by Ro Maung Shwe
A new phase of hearings has begun at the International Court of Justice in the landmark case The Gambia v. Myanmar, concerning alleged genocide and other grave crimes committed against the Rohingya people. As the proceedings resume, Rohingya refugees and displaced communities across the world are watching closely, carrying cautious hope that justice, accountability, and the possibility of a safe return to their homeland may come closer to reality.
The case is widely regarded as one of the most significant international legal proceedings related to mass atrocities in the twenty first century. For the Rohingya, it represents a rare moment when their suffering is being examined not as a political dispute, but as a question of international law.
What the case is about
The case was filed in 2019 by the Republic of The Gambia against Myanmar, alleging violations of the 1948 Genocide Convention in relation to the treatment of the Rohingya Muslim minority in Rakhine State.
The application focuses on military operations carried out in 2016 and 2017, which led to widespread violence against Rohingya civilians. These operations resulted in mass killings, large scale sexual violence against women and girls, the burning and destruction of villages, and the forced displacement of more than one million Rohingya, most of whom fled across the border into Bangladesh.
The Gambia argues that these acts were not isolated incidents or unintended consequences of security operations. Instead, it maintains that they formed part of a systematic attempt to destroy the Rohingya as a group, in whole or in part, which constitutes genocide under international law.
Why The Gambia brought the case
A question often raised by the Rohingya community and the wider public is why a small West African country took the lead in bringing the case, while states closer to Myanmar did not.
The answer lies in both international law and political reality.
Under the Genocide Convention, genocide is considered a crime against all humanity, not only against the directly affected group. Every state that has signed the Convention has both the right and the obligation to act to prevent and punish genocide, regardless of where it occurs. This legal principle allows any state party to bring a case before the ICJ.
The Gambia acted with the backing of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, reflecting a collective moral and legal stance against genocide. Its role demonstrated that the pursuit of justice is not limited by geography or power, but grounded in shared legal commitments.
At the same time, several countries in the region face political, legal, or procedural constraints that make direct action before the ICJ difficult. In this context, The Gambia stepped forward when others could not.
What happens during the hearings
The hearings, which began this week, are expected to continue over several weeks. During this phase, The Gambia will present its legal arguments and evidence to explain why Myanmar’s conduct amounts to genocide under the Convention.
Myanmar will respond with its defense, contesting the allegations and presenting its own legal arguments. Judges of the Court will question both parties, examining the facts, legal interpretations, and the obligations of states under international law.
These proceedings concern state responsibility, not individual criminal liability. The Court is tasked with determining whether Myanmar, as a state, breached its obligations under the Genocide Convention.
A final judgment is not expected immediately and may take months after the hearings conclude.
Why this matters to the Rohingya
For Rohingya refugees living in camps and diaspora communities, this case is not an abstract legal exercise unfolding in a distant courtroom. It is about recognition, dignity, and survival.
Many see the proceedings as an opportunity for the international community to formally acknowledge that what happened to the Rohingya was not merely conflict or migration, but the result of serious international crimes. Such recognition matters deeply to victims whose suffering has long been denied or minimized.
The case also represents a step toward accountability, affirming that state institutions cannot commit grave crimes with total impunity. For many Rohingya, this legal process restores a measure of dignity by taking their testimonies and experiences seriously.
There is also hope that sustained legal pressure may support conditions for safe, voluntary, and dignified return to their homeland, something millions of Rohingya continue to long for.
Why the case matters beyond the Rohingya
The implications of this case extend far beyond Myanmar and the Rohingya people. It tests whether international law can meaningfully protect vulnerable minorities and whether powerful states can be held accountable for mass atrocities.
At stake is the credibility of the global promise of “Never Again.” A strong and principled ruling would reinforce international norms against genocide and signal that justice, even when delayed, remains possible.
A moment of shared responsibility
As the ICJ hearings move forward, the Rohingya are not asking for sympathy alone. They are seeking justice, accountability, and the right to live with dignity in their own homeland.
The outcome of this case will shape not only the future of the Rohingya, but also the moral authority of international justice itself. For millions who have endured displacement and loss, this moment represents a fragile but meaningful hope that the world is finally listening.
Recent Comments