Rohingya Refugee in Bangladesh: The Search for Durable Solutions?

Heavy Nala Estriani

Universitas Airlangga, Indonesia

Keywords: Rohingya, Refugee, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Durable Solutions

Abstract: The aim of this paper is to discuss the most feasible durable solutions to be implemented in the case of

Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh. As part of its core mandate, UNHCR introduced three durable solutions

for refugees’ namely voluntary repatriation, resettlement and local integration. Prior to the violent attack by

Burmese Army that broke out in August 2017, nearly 650.000 Rohingya has fled over the border to

Bangladesh. Since then, the country has overwhelmed by the massive exodus. The recent event shows that

both Bangladesh and Myanmar agree on the deal to repatriate hundreds of thousands of Rohingya that fled

Myanmar within two years. However, neither Rohingya nor the UN was involved in the deals. The recent

talks have been debatable since voluntary repatriation must consider the aspect of voluntary, safety and

dignity, so that Rohingya could fully reintegrate into their community without any discrimination,

persecution and marginalization. If a voluntary repatriation is not a doable option, then either resettlement or

local integration becomes the most desirable solution for Rohingya. To address the issue of this study, this

paper used the concept of durable solutions introduced by UNHCR in deal with protracted refugee situation.

Thus, the current study believes that the three solutions have their own challenges and possibilities.

However, de facto integration might be the best option to deal with protracted situation, when the recent

talks on voluntary repatriation might be hard to achieve until Myanmar changes its regulation and

legislation over the status of the Rohingya.

1 INTRODUCTION

Prior to the violence attack by Burmese Army that

broke out in August 2017, nearly 650.000 Rohingya

have fled over the border to Bangladesh. Thus, the

latest exodus became the largest influx comparing

with earlier arrival in 1978, 1992 and 2012. As of

June 2018, UNHCR recorded there were 886.778

Rohingya occupies two refugee camps in

Kutapalong and Nayapara camps in the Cox Bazaar

District of Southeast Bangladesh (UNHCR, 2018).

The Rohingya refugee in Bangladesh was

portrayed as protracted refugee situation. They fled

the border to escape the alleged persecution by

Myanmar authorities on the basis of religious and

ethnic discrimination. The history has shown there

were hundreds of thousands of Rohingya in

Bangladesh have been pushed back to Myanmar

since 1978. However, many of them have

determined to return to Bangladesh despite they are

living with uncertainty in the country. In many

protracted refugee situations, durable solution such

local integration, resettlement and voluntary

repatriations are needed to be implemented to end

the prolonged displacement.

In early 2018, Bangladesh agreed on a bilateral

agreement with Myanmar to repatriate more than

700,000 Rohingya, since the massive arrival of

Rohingya in Bangladesh in the last quarter of 2017

(Paul, 2018). Repatriation is indeed one of the

fastest solutions to implement durable solution. But

the history of Rohingya repatriation from

Bangladesh has shown that the process does not

respect the aspect of voluntarily, safety and dignity.

The study on Rohingya refugee, mostly

discussed the historical context, such as questioning

the origin of Rohingya and how the group was end

marginalized and discriminate by Myanmar

authorities as discussed by Ullah (Ullah, 2011).

Others scholars like Rahman focused on the

dilemma and insecurity facing by Bangladesh as a

host country in coping with a Rohingya case

(Rahman, 2010). In the other hand, Parnini raised

the issue in Bangladesh and Myanmar bilateral

relation in deal with Rohingya refugee in

Bangladesh. Parnini (Parnini, Othman and Ghazali,

2013) stated that the arrival of massive Rohingya in

Bangladesh has loosened the relation between the

Estriani, H.

Rohingya Refugee in Bangladesh: The Search for Durable Solutions?.

DOI: 10.5220/0010277200002309

In Proceedings of Airlangga Conference on International Relations (ACIR 2018) - Politics, Economy, and Security in Changing Indo-Paciﬁc Region, pages 363-368

ISBN: 978-989-758-493-0

363

two neighborhoods. Meanwhile, the study done by

Crabtree focused on economic deprivation faced by

refugee in Bangladesh. Although Bangladesh

restricts Rohingya to involve in legal work, many of

them have participated in low-skilled jobs to sustain

their livelihood while they are stacked in limbo.

The gap that existed in the literature was that the

issue of durable solution was rarely studied. This

discussion paper attempts to bridge the gap by

questioning the most doable option of durable

solutions for the protracted refugee situation in

Bangladesh. Thus, this study would be discussed by

looking for the past, present and upcoming policy to

end the crisis of Rohingya refugee. This study

believes that the current repatriation effort will not

reach the durability if Myanmar cannot guarantee

the safety and dignity of Rohingya when returning

from Bangladesh. While repatriation might not be

the best option while Myanmar has not changed its

policy, de facto integration could be the main

solution for refugees to foster them to be self-

reliance to live independently from humanitarian

assistance.

2 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

According to the article no. 33 in Refugee

Convention 1951, person with the status of Refugees

should not be returned or pushed back to their home

country. This means that the host country must

accept the arrival of refugees, despite their religious,

ethnic, affiliations, and political background. They

also supposed to get the basic rights guaranteed by

the state that received them. Among these rights are

the right not to be discriminated against, the right to

obtain shelter, education, employment and so forth

as has been set out in the convention. This is also in

accordance with the Article 14 of the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights, which stated that

anybody has the right to seek asylum in another

country in order to get the protection from any

disruptions. Still and all, the concept of non-

refoulement has obliged the country, not to expel

refugees when their lives are threatened. Thus, the

concept has become an internal customary law. That

is, the principle compels not only to the country that

ratified the 1951 refugee convention, but also the

country that did not ratify, all must respect the

principle.

Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh have been

categorized as protracted refugees. UNHCR

describes the protracted refugee situation as a

prolonged condition facing refugees, who find it

difficult to find a way out in solving it. Such

prolonged conditions, do not endanger their lives

directly, but their economic, social, psychological

needs and basic rights are generally not fulfilled.

This protracted status is caused by political

stagnation and precarious diplomatic efforts both in

home and the host country. So there is no final

agreement that can be implemented to solve the

displacement. This stagnation causes many

restrictions towards refugee movement in the host

country, especially in relation to employment

(UNHCR, 2004).

In dealing with the protracted refugee situation,

UNHCR introduced three durable solutions to

resolve the issues which are the local integration,

voluntary repatriation and resettlement. According

to UNHCR, there is no hierarchy in implementing

durable solutions. But the best way to implement

them is to combine these three solutions with a

strong collaboration between the home and host

countries, the humanitarian organizations and the

refugees themselves (UNHCR, 2007).Voluntary

repatriation is to return refugees to their home

country with safety and dignity. The repatriation

must be based on the basic principle of voluntary

and cannot be done by force and coercion. Safety

and dignity means that both the host and home

country must ensure that the security and dignity of

refugees would be guaranteed upon arrival in the

home country. According to Long, voluntary

repatriation not only indicates the peace process

between refugee with their home country, but also

denotes the presence of community reconciliation

between refugees and indigenous communities in

their home country (Long, 2013).

Furthermore, resettlement is defined as the

process of transferring refugees from host countries

to third countries. As for Stein, resettlement

becomes the last resort of durable solutions to be

implemented. That is because, although the third

country generally categorize as developed, in reality

they are also limiting the refugees number entering

their country, so that only few refugees can be

absorbed in the resettlement process (Stein, 1986).

Jacobsen was described the local integration as

the forgotten concept of durable solutions in dealing

with refugees (Jacobsen, 2001). Jacobsen might

have a point for there is only little literature so far

discussing local integration as durable solution for

refugees. However, as stated by Fielden and Hovil

(Fielden, 2008; Hovil, 2014) it was not a matter of

ignored concept, but mostly due to the fact that local

integration was undocumented. As mentioned by

Hovil, in many protracted refugees situation, local

ACIR 2018 - Airlangga Conference on International Relations

364

integration is mostly used and more popular among

refugees than the other two durable solutions, the

repatriation and resettlement. In legal term, local

integration means a situation where refugees are

fully accepted by local community which includes

citizenship provision. Thus, the formal ways are

called as the de jure integration. As for de facto

terms, the integration take place locally only. This

means that integration is not only a matter of legal

status provision by Government, but also the

provision of self-sufficiency and settlement for

refugees in local community. Therefore, integration

could become a better option for in dealing with

protracted situation rather than short term assistance

(Jacobsen, 2001; Crisp, 2004; Fielden, 2008; Hovil,

2014).

In many protracted refugee cases, de facto

integration is far more popular than the formal one.

It is because legal integration is much more complex

to be implemented in today situation. The generosity

of the host country has changed significantly for

refugees after 9/11 tragedy, when they consider the

forced migration phenomena as a threat to national

security. Moreover since the issue of refugee has

been securitized in many occasions, it is now getting

harder for refugees to gain citizenship from the host

country.

3 THE ROHINGYA IN

BANGLADESH

Myanmar Citizenship Law 1982 does not include

Rohingya as one of the 135 Burmese national ethnic,

so they are not regarded as citizens and labeled as

stateless people. The Rohingya, Muslim minority

living predominantly in Burma’s northern Rakhine

state, are considered illegal immigrants from

Bangladesh, despite the fact that they have settled in

Myanmar for hundreds of years (Parnini, Othman

and Ghazali, 2013). This unrecognized status affects

the Rohingya where they are susceptible to

discrimination, oppression, torture, physical abuses,

and religious persecution by the Government of

Myanmar. That is, making Rohingya took refuge to

the neighboring countries, without exception

Bangladesh.

The condition of Bangladesh shows that the

country is not a well place to receive refugees. As

one of the most densely populated countries in the

world, Bangladesh is still struggling with poverty

and massive growing population. Moreover, the

country also known for its vulnerability because it is

often exposed to natural disasters and climate

change (Kiragu, Rosi and Morris, 2011). In fact, in

terms of legality, Bangladesh does not ratify the

1951 Refugee Convention and its Protocol of 1967.

Thus, the country does not have an obligation to deal

with Rohingya refugee. However, the country has

ratified several human rights conventions such as the

Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers and

Their Families.

In connection with the forced migrations, the

authors categorize four phases of Rohingya influx

into Bangladesh. The first wave took place in 1978,

when the Burmese military junta deployed Dragon

King Operation. The massive operation resulted in

mass murder and ethnic expulsion of Rohingya from

his residence (Parnini, 2013). As a result, an

estimated 200,000 Rohingya fled over the border to

Bangladesh. In an attempt to provide protection for

Rohingya, the Government of Bangladesh

constructed 20 refugee camps in 1992, but only two

camps remain as yet, which are Kutapalong and

Nayapara camps in the Cox Bazaar district in

southern Bangladesh (Milton et al., 2017).

Dating back to 1991-1992, the Government of

Myanmar deployed military forces in the Rakhine.

They’re increasing the construction of military

companies and highways throughout the area, in

which Rohingya was charged with ethnic

discrimination and alleged for violating Myanmar

citizenship law North Rakhine region to the border

of Bangladesh. The construction of military facilities

is accompanied by forced labor, seizure and

eviction, physical torture, murder and rape against

ethnic Rohingya living in Rakhine. Similarly,

mosque facilities are destroyed while religious

activities are prohibited as well as attacks on Muslim

leaders (Wiggers, 2002). As a result, over 250,000

Rakhine Muslims fled Myanmar seeks a protection

to Bangladesh, that event was called as the second

wave.

Furthermore, in 2012 as many as 140,000

Rohingya escaped to Bangladesh due to the

communal conflict that occurred with the majority

Buddhist Rakhine (Wiggers, 2002). In that third

influx, the communal conflict led to massacres, mass

killings and burning of Rohingya household by the

majority of Buddhist Rakhine along with local

military groups (Fuller, 2012). The arrival of

Rohingya Muslims in Bangladesh increased

significantly in early August 2017, when some

700,000 Rohingya Muslims crossed the border into

Bangladesh due to attacks and massacres perpetrated

by Myanmar military and police officers (Bearak,

2017).

Rohingya Refugee in Bangladesh: The Search for Durable Solutions?

365

Although Bangladesh did not ratify the 1951

Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol, the non-

refoulement concept obliged Bangladesh to respect

the principle by not pushing back the refugees to

their home country. However, it creates the

dilemmas for Bangladesh. According to Crabtree,

beside to security challenges, the presence of

Rohingya in Bangladesh creates tension between

refugees and local people because they are

considered as a burden that exacerbate the recent

problems facing Bangladesh such as poverty,

unemployment and underdevelopment (Crabtree,

2010).

Such perception has turned Bangladesh to

implements various restrictions for the Rohingya.

One is the prohibition of refugees to work both in

formal and informal sectors. In reality, however,

many refugees are working in the informal sector as

low-skilled labor. This then caused tension with the

local Bangladeshi population as many of them also

worked in the lower job sector (Crabtree, 2010).

Another limitation is the policy of encampment, in

which Bangladesh imposed a ban on refugees to

leaving the camp area without formal approval from

local authorities (Parnini, 2013).

4 FORCED REPATRIATION:

THE SOLUTION OF NO

SOLUTION?

Following the massive arrival of Rohingya to

Bangladesh in August 2017, the Government of

Bangladesh and Myanmar, proposed the idea to

repatriate 650.000 Rohingya back to Myanmar. The

agreement was signed by both parties in the first

quarter of 2018 and decided to complete the

repatriation process within two years, with scheme

of 300 people being repatriated to Myanmar every

day. To facilitate the repatriation process, five transit

camps will be built on the Bangladesh-Myanmar

border. However, since the two parties begin the

talks, UNHCR has not been widely involved in

refugee repatriation scheme (Paul, 2018).

The question over the scheme would be whether

the repatriation as one of the three durable solutions,

has fulfilled the principle of voluntary, safety and

dignity that must be respected in the repatriation

process. The UN emphasize that the principal of

voluntarily in repatriation process need to get

refugee’s approval to be returned back to the home

country, unless the repatriation defined by forced

and coercion and thus, considered as a violation of

individual rights in seeking for protection. Thus, the

aspects of safety and dignity also must be considered

in doing repatriation.

In the case of Rohingya, the question raised

whether Myanmar has been willing to guarantee the

safety and security upon the arrival of Rohingya.

According to Long (Long, 2013) the repatriation is

also a forms of peace agreement between refugees

and their home country. It is also forms of

reconciliation between refugee and the local

community. In the case of Myanmar, the current

condition shows there is still no clear stance from

the country regarding its policy towards the

Rohingya. Myanmar Citizenship Law 1982 has not

included Rohingya as part of 135 national ethnic of

Myanmar listed in the document. That is, the

Rohingya are still stateless because they do not have

citizenship status. Means, even Rohingya returns to

Myanmar, they will not get proper citizenship rights

such as the right to education, health insurance,

political rights and so on. Such concern should be

emphasized by Myanmar if the country has ready to

receive Rohingya back. Technical issues such as the

construction of refugee camps in Myanmar also

must be considered, as the returnees are no longer

having a place to live because their homes were

destroyed.

Furthermore, although in the end UN has been

involved in the process of repatriation by

Bangladesh and Myanmar, the agency is not fully

convinced that the repatriation process undertake in

the basis of voluntary, safety and dignity. This is

because Myanmar has not been able to ensure that

all parties will guarantee security, safety, human

rights and the status of Rohingya when they are

arrived in Myanmar. Just like the recent statement

made by UNHCR representatives who visited

Myanmar, "From what I've seen and heard from

people - no access to health services, concerns about

protection, continued displacement - condition are

not conducive to returns,"(Slodkowski, 2018).

This is not the first time for Bangladesh to

repatriate thousands of Rohingya back to Myanmar.

In the first influx of refugee arrival in 1978, both

countries agreed on agreement to repatriate 200.000

Rohingya back to Rakhine. The agreement was

resumed in 1992, when the two countries signing a

Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to re-

establish the repatriation program by giving a small

portion involvement of UNHCR in the process.

However, when the repatriation take placed,

Bangladesh completely excluded UNHCR from the

process and that makes the country was widely

ACIR 2018 - Airlangga Conference on International Relations

366

criticized by international community (Nemoto,

1991).

Thus, both repatriation in 1978 and 1992

strongly indicates the violating aspects of

repatriation. Repatriation is indeed becoming the

fastest way from three durable solutions to be

implemented in protracted refugee situation. But it

only becomes a durable solution if Bangladesh could

guarantee that the three aspects have been respected.

The consequence of neglecting the aspects has

resulted in the re-entered thousands of Rohingya

back to Bangladesh after series repatriation because

Myanmar still cannot guarantee the safety and well

being of Rohingya. This repeated pattern only

created the solution of no solution and not

establishes any significant result to achieve the

essence of durables solutions.

5 TOWARDS DE FACTO

INTEGRATIONS?

In the case of Bangladesh protracted refugee

situation, the local integration might be the best

option to gain durable solution. This is because

repatriation would not be effective when it is

violating the aspect of voluntarily, safety and dignity

of refugee. Moreover, since the reluctance of

Myanmar in dealing with the status of Rohingya, the

solution of repatriation is in vain. The resettlement

in third country is not better solution either, when

neighboring countries are also burdened with the

vast number of Syrian refugees. However, in

Bangladesh case, where prolonged condition in

terms of Government refusal to grant wide-range

rights for the refugees, the de jure integration is

completely needed.

In order to be locally integrated, the host country

along with the international community has to

engage to make refugee become self-reliant. This is

also a solution to avoid social jealousy and limiting

labor competition between locals and refugees.

Besides, the purpose of this self-reliance is

safeguarding and empowering refugee’s activities

(UNHCR, 2005, p. 3). The context of this self-

reliance is by giving land or place to refugees, to be

managed by them. Here, Zimbabwe is a country

where refugees already are able to manage self-

reliance. The refugees from Democratic Republic of

the Congo (DRC) and Burundi in Tongogora

Refugee Camp in Zimbabwe already do agriculture

sector and do self-sufficiency to support their live.

Each family gets 0.08 hectare of land from

Government and they plant maize or beans based on

its expert plots (Redden, 2007)

The success example of local integration is

between the refugees and local community in

Northwestern Tanzania. The integration can be seen

through mutual trade, open markets, and inter-

marriage between locals and refugees. The local

people also opened the health facilities as well as

market for refugee to be self-reliant. The other case

is Mexico. The country received economic benefit

due to refugees’ arrival. They lost nothing but

gained economic contribution after integrating

refugee into its economic and social spheres

(Jacobsen, 2001). Through refugee, the chance of

getting more loans and aids from donor states

benefited Mexico to build and developed the

country’s economic condition.

In this case, the host countries could search for

loan or get aids from the donor countries. However,

the fact that international funding only partially

support the economic burden (Dionigi, 2016)

indicates that the funding must be allocated to

investment rather than consumption. While

consumption focusing on “using” sources, the

investment focuses for “creating” sources. At first,

investment might give burden and it seems hardly to

achieve success. However, the money spent are

worth with the outcomes, as what Stein has said

“Relief and care and maintenance are expensive but

the durable solution of local settlement? Especially

when it involves developmental and infrastructural

assistance and also incorporates elements of the

local population? Is not inexpensive” (Stein, 1986).

Thus, the Government of Bangladesh along with

international community, such UNHCR has to seek

mutual agreement in response the vagueness of

Rohingya refugees in Lebanon. ASEAN as a

regional organization have to maximize its policy in

handling human rights violations in Myanmar.

ASEAN itself has emphasized the seriousness of

human rights through the ASEAN Human Right

Declaration (AHRD), thus the organization should

take concrete steps in handling the Rohingya case in

Myanmar. The role of the association along with the

international community in pressuring Aung San Su

Kyi's Government to intensify human rights

enforcement needs to be improved, as well as

pressuring the still-influential military junta in

Myanmar, to determine their attitude towards

Rohingya. However, the Rohingya refugee crisis

will not be over as long as Myanmar still commits

human rights abuses against Rohingya ethnic

minorities and does not revise the Myanmar

Citizenship Law 1982.

Rohingya Refugee in Bangladesh: The Search for Durable Solutions?

367

6 CONCLUSION

The durable solutions are needed in dealing with the

protracted situation of Rohingya refugees in

Bangladesh. The recent agreement between

Bangladesh and Myanmar on repatriating more than

700.000 Rohingya within two years is not the best

option unless both parties agree to guarantee the

aspect of repatriation based on voluntary, safety and

dignity. Moreover, with little involvement of

UNHCR in the process of repatriation, the durable

solution is only an illusion. Thus, when Rohingya

insist not changing its current policy on Rohingya,

when the violation of human rights are still haunt the

Rohingya, the repatriation is not a doable solutions.

The solution of resettlement is also call into doubt

when the neighborhood country like Thailand and

Malaysia also filled with numbers of Rohingya

fleeing the persecution. Thus, the most doable

solution is to implement de facto integration, which

is not only a matter of legal status provision by

Government, but also the provision of self-

sufficiency and settlement for refugees in local

community.

REFERENCES

Bearak, M. (2017) ‘Bangladesh is now home to almost 1

million Rohingya refugees’, Washington Post,

October.

Crabtree, K. (2010) ‘Economic Challenges and Coping

Mechanisms in Protracted Displacement: A Case

Study of the Rohingya Refugees in Bangladesh’,

Journal of Muslim Mental Health, 5(1), pp. 41–58.

doi: 10.1080/15564901003610073.

Crisp, J. (2004) ‘The local integration and local settlement

of refugees: a conceptual and historical analysis, Jeff

Crisp’, UNHCR Working Paper. (New Issues in

Refugee Research), (102).

Dionigi, F. (2016) The Syrian refugee crisis in Lebanon:

state fragility and social resilience.

Fielden, A. (2008) ‘Local Integration: an Under-Reported

solution to protracted refugee situations’, UNHCR

Working Paper. (New Issues in Refugee Research),

(158).

Fuller, T. (2012) ‘State of Emergency Declared in Western

Myanmar’, The New York Times, June.

Hovil, L. (2014) ‘Local Integration’, in The Oxford

Handbook of Refugee and Forced Migration Studies.

Oxford University Press.

Jacobsen, K. (2001) ‘The forgotten solution : local

integration for refugees in developing countries’, New

Issues in Refugee Research.

Kiragu, E., Rosi, A. L. and Morris, T. (2011) ‘A review of

UNHCR’s response to the protracted situation of

stateless Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh’, p. 36.

Long, K. (2013) The point of no return: refugees, rights,

and repatriation. First edit. Oxford, United Kingdom:

Oxford University Press.

Milton, A. H. et al. (2017) ‘Trapped in statelessness:

Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh’, International

Journal of Environmental Research and Public

Health. doi: 10.3390/ijerph14080942.

Nemoto, K. (1991) ‘The Rohingya Issue: A Throny

Obstacle between Burma and Bangladesh’, in Elusive

Borders: Changing SUb-Regional Relations in

Eastern South Asia. Japan: Institute of Developing

Economics, pp. 137–155.

Parnini, S. N. (2013) ‘The Crisis of the Rohingya as a

Muslim Minority in Myanmar and Bilateral Relations

with Bangladesh’, Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs.

doi: 10.1080/13602004.2013.826453.

Parnini, S. N., Othman, M. R. and Ghazali, A. S. (2013)

‘The Rohingya Refugee Crisis and Bangladesh-

Myanmar Relations’, Asian and Pacific Migration

Journal, 22(1), pp. 133–146. doi:

10.1177/011719681302200107.

Paul (2018) ‘Bangladesh agrees with Myanmar to

complete Rohingya return in two...’, Reuters, January.

Rahman, U. (2010) ‘The Rohingya refugee: A security

dilemma for Bangladesh’, Journal of Immigrant and

Refugee Studies. doi: 10.1080/15562941003792135.

Redden, J. (2007) Harvest time in Zimbabwe, refugees

help themselves, UNHCR.

Slodkowski, A. (2018) ‘Myanmar not ready for return of

Rohingya refugees - UN official’, Reuters, April.

Stein, B. N. (1986) ‘Durable solutions for developing

country refugees’, International Migration Review.

doi: 10.2307/2546035.

Ullah, A. A. (2011) ‘Rohingya refugees to Bangladesh:

Historical exclusions and contemporary

marginalization’, Journal of Immigrant and Refugee

Studies. doi: 10.1080/15562948.2011.567149.

UNHCR (2005) ‘Hand Book for Self-Relience’. UNHCR:

Reintegration and Local Settlement Section.

UNHCR (2007) The 10-Point Plan in Action, 2016

Update, Chapter 7: Solutions for Refugees, UNHCR.

UNHCR (2018) Bangladesh Refugee Emergency

Factsheet.

Wiggers, P. (2002) ‘10 Years for The Rohingya Refugees

in Bangladesh: Past, Present and Future’, Medicen

Sans Frontieres, p. 45.

ACIR 2018 - Airlangga Conference on International Relations

368