The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the United Nation’s principal judicial organ, has launched merits hearings in the landmark genocide case brought by The Gambia against Myanmar over atrocities inflicted on the Rohingya Muslim minority. Filed in November 2019 under the 1948 Genocide Convention, the case centers on Myanmar’s 2017 military crackdown in Rakhine State, which displaced over 750,000 Rohingya to Bangladesh through mass killings, rapes, arson, and other horrors.
Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) documented at least 6,700 Rohingya deaths in the first month alone, while UN investigators identified systematic genocidal acts aimed at destroying the group in whole or in part. These three-week proceedings, running until January 29, 2026, represent the first full ICJ genocide trial in over a decade, potentially influencing global precedents including ongoing conflicts.
Historical Context of the Crisis
The crisis erupted in August 2017 following attacks by the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) militants on security posts, prompting Myanmar’s Tatmadaw military to launch a “clearance operation” that UN reports later deemed genocidal. Over 671,500 Rohingya fled amid documented massacres, gang rapes, sexual mutilation, and villages burned to the ground, with evidence pointing to deliberate intent under international law. In response, the ICJ issued unanimous provisional measures in January 2020, ordering Myanmar
“to take all measures within its power” to prevent genocidal acts like killing members or inflicting conditions leading to destruction”,
alongside requirements for six-monthly compliance reports and evidence preservation.
Despite these orders, Human Rights Watch has reported persistent violations against remaining Rohingya in Myanmar, including further massacres and arson, exacerbating the displacement of over 700,000 people.
The United States formally recognized the events as genocide two years after UN findings of “genocidal intent”, while five European nations joined the case in 2023 through the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), intensifying international scrutiny. Parallel investigations persist at the International Criminal Court and under universal jurisdiction in Argentina, underscoring the crisis’s global legal ramifications.
The Merits Hearings Unfold
Hearings opened with The Gambia presenting harrowing survivor testimonies of
“horrific burning of infants alive”,
gang rapes, and sexual mutilation, framing the violence as a state-led campaign of annihilation. Justice Minister Dawda Jallow emphasized to ICJ judges,
“This is not merely about complex international legal matters. It pertains to actual individuals, genuine narratives, and a real community of people—the Rohingya of Myanmar. They have been singled out for eradication.”
Attorney Philippe Sands argued that
“when the court evaluates … all the evidence collectively, the only rational conclusion is that a genocidal intent pervaded and influenced Myanmar’s various state-led actions against the Rohingya.”
Myanmar has rejected these allegations, portraying its actions as counterterrorism against insurgents, though a junta spokesperson declined comment during the hearings. Notably, Myanmar’s opposition National Unity Government (NUG) has accepted ICJ jurisdiction, retracted prior objections, acknowledged past government failures, and recognized Rohingya identity— a significant departure from official terminology.
Private survivor testimonies, closed to the public for privacy, mark the first time Rohingya voices echo in an international courtroom, with refugees in Bangladesh voicing hope:
“We have been seeking justice for many years. What is occurring to the Rohingya is genocide… We desire justice, and when it is achieved, we want to return to our homeland with all our rights and seek compensation.”
Legal Framework and Evidence Standards
The case hinges on proving both genocidal acts—killings, serious harm, and conditions calculated to destroy the group—and specific intent, as defined by the Genocide Convention. Gambia’s arguments build on a 2018 UN fact-finding mission that recommended prosecuting top officials, including Commander-in-Chief Min Aung Hlaing.
Nicholas Koumjian, head of the UN Investigative Mechanism, highlighted how these proceedings could redefine genocide definitions and evidence handling in international law. The 2019 UN Human Rights Council resolution, passed 134-9, condemned the abuses and demanded accountability, reinforcing the legal momentum.
Three days are allocated for witness evidence, followed by Myanmar’s response, with a final verdict potentially months away.
ICJ rulings, while binding on states, cannot prosecute individuals directly but can spur UN Security Council or General Assembly actions, including reparations, safe returns for over 1 million displaced Rohingya, and further sanctions.
Global Implications and Justice Pathways
This ICJ Rohingya Genocide Case carries profound implications for state accountability, particularly amid Myanmar’s post-2021 coup instability, where Aung San Suu Kyi remains detained and unable to attend despite her prior defenses. Legal Action Worldwide described potential findings as
“a historic milestone in holding a state legally accountable for genocide,”
signaling a new era for international justice. Analysis of the hearings reveals a pivotal test for the United Nation’s ability to enforce the Genocide Convention against powerful militaries, especially as non-compliance with 2020 orders persists.
For Rohingya refugees enduring squalid camps, these proceedings offer a glimmer of reckoning after years of impunity, potentially paving pathways for repatriation with dignity. The involvement of multiple nations and UN bodies amplifies pressure, contrasting Myanmar’s denials with mounting evidence from survivors and investigators. As the analysis deepens, the case not only confronts Rakhine State’s horrors but also challenges the international community’s resolve against genocide, urging unified action beyond rhetoric.