Ethnicity and International Law presents an historical account of the impact of ethnicity on the making of international law. The development of international law since the nineteenth century is characterised by the inherent tension between the liberal and conservative traditions of dealing with what might be termed the 'problem' of ethnicity. The present-day hesitancy of liberal international law to engage with ethnicity in ethnic conflicts and ethnic minorities has its roots in these conflicting philosophical traditions. In international legal studies, both the relevance of ethnicity, and the traditions of understanding it, lie in this fact.

Through a critical examination of British colonial policies in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) in Bangladesh, this article challenges the conventional wisdom that colonial administration had a benevolent strategy of ‘protecting’ indigenous peoples. To this end, this article specifically dispels three examples of such protectionist rhetoric advanced in the CHT by the British colonial administration: protection of hill peoples from external invasions, from the exploitation of dominant Bangalee groups, and from their own oppressive chiefs. I conclude that these protectionist policies were in fact motivated by self-interest and, therefore, often proved to be counterproductive for hill peoples by further empowering dominant Bangalees and tribal chiefs. Therefore, in engaging with the question of ‘protection’ of ordinary hill peoples in the CHT from ongoing oppression and marginalisation, we must consider new paradigms, beyond the colonial isolationist and seclusionist model of protection.

No abstract

This article establishes the normative connection between Japan’s responses to regional hegemonic order prior to the nineteenth century and its subsequent engagement with the European standard of civilization. I argue that the Japanese understanding of the ‘standard of civilization’ in the nineteenth century was informed by the historical pattern of its responses to hegemony and the discourse on cultural superiority in the Far East that shifted from Sinocentrism to the unbroken Imperial lineage to the national-spirit. Although Japanese scholars accepted and engaged with the European standard of civilization after the forced opening up of Japan to the Western world in the mid-nineteenth century, they did so for instrumental purposes and soon translated ‘civilization’ into a language of imperialism to reassert supremacy in the region. Through intellectual historiography, this narrative contextualizes Japan’s engagement with the European standard of civilization, and offers an analytical framework not only to go beyond Eurocentrism but also to identify various other loci of hegemony, which are connected through the same language of power.

The development of post-colonial states through the operation of the uti possidetis principle in international law is intrinsically connected to the suppression of ethnic minorities and the ensuing humanitarian catastrophes in these states. With the continuation of colonial boundaries in post-colonial states due to the uti possidetis principle, international law facilitates many of these catastrophes. Accordingly, through exploring the questionable legal status of the uti possidetis principle and the fallacy of its conflict-preventing potential, I argue that uti possidetis itself is a key problem. The continuation of arbitrarily drawn colonial boundaries undermines the legitimate right to self-determination of numerous ethnic minorities. This paper specifically explores the application of uti possidetis to Myanmar and how it contributed to the Rohingya crisis. In the process, the paper also highlights the inherent relationship between colonialism and international law and how it has shaped the development of post-colonial states.