HIGHLIGHTS

ICJ Concludes Substantive Hearings in The Gambia v. Myanmar Rohingya Genocide Case

Background

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has concluded a three-week round of substantive oral hearings in the landmark case brought by The Gambia against Myanmar under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948). The proceedings concern allegations that Myanmar committed genocide against the Rohingya Muslim minority during military operations in Rakhine State.

The case was initiated in November 2019, when The Gambia, supported by the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), filed proceedings before the ICJ alleging that Myanmar's military carried out widespread killings, sexual violence, and destruction of Rohingya communities, forcing more than 700,000 people to flee to neighbouring Bangladesh in 2017.

Myanmar challenged the Court's jurisdiction, arguing that The Gambia lacked standing because it was not a directly affected state. However, in July 2022, the ICJ rejected Myanmar's preliminary objections, holding that every State Party to the Genocide Convention has standing to invoke responsibility for alleged violations of obligations owed to all parties under the Convention.

Current Development

The recently concluded hearings marked an important stage in the merits phase of the proceedings. During the hearings, The Gambia presented documentary evidence, satellite imagery, expert reports, and testimony from Rohingya survivors to support its allegation that Myanmar's military operations constituted genocide.

Myanmar's legal team argued that the military operations were legitimate counter-insurgency measures directed against the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) and denied that the evidence demonstrated the specific intent required to establish genocide. According to Myanmar, any unlawful acts committed during the operations did not amount to a state policy aimed at destroying the Rohingya population.

With oral arguments now concluded, the ICJ has begun its judicial deliberations. A final judgment is expected after the Court completes its assessment of the evidence and legal submissions. 

Legal Analysis

The central legal issue before the ICJ concerns whether Myanmar violated the Genocide Convention by committing acts intended to destroy, in whole or in part, the Rohingya ethnic and religious group.

Under Article II of the Genocide Convention, genocide requires proof of both prohibited acts—such as killing members of the group or causing serious bodily or mental harm—and the existence of specific genocidal intent (dolus specialis).

The Gambia argued that genocidal intent can be inferred from the systematic pattern of mass killings, destruction of villages, displacement of civilians, and discriminatory conduct directed against the Rohingya. It submitted that these acts collectively demonstrate a coordinated policy aimed at the group's destruction.

Myanmar relied on the ICJ's judgment in Croatia v. Serbia (2015), arguing that genocidal intent may only be inferred where it is the only reasonable conclusion supported by the evidence. Myanmar maintained that the military's objective was to address security threats rather than destroy the Rohingya population.

The Court's eventual judgment will also determine Myanmar's responsibility as a State. If the ICJ finds Myanmar internationally responsible, it may require the State to provide reparations, implement legal reforms, and comply with its obligations under the Genocide Convention.

Why the Judgment Matters

The case is among the most significant proceedings ever brought before the ICJ concerning state responsibility for genocide.

First, it reinforces the principle that obligations under the Genocide Convention are owed to all State Parties, allowing countries that are not directly affected to bring proceedings to prevent and punish genocide.

Second, the judgment is expected to clarify the evidentiary standard required to establish genocidal intent under international law, an issue central to future genocide litigation.

Third, the outcome may influence international responses to mass atrocity crimes, including sanctions, diplomatic measures, and accountability initiatives concerning Myanmar.

The decision is also expected to become a leading precedent on state responsibility and the enforcement of obligations under the Genocide Convention.

Conclusion

The conclusion of the substantive hearings in The Gambia v. Myanmar marks an important milestone in international justice. The ICJ will now determine whether Myanmar breached its obligations under the Genocide Convention through its treatment of the Rohingya population.

Whatever the outcome, the Court's judgment is expected to shape the future interpretation of genocide, state responsibility, and international accountability, making it one of the most consequential decisions in contemporary international law.

References

International Court of Justice, The Gambia v. Myanmar – Official Press Releases and Verbatim Records of Oral Hearings.

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948), Articles II and IX.

United Nations Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar, reports on the situation in Rakhine State.

International Court of Justice, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia), Judgment (3 February 2015).

United Nations News.

Reuters.

BBC News.

Al Jazeera.

AP News.

Human Rights Watch.

Amnesty International.

International Commission of Jurists.