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

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.

Tax Liability Arrangement of International E-Commerce in Indonesia

“…(3) However, these restrictions in many ways also benefit individuals or groups in pursuing their respective projects; (4) This is because the factors that limit individual and group activities, also influence the formation of preferences and motivations of actors and groups; (5) These restrictions have historical roots, as a legacy of past actions and choices, and; (6) These restrictions create, maintain, and provide different opportunities and strengths to individuals and groups respectively. " (Budiardjo, 2008) Given that every institution can only survive as long as it is able to maintain its legitimacy in the face of challenges, then an institution must remain aware of the importance of rationalityplurality (Sesarianto, 2021), as in international e-commerce transactions, there are various characteristics of the actors involved. Thus, the use of new institutionalism theory must be carried out with a historical institutionalism approach, as according to Thelen and Steinmo (1992), historical institutionalists tend to see political actors not as all-knowing rational maximizers, but rather as "satisfiers" who follow the rules.…”