Human Rights Legal Education in Times of Transition: Perspectives and Practices of Law Instructors in Myanmar

Abstract

This mixed-methods study examines the human rights and human rights education and training (HRET) perspectives and practices of law educators in Myanmar during the democratic transition that ended with the 2021 coup. “Contextual, Theoretical, and Methodological Framing” provides an overview of legal and human rights education in Myanmar, discusses the potential of human rights education in law schools during democratic transitions, addresses why educators’ human rights and human rights education perspectives and practices are important to examine, and presents the research methodology. “Findings” presents findings based on the two phases of research during the transitional period: phase 1 (2015–2017)—law instructors’ perspectives and practices after participating in a multi-year HRET program; and phase 2 (2019–2020)—law instructors’ perspectives on the goals, challenges, and potential of HRET in Myanmar. The third section—“Discussion and Implications”—examines the contextual challenges and opportunities for human rights education as related to (1) critical human rights education, (2) practice-oriented HRET, and (3) administrative policies and practices for human rights and HRET within universities.

Introduction

In 2010, after decades of authoritarian military rule, Myanmar¹ began a transitional process marked by general elections, the release and election of Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners, and efforts to promote the rule of law (Crouch 2017; Rosenbaum et al. 2021). Yet, the constitution guaranteed the military a parliamentary majority (among other flaws), human rights abuses and conflict continued, and government-led rule-of-law initiatives largely focused on obedience for the sake of security and stability while simultaneously applying the laws unequally (Cheesman 2014, 2009; Crouch 2014b).

As arguably evidenced by the 2021 coup, a successful transition requires more than “thin” versions of democracy and the rule of law. Democratic transition in this article refers to a process towards a social democracy based on respect for human rights and the rule of law (Landman 2018, 50; Beetham 1997; Zakaria 1997). Moreover, it assumes the importance of a “thick” version of the rule of law, which includes respect for rights and social welfare (Corstens 2013, 512-513; Golub 2007; Peerenboom 2005; Rijpkema, 2013; Tamanaha 2004, 91).

Given the relationship among human rights, democracy, and the rule of law, human rights education has the potential to play an important role in times of transition. According to the UN Declaration of Human Rights Education and Training, HRET can promote knowledge, skills, values, and actions for the realization of human rights (UNGA 2012, Articles 1 and 2). Several scholars have also addressed the positive potential of human rights education in transformative contexts (Holland and Martin 2014, 2017; Magendzo 1997; Neacsu-Hendry 1997; Tibbitts 1994; Tibbitts and Keet 2016; Tibbitts and Weldon 2017).

Human rights education and training (HRET) within law schools can be particularly important for promoting “thick” transitions. As scholars argued in the context of legal education reform in Eastern Europe:

It is currently a widely known truth that without a ‘critical mass’ of legal practitioners that share values of upholding the rule of law, maintaining and defending fundamental human rights, and promoting a legal culture focusing on social justice and justice education, very few rule of law reforms might succeed beyond the formalistic adoption of new law and legal policies and the establishment of new institutions (Berbec-Rostas et al. 2011, 66).

In addition to fostering these important values, effective HRET can foster subject-matter expertise and skills such as critical thinking that are valuable to a democracy and often lacking in education systems under autocratic regimes (UN OHCHR 2012, 14; Maber 2019, 59; Milton 2017, 50; Weinstein 1991; Pinto and Portelli 2009). However, educators can take varied approaches to HRET and contextual factors can influence how HRET is implemented. In order to better understand both the challenges and potential of HRET during times of transition, this mixed-methods study examines the human rights education perspectives and practices of university law instructors in Myanmar who participated in human rights education training between 2015 and 2021, a time of democratic transition in the country.

“Contextual, Theoretical, and Methodological Framing” provides an overview of legal and human rights education in Myanmar, discusses the potential of human rights education in law schools during democratic transitions, addresses why educators’ human rights and human rights education perspectives and practices are important to examine, and presents the research methodology. “Findings” will present findings based on the two phases of research that took place during Myanmar’s transitional period: phase 1 (2015–2017)—law instructors’ perspectives and practices after participating in HRET; and phase 2 (2019–2020)—law instructors’ perspectives on the goals, challenges, and potential of HRET in Myanmar. The third section—“Discussion and Implications”—examines the contextual challenges and opportunities for human rights education as related to (1) critical human rights education, (2) practice-oriented HRET, and (3) administrative policies and practices for human rights and HRET within universities.

Contextual, Theoretical, and Methodological Framing

Legal and Human Rights Education in Myanmar

During the transition, legal education in Myanmar faced multiple political and institutional challenges imposed by years of undemocratic governance including university closures in response to political protests, censorship, the negative political implications of studying law, and insufficient resource investment (Zan 2008; Ross et al. 2020; Liljeblad 2019, 2022; Crouch 2017). Indeed, as scholar Myint Zan observed in 2008, “I believe that the damage has been so great that it would prove to be a mammoth task to rectify the situation… And this would be true even in the unlikely or nearly impossible scenario of Burma returning to less authoritarian and less undemocratic rule” (104).

In an effort to address some of these challenges, the National Education Strategic Plan (NESP 2016-2021) sought to improve infrastructure, foster greater autonomy and academic freedom, promote more student-centered approaches to education, support teacher research, and strengthen international ties, among other goals (Republic of the Union of Myanmar Ministry of Education 2016, 197-202; Liljeblad 2019, 452, 454; 2022, 3; Rosenbaum et al. 2021). Investment in higher education and opportunities for international collaboration grew (Rosenbaum et al. 2021). Efforts to introduce human rights education within law schools during this time included capacity-building initiatives for educators and the creation of an undergraduate human rights course, which became required for third-year law students in 2019 (Liljeblad 2022).²

Unfortunately, despite these initiatives, like other aspects of Myanmar’s transition, educational reform was incomplete and many challenges persisted. University management continued to be highly centralized and hierarchical. Curriculum and syllabi decisions were made by a Board of Legal Studies (which  did not always have relevant subject-matter expertise) rather than individual teachers (Liljeblad 2019, 2022; Rosenbaum et al. 2021). Heads of departments controlled the amount of time educators had available for specialization development through research as well as the opportunities to participate in capacity-building programs (Liljeblad 2022, 10). Educators also needed to obtain permission from the Ministry of Education to attend events or workshops off campus or invite speakers to campus (Crouch 2014b; Rosenbaum et al. 2021). Developing subject-matter expertise was further stymied by significant administrative responsibilities, limited access to research, minimal emphasis on producing scholarship, and the practice of assigning professors a wide range of course subjects with little advance notice of the course (Crouch 2014b; Fleming 2014 Liljeblad 2019; Ross et al. 2020; Rosenbaum et al. 2021).

Challenges also persisted within the classroom. Legal education largely followed a “banking” or transmission model, with a focus on the rote memorization of information rather than critical thinking and analysis that would produce legal professionals capable of promoting democratic, rights-based rule of law (Ross et al. 2020, 100; Zan 2008, 78-89; Liljeblad 2019; Rosenbaum et al. 2021). Interactive teaching methods were rarely employed; courses were largely lecture-based, often with law educators simply reading from a textbook (Fleming 2014, 16; Ross et al. 2020, 100).

There was also a problematic gap between the study and practice of law. Full-time educators were legally barred from taking on clients, advocates could only serve as guest lecturers, and permission to bring NGO practitioners to campus was difficult to obtain (Crouch 2014b; Fleming 2014; Rosenbaum et al. 2021).³ While some clinical legal education had begun, such initiatives were also stymied by the varied educational challenges discussed in this section (Ross et al. 2020; Rosenbaum et al. 2021).⁴ Other challenges include English language requirements, the practice of transferring educators to other law schools every 1–3 years, and discriminatory admissions practices (Lwin 2007; Zan 2008; Shah and Lopes Cardozo 2019).⁵

Many of the challenges documented with respect to higher education were also identified in the context of human rights education more generally in Myanmar. A 2018 study by Equality Myanmar, which focused on HRE in the formal education system, identified challenges to HRET that included lack of educator knowledge, insufficient resources, no priority for human rights education due to exam pressure and student assessments, and insufficient political will (Wai 2018, 47). This study’s analysis of primary school curricula also found that the most common keywords in moral and civics lessons were respect, obedient, nationalist, nation, homily, and patriotic (Wai 2018, 45). Developing the capacity of citizens to hold the government accountable for its human rights obligations is rendered more challenging when the educational system prioritizes obedience to the government. Another human rights education study undertaken during the transition identified challenges such as poor infrastructure, lack of political will, insufficient resources in accessible languages, and misunderstandings about human rights (Arkar Hein Soe 2019, 48). Yet, despite these challenges (or arguably because of them), it is important to consider how human rights education in law schools in Myanmar can contribute to a democratic transition.

The Potential of Human Rights Education in Law Schools During Democratic Transitions

Lawyers, along with law educators and students, play an essential role in supporting, constituting, institutionalizing, and protecting the rule of law (McGonigle Leyh 2021, 90; Batesmith and Stevens 2019, 578 citing Daniels and Trebilock 2004, 116; Luban 2010, 14; Summers 1993, 128; Tamanaha 2007, 15). Human rights education in law schools has the potential to advance thick versions of the rule of law and democracy in several respects.

First, effective HRET can develop the capacity of law school instructors to promote rights-based laws, policies, and practices.⁶ Although legal educators in Myanmar were restricted from many forms of practice, they were called upon to assist the government in drafting legislation, marking entrance examinations for the judiciary, and other consulting roles (Crouch 2014a, 21).⁷ Instructors, with the right training and support, can also create space within their classrooms to discuss human rights violations and inter-group tensions, which can contribute to peacebuilding (Tibbitts and Weldon 2017; Davies 2017; Milton 2017, 48; Lopes Lopes Cardozo and Maber 2019).⁸ The development of a cohort of law educators in Myanmar who teach and support human rights is also important because of the ways in which law schools have been manipulated by the government. For example, in addition to frequently closing universities and imposing strict curricular controls, the military used lecturers to dissuade students from demonstrating (Crouch 2014b, 545).

HRET in law schools can also develop the knowledge, skills, and dispositions of law students to take action for human rights. For example, Stellmacher and Sommer (2008) found human rights education seminars within a university increased the knowledge about human rights and attitudes regarding the importance of human rights and commitments to civic engagement for human rights. Students mobilizing for human rights, as they have in fact done in Myanmar, can organize to hold governments accountable (Zan 2008).

Students can also advance human rights as legal practitioners. While it is unknown what the future transitional context in Myanmar might be, several research studies have focused specifically on the role of legal practitioners during the 2010–2021 transitional period in Myanmar. For example, Batesmith and Stevens (2019) found that criminal defense attorneys in Myanmar were working to acknowledge the dignity (a core concept of human rights) of their clients and, in so doing, acting as agents of everyday resistance (590). Cheesman and Kyaw Min San argue that while legal formality may be considered a conservative doctrine in some countries, in the Myanmar context, lawyers can play an essential role in fostering democratic transition by advocating for the law itself (2014, 733). It has also been argued that the transformation of the justice sector “largely depends on the work of legal practitioners ‘on the ground’ who demand that legal standards be met and who intermediate the notion of state law to the people” (Rosenbaum et al. 2021, 165 citing Burma Center Prague 2017, 23).

HRET can also train lawyers to engage in less formal legal practice, including human rights advocacy and capacity-building with marginalized communities. Golub (2003, 2007) argues this kind of legal empowerment can be more effective in transitional contexts than rule of law orthodoxy, which tends to focus on top-down state-focused efforts.⁹ In Myanmar, a 2020 study found that while there is also a strong need for legal aid, a larger issue for its citizens is knowing their rights and how to access legal representation (Ross et al. 2020, 104). In this respect, community-engaged learning¹⁰ and clinical legal education that focuses on human rights can play an important role in transitional contexts (Iya 1994, Golub 2007, Kyaw Min Saan and Cheesman 2013, Ross et al. 2020, McGonigle Leyh 2021). Such educational initiatives can have the double benefit of developing rights-based knowledge, skills, and values of law educators and their students, as well as providing necessary legal and human rights services to communities and supporting the development of their capacities as well.

Effective HRET within law schools also has the potential to foster participatory, rights-based teaching approaches that can help foster critical thinking and model respect for the agency and rights of learners. These elements of a human rights classroom are arguably key to thick democracies (UN OHCHR 2012, 14; Davies 2017; Weinstein 1991; Pinto and Portelli 2009). Unfortunately, in Myanmar, the military intentionally suppressed critical thinking within education in order to create obedient citizens, which has undermined democracy and contributed to ongoing conflict (Shah and Lopes Cardozo 2019, 70; Maber 2019, 59; Lwin 2000, 15-16; Walton 2013).

Human rights education in law schools can also address another conflict grievance that can impede democratic transitions—discriminatory treatment by and within universities, including unequal access to education (Shah and Lopes Cardozo 2019, Lwin 2007, Novelli et al. 2017, Davies 2017). HRET can develop the willingness and capacity of educators and students to advocate for educational policies and practices, both within the classroom and the wider institutional structures, that align with human rights principles of equality and non-discrimination.

Thus, HRET for law instructors can have a valuable multiplier effect. In addition to enhancing the capacity of educators to promote human rights, law educators who can effectively teach human rights education can enhance the capacity of students and other community members, who can in turn take action for their rights and those of others. However, the effectiveness of HRET in law schools is also influenced by the perspectives and approaches of law educators in the face of often challenging contextual factors.

Educators’ Human Rights and Human Rights Education Perspectives and Practices

The way in which an educator understands and approaches human rights education can have profound implications for educators, learners, and the broader community in which education takes place (Adami 2014; Al-Daraweesh and Snauwaert 2013; Bajaj 2011a; Bajaj 2011b; Tibbitts 2017; Zembylas et al. 2016 and 2017). There are varied perspectives and approaches to HRET, but there are two that are particularly important for this article. The first, to borrow a term introduced by Keet, is a “declarationist” approach (which he critiques). It assumes a “consensus on human rights universals,” is based on the “belief that all human rights truths are generated and consummated with instruments such as declarations, conventions and covenants,” and focuses on “transmitting the provisions in these instruments,” generally using a non-interactive approach that focuses on the transmission of information (Keet 2012, 7, 22).

In contrast, a critical, learner-centered approach to human rights education provides opportunities for students to critically examine multiple perspective of human rights, which can advance “a local cultural conceptualization of human rights that is imperative to the negotiated local embrace of human rights” (Zembylas et al. 2016, 200; See also Al-Daraweesh & Snauwaert, 2013; Bajaj 2011b). For example, a critical hermeneutical approach (CHA) to human rights education and training:

emphasizes the idea that human rights learners have opportunities to interpret human rights rather than merely accepting them as universal and absolute truths—a practice that takes place in the form of a dialogue between the learner and the specific sociohistorical context with its own complexities and sensitivities. Second, CHA promotes a critical understanding of diverse manifestations of human rights; this involves, for example, questioning certainties and established ideas, recognizing the role of power relations and highlighting the controversies around hegemonic discourses on human rights. (Zembylas et al. 2017, 500-501; See also Adami 2014; Al-Daraweesh and Snauwaert 2013; Bajaj 2011b; and Zembylas et al. 2016)

A critical approach to human rights education (including CHA and critical discursive approaches) is important in transitional contexts because it can facilitate the embrace of human rights and foster critical thinking skills that are valuable to thick forms of democracy (UN OHCHR 2012, 14; Pinto and Portelli 2009). It has also been argued that participatory learning approaches and student-centered classrooms can have the potential to “improve quality, transform student–teacher relations, and foster communicative skills and competencies that better support peacebuilding” (Milton 2017, 50). Moreover, in some transitional contexts, non-critical approaches to human rights education have been co-opted by governments to entrench and solidify their power or cover up or absolve themselves of current or past human rights abuses (Ahmed 2017, Russell 2020).

Given the potential role that HRET in law schools can play and the multiplier effect that educators can have, it is important to understand how law instructors understand and approach human rights and human rights education in relation to the transitional context and its associated challenges.¹¹ This article focuses on the perspectives and practices of law educators in Myanmar who participated in human rights education training during the democratic transition that ended with the 2021 coup.

Methodology

Data was collected between 2015 and 2021 in conjunction with a multi-year program to develop the capacity of Myanmar law instructors to engage in human rights education.¹² This program was co-developed and co-facilitated by the author and Benedict Fleming on behalf of Columbia University’s Institute for the Study of Human Rights. There were two phases of the program, which coincided with two phases of research. The first phase of the program was an introduction to a human rights series for law instructors that took place between 2015 and 2018 and involved six in-person workshops and online learning; the second phase between 2019 and 2020 focused specifically on minority rights and involved two in-person workshops and online learning. The initiative adopted interactive, learner-centered teaching approaches and sought to develop the capacity of educators to use similar approaches in their own teaching. In addition to education about human rights, the program emphasized education through and for human rights (UNDHRET 2011).¹³ Participants originally represented all 18 law schools in Myanmar, but due to the practice of transferring educators to different universities, this was not the case for the duration of the data collection period. With the exception of the first workshop, all participants were women, reflecting the predominantly female gender makeup of educators in the law departments (Fleming 2014). Participants were not formally asked to identify their ethnic and religious backgrounds, but many shared this information through informal discussions. The majority were Buddhists, but some participants identified as Christian or Muslim. Most were ethnically Bamar, but other ethnic groups included Arakanese, Chin, Kachin, Karen and Sino-Bamarshan.

Overview of HRET program and data collection dates + methods

Phase 1: Introduction to human rights

March 2015—written surveys with 30 instructor participants

November 2015—written surveys with 22 faculty participants

June 2016—written surveys with 21 instructor participants

May 2017—written surveys with 19 instructor participants

July 2017—written surveys with 20 instructor participants + program evaluation surveys from 119 students who participated in half-day human rights workshops that were developed and taught by instructors

December 2017—written surveys + individual interviews with 14 core instructor participants + program evaluation surveys with approximately 60 additional Myanmar instructors who participated beyond core program participants

Phase 2: Minority rights

August 2019—individual and group surveys + large group discussion with 28 faculty participants

January 2020—written surveys with 27 faculty participants for program evaluation

Additional in-person workshops were cancelled due to COVID-19 and then the coup.

Data sources for this mixed-method study include instructor responses to pre- and post-workshop surveys (n = 19-30), interviews conducted after the conclusion of a 6-part introduction to human rights training (n = 16), notes from small and large group discussions (n =12 groups composed of 28 instructors), and observations from the author as a facilitator of these workshops.¹⁴ An inductive coding method was used to analyze and organize survey and small group discussion responses. Intelligent verbatim transcriptions of educator interviews were also analyzed to identify themes.

The greatest limitation and challenge of this study was the unanticipated suspension of the project and research, first due to the COVID-19 pandemic and then the coup of February 2021. Another potential limitation is the positionality of the author as co-designer and co-facilitator of the project. While the questions were neutrally phrased, it is possible the respondents felt pressured to focus more on the positive aspects of their participation in the human rights education program. The number of survey responses for phase 1 varied between 19 and 30, as not everyone was able to complete the entire introduction to human rights training series. Finally, although the language of instruction in Myanmar was officially English for many years, the English language skills of the educators varied, which may have limited the effectiveness with which some communicated, including more truncated responses.

Findings

Phase 1 Findings (2015–2017): Law Instructors’ Perspectives and Practices After Participating in HRET

Throughout the first phase of the program (2015–2017), participants (law educators) were asked to reflect, through written surveys and in-person interviews, on their experience with HRET and to share their human rights and human rights education perspectives and practices. Unless otherwise indicated, findings in this section are based on data collected from this first phase of the program. Program participants reported a transformation in their educational approaches, conceptualizations of human rights, and role as human rights actors. These shifts will be addressed in distinct sections below.

These findings are worth examining for three reasons. First, law instructor perspectives towards human rights and HRET as learners can have profound implications for their approach to HRET as educators. Second, these findings, including when analyzed in conjunction with findings from phase 2 (see the “Discussion and Implications” section), help reveal opportunities for effective HRET during transitional contexts. Third, given the relationship between human rights and thick versions of democracy, these reported shifts among law instructors as rule-of-law actors and as educators suggest that HRET has the potential to effect positive change during times of transition.

Educational Approaches

Despite the challenges of the Myanmar educational context, instructors reported notable changes in their educational approaches. As previously mentioned, teaching in law schools was almost exclusively lecture-based, student learning was assessed on their ability to memorize laws and texts, and instructors were treated as gate-keepers of information. Despite, or perhaps because of this context, instructors expressed significant support for more interactive, critical teaching approaches. For example, one law educator noted, “... I change my teaching style. We always used traditional methods of teaching style, just a lecturer and just a little discussion and question and answer. After attending the workshop, I absolutely change my style.” Some of the more critical, learner-centered teaching methods instructors reported included discussion, debate, scenario analysis, and role-playing. Additionally, when instructors during the second phase of research were asked to identify necessary changes within the university, half of the small discussion groups (6/12) referenced the importance of new teaching approaches. They also identified a range of participatory activities when asked what they thought were the most effective teaching methods in their classrooms.

Instructors also reported a change in their attitudes towards and interactions with students. For example, one law educator reflected on whether she had violated students’ rights in the past and another noted she now treats her students more like sisters and brothers. In an effort to promote a human rights classroom (education through human rights), another educator implemented a class agreement that emphasized the importance of respecting the dignity and rights of every person. Another reported: “I try to use various human rights environments like a classroom and our university. I try to build a human rights environment.” They also acknowledged the important role students can play in promoting human rights. For example, one acknowledged her responsibility to teach human rights because “...the students are the future, students are the leader of the state in the future… [and some] didn’t know what is human rights, what violations do students face there.” Another shared that she learned to “listen to the students and so we realize they are thoughtful, their opinion.”

Instructors also observed a difference in the level of student engagement. For example, one reported: “[b]efore the human rights classes, they were always learning so silently. But in the human rights class, they are more active than before, they participate more in the lesson, discussion and participation.” Another shared that “students change their minds and their attitudes and they’re interested, pay more, more interested in subjects.” An interest in more active participation and interactive teaching approaches were also confirmed by student surveys after law instructors in the HRET program offered half-day human rights workshops for students.

As discussed in “Contextual, Theoretical, and Methodological Framing,” employing critical and participatory teaching methods, modeling respect for human rights in the classroom, and treating students as capable agents of change can help develop a broader culture of respect for human rights and can support democratic civic engagement—factors that are key to thick democracies.

Conceptualizations of Human Rights

Findings suggest that instructors’ conceptualizations of human rights became more contextualized and nuanced over time. When reflecting on any shifts in perceptions or ideas after the first workshop, instructors focused on increased knowledge (13/24), followed by teaching methods (4/24) and considering other opinions (3/24). Most references to knowledge were very general and only one instructor explicitly linked knowledge acquisition to the political context.¹⁵ This instructor was also one of only two who referenced the need to respect human rights: “Yes - As we are human being[s], we need to respect and protect human rights, we have to change some of our outdated idea[s]. Since we were born in dictatorship, we’ve never heard about human rights and current it became familiar to us.”

However, when asked whether their views on human rights had changed after the sixth and final workshop of the first program phase, many instructors articulated more nuanced conceptualizations of human rights. For example, one instructor discussed their own agency and the responsibility to do more than simply respect human rights:

Actually, at the very beginning of my human rights study, I want to approach what are the human rights, how to respect the human rights only. Now, I shift my ways. I as an administrator, I as a professor, how to do this. My shift is about the responsibility and accountability, so I look forward to the responsibility. If there is a human rights issue, how can I solve it, how can I overcome this issue. I consider about this and find the solution myself.

Instructors also linked their understanding of human rights more directly to the Myanmar context. In addition to identifying a range of human rights violations occurring in Myanmar, they pointed to multiple contributing factors and observed the inter-relatedness of human rights issues. They also noted that various viewpoints are needed to understand and solve problems, that human rights is “complicated,” and that certain challenges will not be readily solved and will take time.

Many educators also reported a shift in attitude towards the rights of certain groups that have faced significant discrimination in Myanmar. For example, “At the beginning I think the LGBT is not, how can I say, is bad and after the workshop I changed my mind - oh, they are also human beings and they have equal rights and end discrimination.” Religions and ethnic discrimination also emerged as a theme. For example, “In my community, I don’t like other people, because we have very different opinions, like on religions. Now that very changes. I should respect their opinion.” Another observed, “...there is a conflict between Rakhine and Muslim. At first, I think it is the fault of the Muslim. Because they are Muslim. At first, I think like that. Later, […] I can empathize from their side because their lack of - from the children, some people, their lack of education and care they have. I feel, how can I say, I feel sympathy.”

Thus, their conceptualizations of human rights seemed to shift away from a more “declarationist” focus on knowledge towards ones that were more critical, nuanced, inclusive, and contextualized.

Role as Human Rights Actors

Law instructors also reported a growing sense of agency and ability to influence the human rights situation in Myanmar.¹⁶ Most instructors focused on the promotion of human rights through education and conversations with colleagues, friends, family, and community members. For example, one educator observed:

I want to share my knowledge to my community and especially in [the] Rakhine community – what’s human rights what are the benefits of human rights. Our community always think. At first, they always hear about the human rights. The words human rights. At first, they see the Muslim. Yeah, because most of the NGOs help them and they neglect our Rakhine community. At first they see like that. But, that’s why I want to discuss with them. I want to share. I want to give the knowledge – no, human rights is not like that. I want to share. I want to discuss them.

Another educator noted, “Personally, I think I changed a lot because in my family, I have told my sisters that ‘hey guys, you cannot, no, this isn’t right. He has rights as well. This is his rights; this is her rights. And also, this is my right.’ I always argue this is my right.” Similarly, another instructor reported: “In my country, formerly I don’t speak about human rights. Now I dare to speak about human rights, human rights work, what is human rights, what rights do we have.” Another educator noted her confidence had increased to the point that she was willing to disagree with police officers about the treatment of religious minorities during a human rights workshop. Additionally, while this research focused on HRET during the democratic transition that was interrupted by the military coup of February 2021, many law school instructors continue to support human rights both in-country and internationally through leadership with the CDM, support for the National Unity Government, advocacy and research with NGOs, and community-based organization and education.

Phase 2 Findings (2019–2020): Law Instructor Perspectives on the Goals, Challenges, and Potential of HRET in Myanmar

In small and large group discussions, law educators participating in the second phase of the program, which focused specifically on minority rights, reflected upon the goals, challenges, and potential of human rights education in Myanmar. Most (20/28) of the participants had prior educational experience with human rights and 12 had participated in the first phase of the program that entailed six in-person workshops and online learning between 2015 and 2017. Additionally, 16 of the instructors had either taught a human rights course, or had taught a section on human rights as part of another course.

These instructors were asked what the goals of a human rights course should be and what knowledge, skills, and values they thought were important to teach in both an international human rights law class and a minority rights law class. They also discussed what challenges to human rights education existed, what could help promote human rights education, and in what ways they thought human rights education might be impactful in Myanmar. Working in 12 teams of 2–3, they documented their responses to these questions in written worksheets. Second, they participated in a follow-up discussion of the same questions as one large group, and notes were taken by one of the workshop facilitators. Unless otherwise specified, the written worksheets from small group discussion and notes from large group discussion are the data sources for the section that follows.

Goals of a Human Rights Course in Law Schools

Given the potential of human rights education within law schools, it is useful to understand what learning goals law instructors believed should be the focus of a human rights course.¹⁷ Law instructors emphasized knowledge and understanding of human rights as an important goal and largely focused on human rights concepts, laws, and principles. For example, they noted the course goals should be to “develop an understanding of human rights standards and principles - inherent, equal, inalienable,” “know international human rights norms/standards...to know their rights,” and “know the range of contemporary declarations, conventions, and covenants.” Although one group did note the importance of teaching “concepts of human rights to their [the students’] own lives,” most educators did not link course goals to the contextualized experiences of the learner. However, that is not to say they conceptualized human rights education entirely outside the Myanmar context. Most groups (8/12) referenced Myanmar or a national context, but in very general terms, such as “to decrease human rights violations in Myanmar” and “to identify human rights situation in Myanmar.”

Most educators (9/12 groups) also linked the goals of a human rights course to the realization or promotion of rights. Skills they thought should be taught included analysis, advocacy, awareness-raising and education, critical thinking, knowledge application, problem-solving, research, argumentation, leadership, and counseling skills. The identification and analysis of human rights issues was the most oft-cited skill: for example, “to identify human rights situation in Myanmar/critical thinking” or “analyze national human rights law.” Awareness-raising and education skills included to “practice and share the standards of human rights” and “spread the fundamental rules of the HR [and] to get the HR awareness in order to respect each other.” One group explicitly stated that a human rights course should produce human rights educators. Another group listed skills to “share and implement state obligations” as a goal, but little emphasis was explicitly placed on holding the government accountable for its obligations. There was no mention of promoting democracy, challenging institutions or systems of discrimination, community organizing, or other skills related to programmatic intervention beyond more general references to “problem solving skills,” “claiming a defence,” and “apply the human rights knowledges in some human rights issues.”

The values and attitudes that educators emphasized were accepting and respecting rights and empathy. Others included equality/non-discrimination, open-mindedness, and references to other “moral principles,” such as kindness and honesty. Respecting and valuing difference and diversity were only referenced with respect to the values and attitudes they thought should be taught in a minority rights course. No one mentioned the value of instilling a sense of agency and power among students as a course goal.

Challenges of Human Rights Education in Law Schools

Human rights education can be difficult in any context, but especially after decades of military rule which suppressed discussion of human rights and stifled educational innovation. Law instructors identified several challenges including lack of student knowledge, different understandings of human rights, teaching controversial human rights topics, managing tensions in the classroom, using interactive teaching methods, navigating institutional constraints, and the need for more knowledge and resources.

Many educators focused on their students’ lack of human rights knowledge. As one instructor explained: “Myanmar only recently added human rights so students don’t know how to discuss about it, they have such little knowledge…previous administrative policy prevented human rights.” Law educators also referenced challenges surrounding different understandings of human rights in Myanmar. As one instructor explained, “[students] think human rights is for one group and not for another, for other people, not for them. When I teach human rights, first I have to talk about human rights for everyone, you have the chance to get your rights, especially Rakhine currently, so you have to give a chance.”¹⁸ Another educator observed “most of the people believe[d] that we have already paid the rights to minority, because the constitution says equal rights, so some students might think nothing to do.”

Instructors also expressed concerns over teaching certain controversial topics. LGBT rights and religion were most often cited as difficult topics to teach, but they also flagged issues related to governance and citizenship issues including self-determination, statelessness, federalism, and rights of nationality.

The use of interactive teaching methods, including critical discussion, was another concern that emerged from discussions. One instructor noted that when she tried to use debates, students were resistant: they “want right or wrong, not to think.” Another noted that “some students have fear to participate in human rights discussion” and “according to our curriculum, students can get credits or marks from exam only, not from participation so hard to get them to participate, and some students are so aggressive and some are so shy, so it is hard to balance.” Apprehensions over the use of discussion in the classroom also intermixed with concerns over controversial topics. One instructor shared: “I’m worried when I do discussions or debate, the majority of students are minority, so if there is a conflict, how can I control the classroom?” Another was concerned that discussions around ethnicity would lead to tensions in the classroom because students are from different backgrounds. These concerns are perhaps unsurprising given the broader political context of several ongoing ethnic conflicts and a carefully controlled military narrative regarding minority rights.

Instructors also identified challenges and points of desired change in relation to human rights within their universities. Academic freedom was raised by 4 out of 12 instructor small discussion groups. As one law educator explained: “According to our culture for our students, they can’t talk to elders, they don’t speak their opinion, and we still have this in our departments too, it is top down and centralized, and we follow orders.” They also referenced rights principles such as transparency and access to information in regard to professional development opportunities.¹⁹ Other educators expressed an interest in ensuring that the university is a “no human rights violations” space and suggested opportunities for human rights learning through human rights film screenings, talks, and other extracurricular activities.

Finally, law educators articulated a need for more knowledge and research opportunities. For example, one instructor noted “if I want [to teach] minority rights I will face many challenges. I have to study a lot to be able to answer questions for students, because maybe they have different language or religion, and I have to study a lot to know how to answer.” Another noted, it “takes time to teach minority issues, we need more research on these histories and concepts of minorities.” The need for accessible human rights documentation, conventions, reports, and textbooks, including in minority languages, was another need cited by many instructors.²⁰

Thus, while some of the challenges were ones that instructors might have in any context in which human rights was first being introduced, most concerns articulated by instructors related specifically to the Myanmar political context (ethnicity, citizenship, federalism, self-determination) or to the educational structure (hierarchical, emphasis on rote memorization and obedience, insufficient professional development and resources), both of which were products of decades of military rule.

The Promotion and Potential Impact of HRET in Myanmar

When asked in what ways human rights education can be impactful in Myanmar, many educators referenced the need for additional training, especially community education. One instructor suggested: “I will give a kind of campaign, especially remote area. For example, TV shows, cartoon, posters, activities of HR knowledge.” Another suggested the creation of human rights teams that could travel to remote areas to provide training to teachers in primary school and within the community. Opportunities for students to engage in community-based learning were also mentioned. One group referenced the role of the government in promoting education: “governments need to train the people and recognize the perspectives of other people in real situations.” However, they did not identify the need for HRET for government officials. Additional educational activities identified included externships, effective teaching methods, multimedia methods, and university exchange programs.

Potential contributions of human rights education cited by instructors included an improved human rights situation, human rights-based legal policies, and cooperation with international and national organizations. One group of instructors also made an explicit connection between HRET, a democratic transition, legal reform, and the promotion of the rule of law.

Discussion and Implications

An examination of law instructors’ perspectives and practices towards human rights and human rights education from phase 1 and 2 of the study reveal both challenges and opportunities for education about, through, and for human rights within a transitional context. This section is organized into three themes: (1) critical human rights education, (2) practice-oriented HRET, and (3) administrative policies and practices for human rights and HRET within universities.

Critical Human Rights Education

Although many instructors articulated nuanced and contextualized understandings of human rights when reflecting on their own experiences as HRET learners after phase 1, many course goals articulated by educators during phase 2 aligned with declarationist approach to HRET that prioritized the transmission of knowledge of international laws rather than a critical analysis of the varied understandings and implications of human rights in Myanmar. There are several possible explanations, including the following: instructors were influenced by the focus on international laws and institutions within the syllabus approved by the Board of Legal Studies and/or the non-critical approach to education generally in Myanmar; instructors did not value critical understandings of human rights; and/or they felt underprepared to facilitate a critical, contextualized examination of human rights among students. These considerations lead to the first entry point for more effective HRET: more professional development in critical human rights education praxis for instructors and others involved in course decisions.

The political challenges of the transitional context may have also contributed to more declarationist-leaning course goals. Myanmar’s transition was incomplete: the old military guard maintained significant influence and human rights remained a sensitive topic of conversation in many circles. It is possible that concerns regarding the political context and student responses to controversial topics (which were also likely linked to the political context) discouraged the articulation of more critical human rights course goals. Indeed, in recent research focused on human rights law educators, Liljeblad documented instructor concerns over teaching controversial topics and observed techniques of “deflection and avoidance” among human rights educators vis-a-vis their law students, which came “at the expense of critical analysis or reflection” and prevented “exploration of the normative complexities and implementation issues associated with human rights” (Liljeblad 2022, 10-11). He also observed significant self-censorship when law educators engaged in human rights education for government entities. Instructors focused on “conveying basic knowledge, particularly in terms of placing human rights vis-a-vis state interests” rather than providing “critical engagement with the meanings of human rights and their promotion in the context of Myanmar” (Liljeblad 2022, 7). Shifts towards more critical understandings of human rights and HRET can be limited by the perceived political context. These challenges, however, also reveal a second opportunity for HRET in transitional contexts and in Myanmar if a sincere democratic transition resumes: active support for human rights and critical HRET from the Ministry of Education, department chairs, and other education leaders may help allay educator concerns and alleviate the potential pressure to adopt declarationist approaches that might be considered more politically palatable in thinner forms of democracy.

A third opportunity for advancing critical HRET is rooted in the fact that instructors revealed more contextualized understandings of human rights when discussing their concerns and the challenges of teaching than those expressed when they were asked to articulate the goals of a human rights course. For example, when discussing challenges, instructors observed that students from different ethnic groups may have different understandings of human rights. Creating opportunities for instructors to discuss human rights education praxis, including its challenges, may foster critical approaches to HRET and aligns with recommendations from other scholars (Zembylas et al. 2016, 2017; Bajaj 2011b; Osler and Starkey 2010). Furthermore, Cole (2007) contends that instructors in transitional justice periods needed space and opportunities to have the “difficult conversations among themselves before trying to facilitate the discussions among their students” (130). Discussing and addressing such challenges can be an opportunity for educators to develop their confidence and skills as teachers, explore the meaning and implications of human rights within the Myanmar context, and build community and trust among colleagues (which can be especially important after periods of conflict).

Fourth, although law educators identified concerns over teaching certain controversial topics such as LGBT rights or Rohingya rights, instructors who participated in HRET as learners articulated a positive shift in their own attitudes towards marginalized groups. Therefore, creating space for instructors to reflect together on their own experience as human rights learners and the transformative potential of HRET may bolster their confidence in their ability to tackle difficult, but contextually important conversations among their students and help foster greater respect for marginalized groups, which can in turn help address past conflict grievances and support a thick democracy.²¹

The fifth potential entry point for advancing critical human rights education is drawn from the significant support expressed by instructors and students for critical, participatory, teaching approaches.²² HRET that models these approaches may bolster interest in learning about human rights during times of transition, especially when education has been historically marked by top-down approaches that placed little emphasis on critical thinking. Conversely, an interest in human rights courses can also lead to greater exposure to critical teaching methods. As previously noted, these methods arguably reflect best practices in HRET and can develop skills, like critical thinking, and classroom interactions that independently support transitional aims of building thick democracies that respect human rights. (Davies 2017, 339; Lopes Cardozo and Maber 2019, 59; Milton 2017, 50; Weinstein 1991; Pinto and Portelli 2009).

Practice-Oriented HRET

Although knowledge/understanding, values/dispositions, and skills are all holistically important for human rights practice, law instructors placed significant emphasis on the acquisition and promotion of knowledge. Instructors did note the importance of awareness-raising and being able to identify and analyze human rights issues, but they did not emphasize other skills for promoting human rights and holding the government accountable.

Several contextual factors may have contributed to an emphasis on knowledge and awareness when discussing skills and action for human rights. First, perhaps law educators believed that raising awareness of human rights was an essential first step in the promotion of human rights during that point in the transition. As they observed, human rights was a very new topic for discussion in law schools. Second, educators may have felt that there was still insufficient democratic space to take more direct action to hold government officials accountable and therefore did not think it a priority to teach. As discussed previously, challenges to rights-based legal practice in Myanmar abounded (Cheesman 2014, 2019, Cheesman and Kyaw Min Saan 2013; Rosenbaum et al. 2021; Batesmith and Stevens 2019). Third, given the historic divide between academia and practice in Myanmar, perhaps educators emphasized the skills they felt best prepared to teach. Indeed, although participants in phase 1 did report involvement in HRET in their classrooms and communities, they did not report involvement in other forms of direct action for human rights.

When the political context in Myanmar allows for further human rights education, additional training focused on human rights skills for educators and students may be beneficial. For example, professional development and support for community-engaged learning could have significant impacts for educators, their students, and the promotion of human rights in Myanmar (Matelski et al. 2022; McGonigle Leyh, 2021; Ross et al. 2020). Indeed, when discussing how HRET could be impactful in Myanmar, several educators expressed interest and support for community-based education.

Another possible entry point for practice-oriented education is a more deliberate focus on fostering human rights and democratic dispositions. When discussing course goals, notably absent was any reference to encouraging a sense of agency among students or sense of shared responsibility to take action against human rights abuses. It is understandably difficult to foster these dispositions during a state of incomplete transition and under an education system that had historically focused on educating passive, obedient citizens. However, instructors who participated in HRET did begin to view and treat their students as valuable change agents and reported the use of teaching practices that reflected participatory, democratic values that could ideally be extended beyond the classroom. Therefore, fostering human rights and democratic dispositions within the classroom through HRET can be a valuable starting point when the scope of action beyond the classroom is limited by contextual challenges.

Administrative Policies and Practices for Human Rights and HRET Within Universities

Educators’ interest in gaining knowledge, conducting research, and accessing human rights resources suggests they need additional opportunities to develop human rights expertise. Unfortunately, the challenges human rights instructors identified mirrored general specialization challenges within legal education documented by other researchers, including lack of time due to administrative responsibilities. However, several law instructors referenced a “snowball” effect of HRET. Once they had participated in one human rights workshop, they were often selected to participate in others. One educator also mentioned “after the training, our head of the department assigned for us to be a human rights resource person.” Therefore, HRET did seem to have some potential to break down institutional norms that discouraged specialization.

Law educator comments regarding rights within the university, such as transparency, freedom of expression, academic freedom, and access to information, also suggest the need for administrative changes that would make it easier for educators to develop HRET expertise and ensure that legal education aligns with human rights principles (education through human rights). Although some instructors reported that their participation in HRET motivated them to pursue human rights discussions within their department, changes will also likely need to be supported from above due to the hierarchical nature of the educational system in Myanmar. As such, future HRET initiatives may want to incorporate department chairs and other education policy-makers.

Conclusion

Law instructor perspectives and practices as both human rights learners and educators revealed several challenges and opportunities for effective human rights education during times of transition. First, findings from phase 1 suggest that HRET, despite the challenges presented by a transitional context, can promote knowledge, skills, values, dispositions, and experiences that are considered valuable to a democratic transition. Second, insights from phases 1 and 2 reveal several potential entry points for supporting and strengthening effective HRET within law schools. While the structure of the future educational system in Myanmar is unknown, the ongoing, horrific human rights violations and post-coup university policies aimed at entrenching military power suggest that human rights education within universities will need significant support (Callahan 2022).²³ Should a democratic transition resume, some factors that may advance effective HRET include: political and educational support for critical human rights education, human rights practice, and participatory teaching methods; opportunities for instructors to discuss their perspectives and experiences as learners and educators, including as they relate specifically to transitional context; and administrative reforms and policies that would support the development of human rights and HRET expertise and rights-based educational environments. However, as with all effective HRET, such initiatives must be developed and implemented with an understanding of the needs and perspectives of educators and students and the unique context in which they are pursued.²⁴