Rohingya Crisis Recast: Fragmented power, legal deadlock, and the illusion of normalcy in Myanmar

The Rohingya crisis is entering a new and more complex phase, shaped by shifting territorial control, stalled international justice mechanisms, and geopolitical recalculations across the region.

A recent policy brief by the Arakan Rohingya National Organisation (ARNO) argues that international approaches remain dangerously outdated—failing to account for the fractured realities inside Myanmar and the persistence of systemic rights violations against Rohingya communities.

I. Legal Architecture Under Strain: ICJ, ICC, and the Genocide Framework

At the center of international accountability efforts is the ongoing case of The Gambia v. Myanmar at the International Court of Justice. The case, grounded in the Genocide Convention, seeks to establish state responsibility for acts committed against the Rohingya.

ICJ: Prevention Without Enforcement

The Court has already issued provisional measures requiring Myanmar to:

• • • • Prevent further acts of genocide
      • Preserve evidence
      • Report on compliance

However, ARNO and independent observers note continued non-compliance, including:

• Ongoing violence against Rohingya communities
• Restricted access for investigators
• Alleged destruction of evidence

The ICJ process, while legally significant, lacks direct enforcement mechanisms—placing reliance on international political will.

ICC and Universal Jurisdiction Efforts

Parallel efforts at the International Criminal Court focus on individual criminal responsibility, particularly for crimes linked to forced deportation into Bangladesh.

Additional proceedings under universal jurisdiction—such as cases in Argentina—signal growing legal pressure. Yet these mechanisms remain slow-moving and constrained by jurisdictional limits and geopolitical realities.

Legal Conclusion: Accountability Without Access

The cumulative effect is a fragmented accountability regime:

• • • • Strong legal frameworks exist
      • Evidence continues to accumulateBut enforcement remains inconsistent and politically contingent

II. Arakan Army and the Rise of De Facto Governance

One of the most significant but under-recognised shifts is the emergence of the Arakan Army as a dominant territorial force in Rakhine State.

From Insurgency to Administration
The Arakan Army now exercises de facto control over large parts of Rakhine, operating parallel administrative systems, including:

• • • • Local taxation
      • Civil dispute mechanisms
      • Security enforcement

Meanwhile, Myanmar’s military junta retains control over:

• • • • Key urban centers
      • Strategic infrastructure
      • Military corridors

Implications for Rohingya Communities

For Rohingya civilians, this dual authority structure produces:

• • • • Legal ambiguity over protection responsibilities
      • Continued exposure to abuse from multiple actors
      • Severe restrictions on movement and livelihoods

Reports also indicate that the Arakan Army itself has been implicated in rights violations, complicating narratives that frame it solely as an alternative to junta rule.

Governance Without Recognition

Despite its territorial control, the Arakan Army lacks international recognition, creating a governance vacuum where:

• • • • No actor provides full legal protection
      • Humanitarian access is inconsistent
      • Civilian accountability mechanisms are weak or absent

III. Bangladesh–Myanmar Geopolitics: Containment Without Resolution

For Bangladesh, which hosts over one million Rohingya refugees, the evolving situation presents acute strategic challenges.

Repatriation Stalemate

Efforts to initiate repatriation to Myanmar have repeatedly stalled due to:

• • • • Lack of security guarantees
      • Absence of citizenship rights
      • Distrust among refugee populations

The fragmentation of authority in Rakhine further complicates any bilateral framework, as:

• • • • The junta cannot guarantee conditions across all territories
      • Non-state actors are not party to formal agreements

Security and Regional Stability

Bangladesh faces increasing concerns over:

• • • • Cross-border instability
      • Trafficking networks
      • Armed group infiltration

At the same time, prolonged displacement risks:

• • • • Radicalisation under deteriorating camp conditions
      • Donor fatigue and aid reductions
      • Internal socio-economic strain

Strategic Dilemma

Dhaka’s position reflects a containment strategy—seeking repatriation while avoiding deeper entanglement in Myanmar’s internal conflict. However, without structural change inside Myanmar, durable solutions remain elusive.

IV. ASEAN and International Response: Paralysis and Pragmatism

The response from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) continues to be constrained by its principle of non-interference.

ASEAN’s Limits

Despite the Five-Point Consensus, implementation has been minimal:

• • • • No sustained ceasefire
      • Limited humanitarian access
      • Continued exclusion of key stakeholders

ASEAN’s engagement has largely failed to influence ground realities in Rakhine State.

Global Powers and Policy Fragmentation

International responses remain divided:

• • • • Western states emphasise sanctions and accountability
      • Regional actors prioritise stability and engagement
      • Humanitarian agencies focus on immediate relief

This fragmentation has resulted in:

• • • • Inconsistent pressure on Myanmar authorities
      • Lack of coordinated strategy
      • Policy gaps between legal commitments and operational actions

V. The Illusion of Electoral Legitimacy

The Myanmar military’s proposed electoral process is widely viewed as an attempt to reframe its authority.

According to ARNO, the Elections are designed to:

• • • • Signal political normalisation
      • Reduce international scrutiny
      • Recast military rule as civilian governance

However, analysts argue that such processes:

• • • • Exclude meaningful opposition
      • Occur amid ongoing conflict
      • Do not address structural discrimination against Rohingya

Recognition of such elections risks legitimising both impunity and systemic exclusion.

VI. Policy Crossroads: Between Reality and Rhetoric

The central finding emerging from ARNO’s analysis is stark:
the Rohingya crisis is evolving, not resolving.

Critical Policy Risks

• • • • Treating elections as a transition period
      • Advancing premature repatriation
      • Ignoring de facto governance structures
      • Separating humanitarian aid from rights-based solutions
      • Minimum Conditions for Sustainable Return

Any credible repatriation framework must include:

• • • • Voluntary, safe, and dignified return
      • Citizenship restoration
      • Freedom of movement
      • Independent monitoring
      • Full humanitarian access

Absent these, return initiatives risk becoming instruments of renewed displacement.

Conclusion: Justice Deferred, Crisis Entrenched

The Rohingya crisis now sits at the intersection of:

• • • • Legal accountability without enforcement
      • Territorial control without sovereignty
      • Humanitarian response without political resolution

The findings of the Arakan Rohingya National Organisation underscore a critical imperative:
international policy must realign with on-the-ground realities or risk entrenching the very conditions it seeks to resolve.

Without confronting identity denial, enforcing international law, and addressing fragmented governance, the prospect of justice—and durable peace—remains distant.