Myanmar: No Man’s Land

Scott Leckie, an international human rights lawyer, argues that control over land in Myanmar functions as a central mechanism through which power is exercised and inequality is sustained, and that any meaningful democratic transition depends on restoring enforceable rights and accountability in how land is governed. He is joined by Jose Arraiza, a specialist in citizenship and land ownership issues in conflict-affected settings. “Housing, land and property rights, HLP rights, is a tremendous, endlessly complex and complicated area that varies in law between countries,” says Leckie. “Yet at the international level, it is widely recognized in a whole series of human rights and other treaties to be part and parcel of the International Bill of Rights that everyone on planet Earth has a right to, including all the people living within the borders of Myanmar.” They define HLP rights as a system that includes formal owners, customary users, tenants, and those without formal titles, emphasizing that protection does not depend on documentation alone. What matters is whether individuals can remain in their homes or on their land without arbitrary interference, since this determines whether stability is possible in everyday life. The origin of Myanmar’s current land system lies in colonial policy, when British authorities classified inhabited land as “wasteland” in order to make it available for appropriation. This classification imposed an external economic logic that disregarded existing patterns of use and redefined land as a resource to be exploited. Several subsequent military regimes translated these colonial concepts into their own right to do whatever they pleased with the land, which explains how state authority over land continued rather than being dismantled after independence. Today, this concentration of authority allows land to be seized pretty much at the government’s whim. “It’s as simple as essentially telling you to leave and taking a piece of land. It’s as bad as that,” Leckie says. Without enforceable safeguards—such as consultation, legal challenge, or compensation—individuals have little recourse to defend their claims, and decisions are made through power rather than adjudicated through law.