For verification of this paper, please visit on http://www.socialresearchfoundation.com/innovation.php#8

The world we live in today is full of contradictions. On one hand, the population is on a boom and there is an ever increasing competition for resources around the world, on the other hand, the resources themselves are diminishing at an alarming rate. We are calling ourselves better than the earlier generations of mankind in terms of better healthcare, technologies and information but there has also been an explosive rise in serious global issues like environment degradation, terrorism, human rights violations, to name a few. A major factor which contributes towards these problems is the growing interaction among people on a transnational basis and the ever shrinking national boundaries. With globalisation, we are no more the proverbial frogs happily living in our small well. State sovereignties are being challenged and the State no longer remains as the sole actor in International law. Individuals are increasingly been accepted as an important element in international affairs. Another effect of globalisation is the transition from Nationalism towards Cosmopolitanism. As Diogenes, the Cynic had rightly stated, we are the "citizens of the world" and the world is our home. In light of these facts, it becomes indispensable to enquire as to who bears the responsibility towards the mass genocides and human rights violations taking place around the world. If we can reap the benefits from globalisation, is it not our duty to also share the burdens which this essential evil carries?With a rise in nationalist tendencies among people globally, today it is being used as a tool to further political motives. The usually sombre and cosmopolitan USA showed signs of intolerance towards immigrants during the presidency of Mr. Donald Trump. People have started not caring about the global injustices and countries are increasingly focussing on strengthening their unity as a nation. Nation pride is also on an ever high note, with countries like China, North Korea and even the USA joining the league. The much publicised 'Brexit' in the European Union is another example of the rising nationalist tendencies.Back home, Prime Minister Modi is also making use of Nationalism to woo voters and public support. This project is an attempt to understand the concept of nationalism and cosmopolitanism in light of globalisation and global justice. This would be analysed in light of the Rohingya crisis in Myanmar.

The Rohingyas are an ethnic Muslim community living in Myanmar. Although they are found in other parts of South Asia as well, however, they are predominantly found in the western Rakhine region of Myanmar. They are a minority in Myanmar where the majority consists of the Buddhist community. Unlike the majority of the inhabitants who speak in Burmese language, the Rohingya community speaks a dialect of Bengali. The basic problem in this issue is that of the question of Nationality of the Rohingyas. Even though some of the Rohingyas have been living in Myanmar for generations, they are not considered as citizens of Myanmar.[1] Though for us, it might not seem to be a very big problem however, loss or absence of citizenship is a very tricky issue with serious consequences. Our affiliation to a particular state provides us with a lot of rights, these include the right to enjoy many common public utilities provided by the state, such as housing, employment opportunity, free education, healthcare, food aids, among others. This also includes the right to have a political say by way of casting votes, to have opportunity to public offices and armed forces, to own property and business et. al. [2] The Buddhists in Myanmar and the government thinks that they are not the original inhabitants of their country but have migrated from Bangladesh. The Citizenship Act of 1982 in Myanmar has a provision according to which an ethic community which is considered a minority would be eligible for citizenship if they could provide valid documentary evidences showing that their ancestors had been living in Myanmar before 1823. If they cannot, they are labelled as “resident foreigners” or as “associate citizens". The part which makes the matter worse is that even if one of the parents is a citizen of Myanmar, the child would still not be considered a citizen of Myanmar. Hence, for the Rohingyas, neither jus soli nor jus domicile nor jus sanguinis seems to be followed in Myanmar. [3] Increasing cases of violence against the Rohingyas has been seen. There have been cases of rape by the army, mass loot, burnings, floggings, murders and such hate crimes taking place, many of which are in fact sponsored by their very government. This has led to a large numbers of Rohingyas to flee from their country to the neighbouring countries like Bangladesh, India among others. The largest number is settled at Cox's Bazaar in Bangladesh, which has provided shelter to the community in light of several requests by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). [4] India, on the other hand, also does not seem very keen in helping the immigrants. The ministry of Home Affairs stated that there were around 40,000 Rohingyas in India currently. However, according to the Indian government very few of them are legally registered and hence India wants to deport them. [5] In light of these facts, the question arises as to whether we can make the International community and specifically the countries which have the capability to help, responsible for the pathetic situation of the Rohingya community. Do we not owe any responsibility towards them? Are there any International norms which truly encapsulate the problem faced by them?If even after so much information evidencing the government neglect in Myanmar, the International community is silent, is there any use of the International institutions and international legal norm? The case of Rohingyas is a clear case of statelessness in International law. There are many legal instruments which deal with the issue of statelessness in International law. Even the United Declaration of Human Rights, categorically proclaims the Right to Nationality for all.[6]Apart from region specific conventions on Nationality, like the one of the African states and by the European Union, there are two Conventions of the United Nations which specifically deal with statelessness around the world. The United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Stateless person, 1954 and the Convention on the reduction of statelessness, 1961deal with the issue of statelessness and ensure a minimum of rights and remedies to the stateless.[7] However, despite this, why is it that none of the states have come forward to solve and ameliorate the situation of the Rohingyas? This issue brings about the debate about global justice back to light and more specifically the constant ideological struggle between the concepts of Nationality and Cosmopolitanism.

Research Questions

1. How do we relate the concept of global justice to the current Rohingya crisis?

2. What is the International response towards this issue? How to perceive this in light of the evolved meaning of justice in a globalised world?

3. What is the solution to this problem?

Scope of the Study

The current paper focuses on the Rohingya crisis in light of global justice. It does not deal with the intricate International law aspects and norms concerning Nationality and Statelessness in detail.

The research is primarily doctrinal in nature and the researcher has used both primary as well as secondary sources of data. The secondary sources referred by the researcher include books, journals, and various articles available online. The researcher has adopted an analytical and critical approach on the subject.

Nationalism and Cosmopolitanism

The concept of Nationalism basically implies at a common and shared identity of people because of a few common physical or cultural characteristics.On the other spectrum is the concept of Cosmopolitanism which hints at having a universal and common identity for everyone in the world. While referring to Nationalism, there has often been a tendency to group certain people together while leaving or outlasting another group. This has led to violence. However, under the concept of cosmopolitanism, everyone is regarded as equal and people are not differentiated based on their nationalities. [8]

However, it would not be right to term Nationalism as totally valueless. In a world where even though the physical boundaries seem to be getting erased and people are interacting with each other like never before on a global scale, yet there is also a rise in competition and cynicism all around. In such cases, Nationalism plays an important role in unifying people by making them believe in their shared bond of nationality and patriotism. It would be interesting to ponder over the fact that if Nationalism was wrongly used by Hitler to commit wars, it was also positively used by the Indians to gain strength to make their independence a reality during their struggle for freedom. [9]

There are various types and versions of both Nationalism and Cosmopolitanism. They range from soft, moderate to even strict versions. Cosmopolitanism could be individualist in approach or individualist. In cosmopolitanism , "the ultimate unitsof concern are human beings, or persons rather than, say, family lines,tribes, ethnic, cultural or religious communities, nations, or states."[10] While moral cosmopolitanism encourages individuals not treat their compatriots in any special manner and have the same feelings, duties and responsibilities towards non compatriots that they for brethren of their own country.

Martha C. Nussbaum in her book, Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism (1996)[11], stated: "The accident of where one is born is just that, an accident, any human being might have been born in any nation. Recognizing this,….we should not allow differences of nationality or class or ethnic members or even gender to erect barriers between us and our fellow human beings."

Political cosmopolitanism, meanwhile, talks about a unified governance across the world and calls for the diminution of state boundaries, while its softer version speaks about well-equipped International institutions. Economic cosmopolitanism calls for free trade globally and for the removal of all trade barriers. Similar to the concept of cosmopolitanism is the concept of multiculturalism. This concept encourages and celebrates separate identity of the minorities and speaks of their right to exist simultaneously without getting superseded by the majority community. It talks about the cultural rights of the minorities. [12]

In view of these theories, it becomes clear that although Nationalism is not flawed as a concept, its wrong use could create problems on a global level. As seen in the Rohingya case, the nationalism of the Buddhist community in Myanmar has dangerously crossed the peaceful level. Targeting the Muslim Rohingyas is a serious blow to global justice in the form of cosmopolitanism. It is also clearly against multiculturalism. The silence of the International community also perpetuates the global injustice. Peter Singer had once famously cited the example of a child helplessly drowning in a pond.  A passerby jumps into the pond to save the kid, however, doing that makes his new boots wet and destroys them. In such a situation was it right for the passerby to help the child? Singer answers by saying that if in order to do a greater justice, a small sacrifice is needed, it must be done. Similarly those countries which have the power and capabilities to help mitigate such injustices should intervene. [13]

Another argument in the same line is that of Thomas Pogge, who gives the analogy that rich and influential countries, in ways known and unknown affect the poor across the world. Their actions have both direct as well as indirect impact on the poor. In such a case, it is important that they also share the burden of global injustices and work in securing justice for all, in whatever manner they can. [14]

The main bone of contention in this whole issue is whether we owe any duty to people who are not related to us in any manner whatsoever. Martha Nussbaum argues that even though we might have a special place for people who we share our country with, however, to make the world unified, we also need to cherish other people as our very own. Thomas Pogge also makes a similar argument in the form of his 'equal consideration of his interests' theory.[15]Hence as a part of the world community, we have duties to fulfil our Human rights obligations.

In line of this, there arises another problem, that of the validity of Humanitarian Intervention in International law. As an assumption, following the idea of cosmopolitanism, the world powers proceed with military or some other form of intervention in Myanmar in order to protect the Rohingyas, is it valid and allowed in International Law? This concept of human intervention is actually against the principle of sovereignty of the nation states. Every sovereign has absolute power to prevent any form of territorial intervention or political interference. However, the International Courts and the United Nations have accepted such interventions, given certain conditions are fulfilled. The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty came out with a report titled, 'The Responsibility to Protect ' which has been widely accepted. This can be used to prevent the commission of crimes such as genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing, which are termed as Mass Atrocity Crimes.[16]

The main point of this report could be summarised in three points:

1. It makes every sovereign responsible for the protection of its residents for any of the aforementioned crimes.

2. It also makes the International community responsible by giving them the duty to aid such a state.

3. It also gives the International community the power to intervene in case where the said state fails to take appropriate measures. This power includes economic sanctions and also military intervention, if the need be.

As a corollary to the idea of cosmopolitanism also the states should not prevent legitimate immigration on grounds of Human Rights. This clearly takes its form from the right to equality and the right to free movement for all. In nutshell, cosmopolitanism promotes open borders.

However, in reality, immigration is not encouraged by the world community. People despise it because of various reasons. They could range from a threat to their peace and security, to added burden on national resources, to the fear of the loss of societal control or it could be a simple case of xenophobia. Even though some of these issues might seem legitimate, however in the light of ensuring world peace and order in the long run, states need to open and accept immigrants who are victims of human rights violations. [17]

The Rome statute categorically states persistent attacks against a section of the population of any state will be counted as a crime against humanity. Affirming this, the UNHCR had confirmed that the human rights violations of the Rohingyas indeed amounted to crimes against humanity. However, Myanmar is not a part of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and hence for the court to look into the matter, the issue would need to be referred by the Security Council of the United Nations. However, as a matter of norm intervention by the ICC is also generally seen as a last resort, chances are first given to the state concerned to solve the problem.[18]

1. Benjamin Zawacki, Defining Myanmar's "Rohingya Problem, 20 HUMAN RIGHTS BRIEF 18-25 (2013). 2. Brock, Gillian, Global Justice, THE STANFORD ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY (2017). 3. Feroze Varun Gandhi, The state of the stateless, THE HINDU,November 25, 2017. 4. Katherine G. Southwick, Myanmar's Democratic Transition: Peril or Promise for the Stateless Rohingya, 19 TILBURG L. REV. 261 (2014). 5. Luke William Hunt, The Global Ethics of Helping and Harming, 36 HUM. RTS. Q. 798 (2014). 6. M. AYAZ NASEEM AND EMERY J. HYSLOP-MARGISON, NUSSBAUM, CONCEPT OF COSMOPOLITANISM: PRACTICAL POSSIBILITY OR ACADEMIC DELUSION? 51-60 (2006). 7. Robert J. Delahunty, Nationalism, Statism, and Cosmopolitanism, 5 NW. INTERDISC. L. REV. 77. 8. Sheng Hong, From Nationalism to Cosmopolitanism, 30 CHINESE L. & GOV'T 31 (1997). 9. Shreya Upadhyay, The Future of India’s Do-Nothing Policy Toward the Rohingya,THE DIPLOMAT, December 07, 2017,. 10. Thomas Christiano, Immigration, Political Community, and Cosmopolitanism, 45 SAN DIEGO L. REV. 933 (2008). 11. Thomas W. Pogge, Cosmopolitanism and Sovereignty, 103 Ethics 48, 48 (1992). 12. http://www.coalitionfortheicc.org/news/20170127/justice-myanmar-what-can-international-community-do, last accessed on March 15th, 2018. 13. http://www.unhcr.org/un-conventions-on-statel, last accessed on March 15th, 2018. 14. https://abihollow.wordpress.com/2013/05/13/paradox-of-cosmopolitanism 15. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/justice-global/

1. Benjamin Zawacki, Defining Myanmar's "Rohingya Problem, 20 HUMAN RIGHTS BRIEF18-25(2013).
2. ALICE EDWARDS & LAURAVAN WAAS, NATIONALITY AND STATELESSNESS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW(Cambridge UniversityPress, eds. 2014).
3. Katherine G. Southwick, Myanmar's Democratic Transition: Peril or Promise for the Stateless Rohingya, 19 TILBURG L. REV. 261 (2014).
4. Feroze Varun Gandhi, The state of the stateless, THE HINDU,November 25, 2017.
5. https://www.dw.com/en/india-rohingya-myanmar-mizoram/a-56972090, last accessed on January 31, 2022.
6. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 15.
7. http://www.unhcr.org/un-conventions-on-statel, last accessed on March 15th, 2018.
8. Sheng Hong, From Nationalism to Cosmopolitanism, 30 CHINESE L. & GOV'T 31 (1997).
9. Robert J. Delahunty, Nationalism, Statism, andCosmopolitanism, 5 NW. INTERDISC. L. REV. 77.
10. Thomas W. Pogge, Cosmopolitanism and Sovereignty, 103 Ethics 48, 48 (1992).
11. M.Ayaz naseem and emery j. Hyslop-margison, nussbaum, concept of cosmopolitanism: practical possibility or academic delusion? 51-60 (2006).
12. Supra note 9.
13. Luke William Hunt, The Global Ethics of Helping and Harming, 36 HUM. RTS. Q. 798 (2014).
14. Brock, Gillian, Global Justice, THE STANFORD ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY (2017), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/justice-global/, last accessed on March 15th, 2018.
15. Ibid.
16. https://abihollow.wordpress.com/2013/05/13/paradox-of-cosmopolitanism/, last accessed on March 15th, 2018.
17. Thomas Christiano, Immigration, Political Community,and Cosmopolitanism, 45 SAN DIEGO L. REV. 933 (2008)
18. http://www.coalitionfortheicc.org/news/20170127/justice-myanmar-what-can-international-community-do, last accessed on March 15th, 2018.