The International Court of Justice moves forward in a landmark case seeking justice for the Rohingya people
On 11 November 2019, the State of Gambia, backed by the 57 countries of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and together with 11 other intervening countries, including the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Canada, filed a lawsuit and request for provisional measures against the State of Myanmar before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, Netherlands, on the grounds that it had violated the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This was due to the widespread and systematic cleansing operations –mass killings, rape and other forms of violence, as well as the systematic destruction of their villages by fire– carried out by the army against the Rohingya people with the aim of eliminating them as a group, in whole or in part. The Rohingya people are a predominantly Muslim ethnic minority considered by the Myanmar government to be a ‘negative otherness’ that undermines the country’s socio-political, cultural and religious system. The regime accuses them of being illegal immigrants and denies them recognition as citizens, despite the fact that they have resided in the country for generations.
The ICJ –one of the six main organs of the United Nations and the only one not located in New York– was established in 1945, after the Second World War, as the only international court that resolves disputes between the 193 member states of the UN. This is not a supreme court to which national courts can appeal: it can only hear a dispute when requested to do so by one or more member states and can be brought against any other member state. The Court also issues advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by other authorised UN bodies and certain specialised agencies.
The 1948 United Nations Convention on Genocide, under which Myanmar is accused, defines genocide as crimes committed ‘with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group’. In this regard, as early as 2017, numerous international organisations described the violence against the Rohingya by the Myanmar armed forces as a classic example of ‘ethnic cleansing operations’. These had forced 700,000 people to seek refuge in neighbouring Bangladesh, a number that has now risen to over a million. Similarly, a damning report issued by the United Nations in 2018 indicated that senior military figures in Myanmar should be investigated for genocide in Rakhine State and crimes against humanity in other areas. Myanmar authorities consistently rejected these accusations, claiming that their military offensive was a legitimate counter-terrorism campaign in response to attacks by Rohingya armed groups, and in particular against the armed group ARSA.
In its lawsuit, Gambia alleges that the Myanmar government ‘adopted, accepted and sanctioned violent acts against the Rohingya people’ and that the ‘systematic denial of legal rights’ and the government’s participation in ‘hate campaigns’ designed to dehumanise the Rohingya as a group indicate its genocidal intent and provide the context for the ‘cleansing operations’ in 2016 and 2017, which included targeted attacks on civilians —including children— mass executions, indiscriminate killings, widespread sexual violence, the systematic burning and destruction of entire Rohingya villages, and other acts intended to destroy the Muslim minority. It was also alleged that at the time of the complaint, the Myanmar government was continuing to commit ‘genocidal acts’ against the Rohingya people.
The ICJ decided to proceed with the case, even though its function is to resolve disputes between states, and neither country was –or is– in conflict. In this regard, the reason for continuing with the case was that, as the Genocide Convention requires all states to prevent and punish genocide, the petition had to be heard because of the ‘pattern of conduct’ which, according to the complaint, demonstrated an ‘intention to destroy’ the Rohingya Muslim minority in Rakhine State. The case is thus considered a historic benchmark, as it is the first time that ICJ judges will rule on a dispute brought by a country not affected by the alleged crime.
The case continued to move forward and, following a preliminary hearing in December 2019, the ICJ ordered provisional measures against Myanmar on 23 January 2020, requiring it to take immediate action to protect the Rohingya population, concluding that they continued to be in a vulnerable situation and that there was a real and serious risk of irreparable damage to their rights under the Genocide Convention.
Despite these measures, numerous human rights organisations claim that human rights violations have continued and that the situation has deteriorated further following the military coup in 2021.
The most recent developments in the case have been the long-awaited oral hearings on the merits of the case in The Hague, which took place after more than six years. In a significant step forward in the efforts to obtain justice for the Rohingya, throughout January –specifically from the 12th to the 29th– the arguments of Gambia were heard, along with the responses to the accusations by the Myanmar regime, and, behind closed doors for security reasons, the testimony of three witnesses and one expert presented by The Gambia, and one witness from Myanmar, was heard.
In these proceedings, Gambian Justice Minister Dawda Jallow argued that Myanmar continues to this day to engage in ‘a pattern of conduct’ that reflects an ‘intention to destroy’ the Rohingya community, describing a context of prolonged ‘atrocious persecution’ preceded by decades of ‘dehumanising propaganda’. The Gambian delegation also highlighted the institutional discrimination and dehumanisation that the Rohingya community has suffered in Myanmar for many years and provided evidence compiled in the comprehensive reports of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) and the United Nations Independent International Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar (IIMM). In this regard, the use of social media, especially Facebook, as the main platform for spreading hate speech against the Rohingya was emphasized.
As part of The Gambia’s legal strategy, comparisons were also made between Myanmar’s military tactics and those used in the genocide committed by Bosnian Serbs in Srebrenica in 1995 and by the Iraqi authorities against the Kurdish minority in 1988. Context was also provided to support the genocidal intent. In this regard, particular emphasis was placed on the fact that the Myanmar government despised, discriminated against and persecuted the Rohingya on the basis of their race and religion, denied them citizenship and nationality, imposed restrictions on marriage and motherhood to prevent population growth, perpetuated sexual violence against women and girls to affect their reproductive capacity, denied them employment opportunities and livelihoods, restricted their freedom of movement and access to food and medical care, and deprived them of the basic rights enjoyed by other ethnic, racial and religious groups.
In addition to requesting the court to declare that Myanmar has violated the Genocide Convention, the Gambia’s lawyers also requested that a wide range of reparations be provided to the Rohingya community –a set of measures, such as guaranteeing certain civil rights and other legal protections, compensation for victims, among others, that Myanmar should implement to facilitate the safe and dignified return of all displaced persons– and guarantees of non-repetition. In response, Myanmar has opposed these remedies, arguing that they are internal affairs and relate to the constitutional structure of the state, and that the request for remedies in a case brought by an uninjured state is also not appropriate. If the court decides to accept all these requirements, it would constitute a historic milestone, as it would be the first time that such remedies have been ordered by the ICJ in a contentious case of this sort.
In this regard, although the date of the public session at which the judgment on the merits of the case will be delivered is still to be determined, at a time when international law is being seriously questioned and the principles of international law are under pressure, this process represents a historic event.
At the international level, in addition to the case at the ICJ, the International Criminal Court (ICC) is investigating Myanmar’s military leader, Min Aung Hlaing. Furthermore, since 2019, numerous senior military and civilian officials of the Myanmar government have been under investigation by the Argentine federal justice system, based on the principle of universal jurisdiction, for the ‘cleansing operations’ that took place between at least 2012 and 2018.
The case of the Rohingya people demonstrates the potential of international law to address the most serious crimes. Although the final decisions in the ongoing proceedings may be delayed, their legal, political and symbolic value is undeniable, reinforcing the centrality of the principle of state responsibility and contributing to restoring visibility and dignity to a people systematically deprived of their rights, territories and identity.
In this regard, the proceedings at the ICJ also offer a historic opportunity to clarify the legal contours of genocide in contemporary contexts, years after the only two previous cases of genocide were brought before the ICJ –Bosnia v. Serbia, which ended in 2007, and Croatia v. Serbia, which was tried in 2015– and being, moreover, the first in a series of cases before the ICJ in which States that have not suffered direct damage argue on behalf of others. The ICJ’s interpretation of genocidal intent, prevention obligations and guarantees of non-repetition will set precedents that will inevitably spill over into other ongoing or future disputes, including the one brought by South Africa against Israel over the events in Gaza.
Although international law is faced with structural barriers, its ability to name the crime, attribute responsibility and establish specific obligations remains a powerful instrument against impunity. A clear and unequivocal decision can not only strengthen the protection of the Rohingya people and open the path to reparations and guarantees of non-repetition, but also reaffirm that the international legal order continues to be an indispensable space of hope, resistance and dignity for persecuted peoples.
Federica Carnevale, Project Manager at Fibgar.
REFERENCES
International Court of Justice, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Gambia v. Myanmar: 11 intervening States) – Latest developments. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/178
International Court of Justice, Functions of the Court. Available at: https://www.un.org/es/icj/how.shtml
JusticeInfo – Foundation Hirondelle, Genocide in Myanmar: the ICJ faces the evidence, 15 January 2026. Available at: https://www.justiceinfo.net/en/154334-genocide-in-myanmar-the-icj-faces-the-evidence.html
JusticeInfo – Foundation Hirondelle, What Gambia can expect from the ICJ, 29 January 2026. Available at: https://www.justiceinfo.net/en/154851-what-the-gambia-may-hope-from-the-icj.html
Michael A Becker, The Rohingya case gets a hearing: A look ahead to the oral proceedings in Gambia v. Myanmar before the ICJ, Verfassungsblog, 9 January 2026. Available at: https://verfassungsblog.de/the-rohingya-case-gets-a-hearing/
United Nations – Public Television, THE HAGUE – International Court of Justice (ICJ) holds public hearings in Gambia v. Myanmar case, 13 January 2026. Available at: https://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k1q/k1qmt4zkvt
SWI Swissinfo.ch, ICJ begins historic genocide trial against Myanmar for persecution of Rohingya, 12 January 2026. Available at: https://www.swissinfo.ch/spa/la-cij-inicia-hist%C3%B3rico-juicio-por-genocidio-contra-myanmar-por-persecuci%C3%B3n-de-rohiny%C3%A1s/90763936
