, including crimes against humanity,
war crimes and genocide committed by the army. Opposition groups, such as the
Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA), and ethnic armed organizations are also
reported to be behind violations. Armed actors in general fail to take precautionary
measures to protect civilians during attacks leading to civilians being killed or
injured and infrastructure being destroyed.

5|Page
 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 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.

Law Enforcement:

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.
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:

6|Page
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...

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.
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.
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

7|Page
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.

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.
Article 3 of the 1984 Convention against Torture states,

No state parties shall expel, repel, return (refuter), 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.

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

8|Page
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.”
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. 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.
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. Within the framework of the
1951 Convention/1967 Protocol, the principle of non-refoulement constitutes an
essential and non-dirigible 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.

9|Page
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.
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.

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. 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. A senior
official of the Foreign Ministry said, "Our position is clear that we won't accept any
10 | P a g e
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." 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.”
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.” 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). 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.

11 | P a g e
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. 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.

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

12 | P a g e
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.
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.
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.
Politico-Military Dimension of Security includes Insurgency and Islamic Militancy,
Drugs and Arms Smuggling, Terrorism and Refugee Camp related security measures.
Economic Dimension of Security includes Illegal Trade/ Smuggling and
Employment Issue.

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
13 | P a g e
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.

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).

The Rohingya issue is 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. 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….”

14 | P a g e
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. 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 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.”
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
This particular aspect of the domestic law is vis-à-vis an international custom which
was raised in Bangladesh and Others v Sombon Asavhan. 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
15 | P a g e
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 Others 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.
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. 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.”

16 | P a g e
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 as per Article 33 (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. 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.

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

17 | P a g e
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.

18 | P a g e
 References:

[1] Amin, Khairul. Dhaka Rules out Shelter for Rohingya.

<http://news.priyo.com/national/2012/06/15/dhaka-rules-out-shel-53558.html>.

[2] Bikash, Udatta. Rohingya Refugees, The Daily Star, Sunday, March 2, 2008;
<http://archive.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=25644.>.

[3] 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. >

[4] 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.>.

[5] 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.>.

[6] 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/.>.

[7] 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.>.

[8] O'Sullivan, Kira. The Plight of Refugee: The Uncertain Future of Rohingya Refugees,
<http://www.fairobserver.com/article/uncertain-future-rohingya-refugees.>

19 | P a g e