The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has formally closed three weeks of public hearings in the long-running case - Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar: 11 States intervening) - a historic proceeding under the 1948 Genocide Convention. The hearings, held from 12 to 29 January 2026 at the Peace Palace, The Hague, The Netherlands, mark the most extensive examination to date of Myanmar’s alleged responsibility for atrocities committed against the Rohingya population in the Rakhine State.
On 25 August 2017 - the military of Myanmar (formerly known as Burma) began a campaign of ethnic cleansing against over 1,000,000 Rohingya Muslims in the Rakhine State. The military defended its actions, describing their campaign as a “clearance operation” aimed at militants. It is said the Government of Myanmar is responsible for “grave crimes under international law”, as the 2017 episode of violence included the burning of entire villages, the rape of tens of thousands of Rohingya women and girls, and the forced expulsion of more than 700,000 Rohingya Muslims into neighbouring Bangladesh.
The case, initiated before the ICJ by The Gambia in November 2019, accuses Myanmar of violating multiple obligations under the said Convention. Over the past six years, the Court has navigated a complex procedural path involving provisional measures, preliminary objections, and an unprecedented wave of third-state interventions. A total of 11 states ultimately joined the proceedings under Article 63 of the ICJ Statute, reflecting the global significance of the Court’s interpretation of the Convention.
A procedural journey marked by global participation
Since the case’s inception, the ICJ has issued a series of orders requiring Myanmar to prevent acts of genocide, preserve evidence, and report regularly on compliance. These provisional measures, first indicated in January 2020, have shaped the Court’s ongoing supervision of the situation. Myanmar has submitted 12 compliance reports to date, each followed by written observations from The Gambia.
The proceedings have also seen extraordinary international engagement. Between 2023 and last year (2025), States including Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, The Netherlands, The United Kingdom, The Maldives, Slovenia, Belgium, Ireland, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo filed declarations of intervention. The Court admitted these interventions in a series of decisions, underscoring that the interpretation of the Convention is a matter of collective legal interest for all State parties.
This level of participation is rare in ICJ litigation and signals a broader shift towards the multilateral enforcement of human rights (HR) treaties.
From preliminary objections to full merits hearings
Myanmar initially challenged the Court’s jurisdiction and the admissibility of the case. In July 2022, the ICJ rejected these preliminary objections, affirming that it had jurisdiction under Article IX of the Convention and that The Gambia was entitled to bring the case. This ruling cleared the way for full written and oral proceedings on the merits.
Over the following years, both parties submitted extensive written pleadings, including The Gambia’s Memorial (2020), Myanmar’s Counter-Memorial (2023), The Gambia’s Reply (2024), and Myanmar’s Rejoinder (2024). These filings were accompanied by thousands of pages of annexes, maps, witness statements, and expert analyses.
The January 2026 hearings represented the culmination of this documentary phase. Across multiple sessions, counsel for The Gambia presented arguments on the physical acts of genocide, the intent behind them, and Myanmar’s alleged failure to prevent and punish such acts. Myanmar, in turn, defended its conduct, challenged the characterisation of events, and disputed the legal conclusions drawn by The Gambia.
A case that has already shaped int’l law
Even before a final judgment, the case has had a profound impact on the ICJ’s jurisprudence and on global HR litigation.
1. Expanded standing under the Convention
The Court’s earlier rulings confirmed that any state party may invoke another state’s responsibility for genocide, even without a direct connection to the victims. This principle, rooted in the idea of obligations (Erga omnes – towards all/everyone), has since influenced other genocide-related cases, including South Africa’s proceedings against Israel (Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip [South Africa v. Israel]).
2. Strengthened provisional measures practice
The ICJ’s ongoing supervision of Myanmar’s compliance, through regular reporting obligations, has become a model for how the Court manages urgent HR risks.
3. A new era of third-state interventions
The admission of 11 intervening States reflects a growing recognition that the Convention is a collective instrument whose interpretation affects all parties.
These developments have positioned the case as a benchmark for future litigation involving mass atrocities.
What comes next?
With the hearings now concluded, the Court will begin its deliberations. A judgment on the merits is expected later this year. The ruling will likely address: Whether Myanmar committed acts prohibited under Article II of the Convention; Whether those acts were carried out with genocidal intent; Whether Myanmar failed to prevent genocide, punish perpetrators, or cooperate with international accountability mechanisms; and The legal consequences and potential reparations owed.
While the ICJ’s decisions are binding, enforcement remains a challenge, particularly given Myanmar’s political situation and the limited mechanisms available to compel compliance.
Nonetheless, the Court’s eventual judgment will carry immense symbolic and legal weight. For the Rohingya community, it represents the possibility of international recognition of their suffering. For the international legal order, it will further clarify the scope of state obligations under one of the world’s most fundamental HR treaties.
The writer is a lawyer, judicial officer and legal reformer in Sri Lanka, the Republic of Fiji and The Seychelles
----------
The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication