Rethinking Humanitarian Diplomacy for Myanmar's Rohingya Crisis Resolution: A Critical Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Rohingya crisis in Myanmar, driven by systemic exclusion and intensified by the 2021 military coup, has defied conventional conflict resolution using peacebuilding approaches. This article argues for a shift towards an integrated Humanitarian–Development–Peace nexus, operationalized through Track II diplomacy and humanitarian diplomacy, to bridge immediate protection needs with long-term and sustainable conflict transformation. Using a qualitative, interpretive design and comparative analysis of the Oslo and Aceh peace processes, the study identifies transferable mechanisms for Myanmar's multi-actor context. It proposes a pragmatic model linking informal dialogue, localized “access compacts,” and incremental confidence-building measures to verifiable humanitarian outcomes. The model assigns complementary roles to ASEAN (regional facilitation), Canada (technical and legal leverage), and Qatar (mediation and convening), while embedding grassroots and faith-based actors for legitimacy and authenticity. By reframing peace intervention as a continuum, the article offers a roadmap for inclusive, adaptive strategies that advance humanitarian access and lay foundations for sustainable peace, where, like the Rohingyas, all displaced persons can return with safety and dignity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".