Whose Governance, Which Legitimacy? Myanmar’s Collective Agency In A Domineering Framework On The Rohingya Crisis

Kevin Ali Sesarianto
{"title":"Whose Governance, Which Legitimacy? Myanmar’s Collective Agency In A Domineering Framework On The Rohingya Crisis","authors":"Kevin Ali Sesarianto","doi":"10.24198/INTERMESTIC.V5N2.6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"July of 2017 is the last time the United Nations special rapporteur was allowed into Myanmar to report on the Rohingya crisis. By contrast, the Foreign Minister of Indonesia was well-received to talk about the same problem in 2017. This article sees the problem as a legitimacy crisis: Myanmar did not see the United Nations intervention framework to report on the Rohingya crisis as legitimate due to the perceived lack of the former’s agency in that framework. This article uses the concept of collective agency to further understand Myanmar’s reception of the United Nations regarding the Rohingya crisis. Myanmar’s rationality – way of seeing things – is seen to be marginalised and even deleted by the United Nations’ internationalist/cosmopolitan rationality through labels such as ‘draconian’ and ‘stagnant’ Indonesia’s approach is more sensitive to Myanmar’s agency. This article concludes that the exclusionist practice by the United Nations makes the framework lose its support-worthiness.","PeriodicalId":330787,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of international studies","volume":"658 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of international studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24198/INTERMESTIC.V5N2.6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

July of 2017 is the last time the United Nations special rapporteur was allowed into Myanmar to report on the Rohingya crisis. By contrast, the Foreign Minister of Indonesia was well-received to talk about the same problem in 2017. This article sees the problem as a legitimacy crisis: Myanmar did not see the United Nations intervention framework to report on the Rohingya crisis as legitimate due to the perceived lack of the former’s agency in that framework. This article uses the concept of collective agency to further understand Myanmar’s reception of the United Nations regarding the Rohingya crisis. Myanmar’s rationality – way of seeing things – is seen to be marginalised and even deleted by the United Nations’ internationalist/cosmopolitan rationality through labels such as ‘draconian’ and ‘stagnant’ Indonesia’s approach is more sensitive to Myanmar’s agency. This article concludes that the exclusionist practice by the United Nations makes the framework lose its support-worthiness.
谁的治理,哪种合法性?缅甸集体机构在罗兴亚危机上的霸道框架
2017年7月是联合国特别报告员最后一次获准进入缅甸报道罗兴亚危机。相比之下,印尼外交部长在2017年谈论同样的问题时受到了热烈欢迎。这篇文章将这个问题视为一场合法性危机:缅甸不认为联合国报告罗兴亚危机的干预框架是合法的,因为它认为在该框架中缺乏联合国的代理机构。本文运用集体代理的概念,进一步理解缅甸在罗兴亚危机问题上对联合国的接纳。缅甸的理性——“看待事物的方式”——被联合国的国际主义/世界主义理性通过诸如“龙的”和“停滞的”等标签边缘化甚至删除。印尼的做法对缅甸的机构更为敏感。本文的结论是,联合国的排他性做法使该框架失去了支持价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信