🌍 The Roots of the Rohingya Crisis
The ongoing proceedings at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) represent a pivotal moment in addressing one of the most severe humanitarian crises of the 21st century. The case centers on allegations of genocide against Myanmar's Rohingya Muslim minority, a stateless ethnic group that has endured decades of discrimination and violence. In 2017, a military crackdown in Myanmar's Rakhine State forced over 700,000 Rohingya to flee to neighboring Bangladesh, where they remain in sprawling refugee camps. Reports from that period detail widespread atrocities, including mass killings, rapes, and the burning of entire villages.
Genocide, as defined by the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (often called the Genocide Convention), involves acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group. Gambia's application to the ICJ in 2019 invokes this treaty, arguing that Myanmar's actions meet this threshold. The crisis traces back further, with Rohingya facing citizenship denial since 1982, rendering them effectively stateless and vulnerable to persecution.
Understanding the cultural context is crucial: Myanmar, a predominantly Buddhist nation, has seen rising nationalist sentiments that portray the Rohingya as outsiders, despite their centuries-long presence in Rakhine. This backdrop of exclusion fueled the 2017 escalation, triggered by attacks on police posts by Rohingya militants, which the military used to justify a sweeping clearance operation.
- Over 24,000 Rohingya killed or injured, per UN estimates.
- 392 villages partially or fully destroyed.
- Systematic sexual violence affecting thousands of women and girls.
These figures underscore the scale, drawing international outrage and leading to Gambia—a small West African nation with no direct stake—filing the case under the Genocide Convention's erga omnes principle, which allows any state party to enforce it.
📜 Gambia's Compelling Arguments at the ICJ
As hearings commenced on January 12, 2026, in The Hague, Gambia's legal team presented a meticulous case built on survivor testimonies, satellite imagery, and expert analyses. Lawyers detailed door-to-door rampages by Myanmar soldiers, where families were slaughtered, homes torched, and children thrown into fires. One witness recounted soldiers raping women in front of their families before killing them—a pattern suggesting genocidal intent.
The presentation emphasized Myanmar's failure to protect the Rohingya and its official rhetoric dehumanizing them as 'Bengali invaders.' Gambia's counsel highlighted state complicity, including the role of former leader Aung San Suu Kyi, who defended Myanmar at preliminary hearings in 2019 despite global criticism.
To illustrate the intent element—key to genocide claims—prosecutors cited military orders and Facebook posts inciting violence, platforms used extensively for hate speech in Myanmar. The arguments lasted several days, with graphic evidence projected in the courtroom, evoking visible distress among judges.
This marks the ICJ's first full genocide trial in over a decade, since Bosnia's case against Serbia in 2007. Gambia's strategy draws on prior successes, like The Gambia's win against Myanmar on preliminary measures in 2020, ordering protection for remaining Rohingya.
🛡️ Myanmar's Defense and Counter-Narratives
Myanmar's delegation, led by acting President Min Aung Hlaing's representatives amid ongoing civil unrest post-2021 coup, rejected the genocide label outright. They framed the 2017 operations as counter-terrorism against the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA), responsible for initial attacks killing security personnel. Myanmar argued its actions were proportionate, targeting militants, not civilians, and pointed to internal investigations prosecuting some soldiers.
The defense challenged Gambia's standing, claiming political motivations linked to the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), of which Gambia is a member. They also disputed evidence authenticity, alleging manipulated photos and biased witnesses. Notably, Myanmar highlighted reforms like allowing some Rohingya returns and development projects in Rakhine—though critics dismiss these as superficial.
Legal experts note Myanmar's strategy mirrors Israel's in parallel cases: emphasizing self-defense while questioning jurisdiction. However, the ICJ's 2020 ruling affirmed jurisdiction, forcing Myanmar to engage fully now.
- Counter-claims of ARSA terrorism causing civilian casualties.
- Evidence of military restraint and post-operation aid.
- Accusations of OIC 'forum-shopping' for anti-Buddhist agenda.
Despite denials, Myanmar faces domestic turmoil, with rebel groups controlling swathes of territory, complicating enforcement of any ruling.
Photo by Pyae Sone Htun on Unsplash
⚖️ The International Court of Justice Explained
The ICJ, the UN's principal judicial organ, settles disputes between states. Established in 1945, it operates under the UN Charter, with 15 judges elected for nine-year terms from diverse regions. Unlike the International Criminal Court (ICC), which prosecutes individuals, the ICJ addresses state responsibility.
In genocide cases, proceedings involve written submissions, oral arguments, and potential site visits. Rulings are binding but lack direct enforcement, relying on UN Security Council action—often veto-blocked. Historical precedents include ordering reparations in Bosnia (over €2 billion awarded) and provisional measures halting atrocities.
For aspiring international lawyers, these cases highlight career paths in global justice. Opportunities abound in higher education jobs at universities teaching public international law, or roles in NGOs monitoring tribunals.
The current bench includes experts like President Joan Donoghue, ensuring rigorous scrutiny. Hearings are public, streamed live, fostering transparency.
🌐 Global Reactions and Broader Implications
News of the hearings rippled worldwide. Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh's Cox's Bazar camps expressed cautious hope, with leaders like Mohibbullah telling media, 'This is a big step forward for justice.' Human Rights Watch hailed it as precedent-setting, while the US and EU reiterated calls for accountability. China and Russia, Myanmar allies, urged 'restraint' without endorsing the case.
Implications extend beyond Myanmar: a ruling could strengthen Genocide Convention enforcement, influencing cases like South Africa's against Israel over Gaza (ongoing since 2023, with plausible genocide finding in 2024). It tests state immunity and third-party standing.
For higher education, these proceedings spur curricula in international relations. Students can explore university jobs in diplomacy programs or rate professors via Rate My Professor for top ICJ experts.
Economic fallout includes sanctions on Myanmar generals and aid pledges for Rohingya exceeding $1 billion, though delivery lags.
Visit the ICJ website for live updates and archives.🔮 What Lies Ahead in the Proceedings
Post-arguments, judges deliberate, potentially issuing a merits ruling by late 2027. If genocide is found, remedies could include reparations, apologies, or Rohingya repatriation guarantees. Provisional measures remain, mandating non-destruction of evidence.
Challenges persist: Myanmar's instability may hinder compliance, echoing non-enforcement in prior cases. Yet, symbolic wins bolster deterrence.
- Written rejoinders due mid-2026.
- Possible witness examinations.
- Final judgment and appeals process.
- Security Council referral if needed.
Scholars predict a partial victory for Gambia, affirming violations without full genocide label, balancing legal caution with moral imperative.
Guardian coverage on survivor hopes.
Photo by Christian Holzinger on Unsplash
💡 Lessons for International Law and Human Rights
These ICJ genocide proceedings illuminate the Convention's evolution from post-Holocaust response to tool against modern atrocities. They affirm small states' roles in global justice, empowering collective action.
Actionable insights for advocates: Document meticulously, leverage digital evidence, build coalitions. For academics, integrate into syllabi; pursue higher ed career advice for tribunals expertise.
Ultimately, justice delayed risks repetition, but these hearings signal accountability's advance. Share your views in the comments below—your perspective matters in shaping discourse.
Explore more on global issues through higher ed jobs, rate my professor for law insights, or university jobs in international studies. For career growth, check how to write a winning academic CV.
