Moments after the Myanmar coup by the military, we saw military commander Min Aing Hlaing tending to on national television that there has been an electoral misrepresentation in the new decisions held and consequently, to forestall a loose exchange of force, they have taken over as the true government to settle this flimsiness and hold free and reasonable elections once more.

The commander consoled a feeling of a democratic system and law and order asserting that this period will not be equivalent to the past military 49 year rule ending in 2011 and the Tatmadaw is simply playing out its obligation to the public authority. Toward the end, the military broadcasted a feeling of a democratic government to legitimize that their activities are in accordance with the Constitution.

However, the case has not been so as different occurrences show illicit and ill-conceived activities taken by the military adding up to basic freedoms infringement, infringement to international humanitarian standards. Subsequently, we need to decide enough that, concerning what degree the coup d'etat is democratic or non-democratic, and furthermore, discover that, can the military be considered as an aggireved party to broker peace with, or, utilize broad legal and forcible measures to settle the circumstance in Myanmar.

Democratic Framework Model

The objective here isn't to make a "universal one-size-fits-all theory" of majority rule coups or an "exquisite model that abstracts away the particular." The tumultuous fact of a coup rarely fits within neat legal categories. Coups will in general include a scope of various inspirations, actors, and outcomes. The targets of the military, just as the result of the coup, will frequently be setting subordinate. It is nonetheless conceivable to address coups into two admittedly simplified groups that emphasis on whether the coup produces majority rule shift in democratic power and in the event that it does, the concerned party can be put into a structure where it tends to be viewed as a gathering which can expedite harmony or with which, peace can be brokered.

Free and reasonable decisions are the sine qua non of democracy, and the military accepts power not through elections, but rather by force or the threat of force during a coup. All coups, including what we believe is the "democratic coup framework," in this way have non-democratic features. Our contention here is that not all coups are equally against popularity based; a few coups are unmistakably more democracy-advancing than others and henceforth, shall be considered recognized from those which are not democracy elevating to decide whether they can be managed, by harmony or forcibly.

A democratic coup tries to topple an extremist or authoritarian system. In an extremist framework, the ruling party has disposed of practically all political, social, and financial pluralism that existed before the approach of that system. The official party of the state has a virtual monopoly on power that it performs to further a brought together socialist philosophy. The political heads of the decision party administer the country, normally appealing, with unclear cutoff points on their authority and extraordinary weakness and unpredictability for both members and non-members of the ruling party.

Be that as it may, on account of Myanmar, the Tatmadaw, which is the Myanmar military junta is itself an authoritarian system, perpetrating wide scope of barbarities and human rights brutality across the country. In terms of the established government , it was again, a mutually existing government between the military and the National League of Democracy where even the parliament had 25% reserved seats for the military portfolios, this is a clear evidence of the absence of monopoly in power exercised by the National League of Democracy.

Moving forward, if military answers the people�s call for regime change and organizes a coup to topple the authoritarian or extremist system and chooses to hold reasonable and free elections of democratic pioneers inside a short range of time, its authenticity can be grasped. Notwithstanding, thinking about Myanmar's situation, Min Hlaing , the military general guaranteed the momentary coup as an "emergency period" to arbitrate the claimed "voter fraud" which occurred prior to the coup and consoled that the military force get was in accordance with the constitution and this time things would be "unique" from the military's past 49-year rule, which finished in 2011 giving a feeling of democracy. Presently, nonetheless, the Myanmar military announced a highly sensitive situation by articulating Article 417 of the Constitution, which allows a military takeover for one year if the President pronounces a highly sensitive situation that undermines the nation's "sovereignty" or "dissolution" or safeguarding of "national solidarity".

Charges of voter anomalies don't ascend to the level of the established conditions' point of reference for the legal conjuring of Article 417' highly sensitive situation, which might be done distinctly in circumstances that may "disintegrate the Union," "disintegrate national solidarity," or "cause the loss of sovereignty." Moreover, these circumstances should be caused by specific sorts of "acts" or "endeavors," which are recorded as: "uprising," "viciousness," or "illegitimate forcible methods." Concerns over voter records don't ascend to this level.

Moreover, the military's capture of force was unlawful under the Constitution. Under Article 417, just the President of Myanmar can proclaim a highly sensitive situation and solely after talking with the National Security and Defense Council. In any case, because the Myanmar military had unlawfully removed President Win Myint , he couldn't freely proclaim anything, not to mention a highly sensitive situation. Military-named Vice President unlawfully pronounced a highly sensitive situation.

Under Article 421(a), the President is needed to look for parliamentary assent ("present the matter of moving sovereign force") in a customary or crisis authoritative meeting. This, obviously, didn't happen because parliament had been broken down, Under the military-drafted 2008 Myanmar Constitution, this coup is illicit. The officers abused their own principles when they held onto control of the public authority. The SAC and its activities are accordingly illegitimate.

Human Rights Violations by the junta

Advancing towards the horrific occasions that occurred, post the military coup, the Report of the Special Rapporteur archived proof of:

1. Fighting including Myanmar Army mortar shelling and a ground offensive, including Light Infantry Division 99 which are portable units straightforwardly subordinate to the Commander in-Chief. LID has a history of taking part in human rights abuses, incorporating taking an interest in extrajudicial executions, enforced vanishings, and sexual viciousness against ethnic regular Rohingya people in Rakhine State in 2017, and against regular people in and northern states.
    
2. Use of ammunition and gunfire adding up to human rights infringement and more than 150 casulaties in Mandalay, Rakhine States and Rangoon.

This demonstrates, without question how the current power snatch by the military junta is actually same as the past military circumstances that existed before the National League of Democracy's administration.

Myanmar: A counter-constitutional coup

In practice, there are two firm circumstances where the democratic standard has hard substance in international law and practice at the universal level. The primary concerns counter-constitutional coups. Where a military junta, or another body, uproots a naturally settled government, it cannot possibly profess to represent the desire of individuals so manifestly disappointed by this demonstration. Henceforth, the conventional principle giving that "effective control equals an exclusive right to represent the state" is disrupted. All things being equal, the real government(in this case, the National League of Democracy) is considered to stay the legitimate representative of the state.

This rationale additionally applies to the second instance of the hard use of the democratic standard. Where a sitting government allows a political decision to be held, yet then won't carry out the outcome, that administration, anyway effective, can likewise presently don't possibly profess to represent the desire of the very individuals who have recently explicitly abandoned it. Once more, authenticity bests effectiveness. These two parts of the democratic standard have not exclusively been followed up on various events by the UN General Assembly, yet they have additionally been reliably kept up, and even authorized, by the UN Security Council.

The practice started in relation to the coup in Haiti, where a military system persuasively dislodged the recently chosen President, Bertrand Aristride. In 1994, the UN Security Council, acting under requirement Chapter VII of the UN Charter, affirmed that President Aristride stayed the genuine representative of Haiti, however effective the military were regarding controlling occasions on the ground. Undoubtedly, the Security Council approved the persuasive expulsion of the generals with the end goal of restoring the genuine government to control.

Clearly, the occasions in Myanmar fall solidly inside the two classifications of circumstances where effectiveness doesn't rise to a right to represent the state, and where unlawfully held onto state power must be given up. Unmistakably, this was a counter-constitutional coup and it has obviously been recognized by the relevant worldwide organizations accordingly. There was no emergency that might have set off the arrangements of the constitution accommodating a military takeover.

Likewise, there is additionally the refusal to acknowledge and execute an unmistakable and unambiguous political decision result. The outcome was affirmed by the Myanmar Electoral Commission and global monitors and cannot be reprimanded by the unsubstantiated and self-serving charges of extortion set forward by the generals of the Tatmadaw.

Conclusion
Convincingly, this report gives us a proof concerning how the military takeover is unjustified and can't be handled, adequately, through brokering peace directly with the self serving military junta. The military doesn't go under the democratic framework structure and consequently, the best way to guarantee stability in the area is through stricter measures and forcing legitimate enunciations conversely with the international law to keep up authenticity of democracy in Myanmar which has existed since 2011.