Questions and Answers: International Court of Justice Judgment in Myanmar Genocide Case

1. What is this case about and why is it important?
2. What has happened in the case so far?
3. What is Gambia asking the court?
4. What are the main issues raised in the case?
5. How can the court's judgments be enforced?
6. How has the situation of the Rohingya in Myanmar developed since Gambia filed its case before the ICJ?
7. What other accountability efforts are underway for alleged crimes by the Myanmar military?
8. How does Gambia's case against Myanmar relate to other pending genocide cases at the ICJ?

On November 19, 2026, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, the Netherlands, will deliver its judgment in the landmark case brought by Gambia against Myanmar for alleged violations of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention). The judgment, which is final and without the possibility of appeal, will conclude the proceedings before the court in this case.

The following questions and answers address key issues regarding the case and upcoming judgment.

1. What is this case about and why is it important?

In August 2017, Myanmar security forces began a sweeping campaign of massacres, rape, and arson against the ethnic Rohingya in northern Rakhine State that forced more than 700,000 people to flee to neighboring Bangladesh.

In November 2019, Gambia filed a case before the ICJ with the backing of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) alleging that Myanmar's atrocities against the Rohingya constitute genocide and violate the Genocide Convention. This is not a criminal case against individuals, but a request for a legal determination of Myanmar's state responsibility for genocide.

Gambia, which ratified the Genocide Convention in 1978, brought the case under article 9 of the convention, which allows for disputes between parties "relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide" and related acts to be submitted to the ICJ. This was the first time that a country without any direct connection to the alleged crimes used its membership in the Genocide Convention to bring a case before the ICJ.

The Myanmar military's well-documented abuses against the Rohingya and other ethnic minority groups in Myanmar span decades, but until Gambia brought a case before the ICJ, the Myanmar military's atrocities had been almost completely beyond the reach of accountability. The impunity the military has enjoyed for decades has enabled ongoing abuses.

1. What has happened in the case so far?

In December 2019, the ICJ held hearings on Gambia's request for provisional measures to protect the thousands of Rohingya remaining in Myanmar from genocide. In January 2020, the court ordered Myanmar to prevent all genocidal acts against the Rohingya, to ensure that the military and other security forces did not commit acts of genocide, and to take steps to preserve evidence related to the case.

The court also ordered Myanmar to report on its implementation and compliance with the provisional measures within four months, and every six months thereafter. Myanmar submitted 12 reports. The ICJ's provisional measure orders are legally binding on the parties and are automatically sent to the United Nations Security Council in accordance with article 41(2) of the ICJ Statute.

In its reports, Myanmar pointed to several measures it took to give effect to the provisional measures including: issuing three presidential directives regarding compliance with the Genocide Convention; preserving evidence and preventing hate speech; creating a body to investigate allegations of crimes; and establishing repatriation and humanitarian assistance measures. Gambia submitted observations on each of Myanmar's reports, stating that they provide "no reason to conclude" that Myanmar complied with the ICJ's orders.

In February 2022, the ICJ held hearings on Myanmar's preliminary objections to the case. In July 2022, the court issued a judgment rejecting all of Myanmar's arguments against advancing the case. Specifically, the judges rejected Myanmar's argument that Gambia lacked standing because it filed its application as a "proxy" for the OIC; confirmed the existence of a dispute between the parties; found that Myanmar's reservation to article 8 of the Genocide Convention, stating that this provision not apply to it, did not preclude the admissibility of the case; and confirmed Gambia's legal right to bring a claim under the Genocide Convention even though it is not directly affected by the alleged violations.

In October 2020, Gambia submitted a memorial outlining its case, followed by Myanmar's counter-memorial in August 2023, and Gambia's reply in May 2024.

In January 2026, the ICJ held hearings on the merits of the case. During the course of three weeks, legal representatives of Gambia and Myanmar took turns before ICJ judges to present arguments and evidence, including examining witnesses and an expert, in support of their contentions in the case.

The ICJ authorized 11 countries to intervene in the case, but they did not participate in the hearings on the merits. These countries-Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Maldives, Slovenia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Belgium, and Ireland-were permitted to intervene on limited issues relating to the construction of the Genocide Convention, to which they are parties, under article 63 of the ICJ statute.

1. What is Gambia asking the court?

Gambia asked the ICJ to declare that Myanmar breached several obligations under the Genocide Convention, including by committing genocide, conspiring to commit genocide, failing to take any steps to prevent genocide, and failing to bring to trial people suspected of genocide. It further asked the court to order Myanmar to cease all violations of the convention by enacting "specific genocide criminal legislation," taking steps to put alleged perpetrators of genocide on trial before a competent tribunal, and suppressing any direct and public incitement to commit genocide.

Gambia also asked ICJ judges to order Myanmar to provide reparations, including by: allowing the safe and dignified return of those who have been forcibly displaced to their place of residency; returning or replacing property; facilitating the reunification of families; providing physical or mental rehabilitation; facilitating the search of disappeared victims; assisting in the recovery, identification, and reburial of victims killed in accordance with the Rohingya's "cultural and religious practices;" ensuring the protection of the Rohingya against discrimination and persecution, "the right of the Rohingya to identify as such," and their freedom of movement within Myanmar; and removing any restrictions on place of residence, employment or access to livelihoods.

Alternatively, Gambia asked that Myanmar be ordered to provide compensation or "additional means of satisfaction" when reparations cannot be fully achievable by restitution.

Despite not being a direct victim of the alleged genocidal acts, Gambia argued that it is entitled under international law to demand reparations for Rohingya victims for breaches of the Genocide Convention; a legal proposition contested by Myanmar.

Gambia has also asked the court to order Myanmar to offer assurances and guarantees that it would not repeat the Genocide Convention violations, to find that Myanmar failed to comply with the provisional measures order of January 2020, and to order reparations for the related harm suffered by the Rohingya.

1. What are the main issues raised in the case?

The main issues raised by Gambia include:

• Genocidal acts: Gambia alleges that genocidal acts under article 2 of the Genocide Convention took place in the context of Myanmar's clearance operations in northern Rakhine State. These included: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; and imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group. To evidence the scale, systematic nature, and brutality of events during the merit hearings Gambia focused its presentation on emblematic attacks by the Myanmar military against three Rohingya villages: Min Gyi, Chut Pyin, and Maung Nu.
• Genocidal intent: Gambia relies upon the ICJ's own jurisprudence in previous genocide cases, as well as relevant case law of other international tribunals to contend that Myanmar acted with genocidal intent. It points to various indicators of genocidal intent, including the extreme brutality of attacks against the Rohingya, the Myanmar government's tolerance for public rhetoric of hatred, and Myanmar's failure to investigate gross violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. Gambia asserts that the evidence and particular circumstances "convincingly demonstrate" the existence of genocidal intent, and that "the only inference that can reasonably be drawn from the facts" is that Myanmar acted with the intention to destroy the Rohingya group as such, in whole or in part. In doing so, it applies a test set out by the court in 2015, in the case brought by Croatia against Serbia, which allows for the inference of genocidal intent from a pattern of conduct for which it is "the only inference that could reasonably be drawn from the acts in question."
• Sexual and gender-based violence: Gambia asserts that sexual violence was an integral aspect of the Myanmar military's brutal campaign against the Rohingya, which included mass gang rapes, sexual assault, and genital mutilation. It argues that these acts of sexual violence not only amount to genocidal acts under the Genocide Convention, but they also are clear evidence of genocidal intent. Gambia states that the scale and nature of the Myanmar military's acts of sexual violence against Rohingya women are strong indicators of their intent to destroy them in whole or in part.

The main issues raised by Myanmar include:

• Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army: Myanmar contends that the 2016-2017 military operations were targeted counterterrorist operations, carried out in response to terrorist attacks against Myanmar's forces by the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA), a militant group. It alleges that its military forces responded to ARSA members and local villagers who joined or supported the group's activities. Myanmar accuses Gambia of downplaying or dismissing the threat posed by ARSA, noting that its memorial barely contains references to ARSA, its members, or supporters.
• Genocidal intent: Myanmar rejects Gambia's claim that its counterterrorism operations were committed with genocidal intent. It contends that there is no direct evidence of genocidal intent in the case, and that Gambia failed to meet the ICJ's test to infer such intent from a pattern of conduct. Myanmar also rejects Gambia's reliance on "indicators" of genocidal intent, and asserts that none of them support an inference of such intent.
• Evidentiary value: Myanmar disputes the evidentiary value of material presented by Gambia, including from UN bodies, nongovernmental organizations, other countries, and the media. It contests the evidentiary value of the reports of the UN Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar, which it asserts to be the centerpiece of Gambia's case, and says that they should not be accorded weight by the court.

1. How can the court's judgments be enforced?

An ICJ judgment is legally binding on the parties to the case, under article 59 of the ICJ Statute and article 94(1) of the UN Charter. If one of the parties considers that the other has failed to comply with a judgment, it may turn to the UN Security Council, which can "make recommendations or decide upon measures to be taken to give effect to the judgment," in accordance with UN Charter article 94(2). The UN Security Council has never acted upon this discretionary power.

The UN General Assembly can galvanize political support for the enforcement of ICJ judgments by adopting resolutions calling for compliance. Individual countries can also influence compliance through their bilateral engagement with the relevant party.

1. How has the situation of the Rohingya in Myanmar developed since Gambia filed its case before the ICJ?

In February 2021, following the November 2020 elections won by Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy, the then-commander-in-chief, Sr. Gen. Min Aung Hlaing, led a military coup that overthrew the civilian government. More than five years later, Myanmar's military junta continues to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity throughout the country. Min Aung Hlaing installed himself as president through fraudulent elections held in December 2025 and January 2026.

In Rakhine State since late 2023, Rohingya civilians have been caught in the fighting between the junta and ethnic Arakan Army forces. Both parties have carried out grave abuses, including extrajudicial killings, widespread arson, and unlawful recruitment. The Myanmar military continues to commit war crimes against the Rohingya, and the crimes against humanity of apartheid, persecution, and deprivation of liberty. The Arakan Army, which now controls most of Rakhine State, has tightened repression against Rohingya, including forced labor and arbitrary detention, and has committed grave violations of the laws of war amounting to war crimes.

1. What other accountability efforts are underway for alleged crimes by the Myanmar military?

In addition to Gambia's ICJ case against Myanmar, there are other ongoing efforts to bring individual alleged perpetrators in Myanmar to justice at both the international and domestic levels.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has been investigating certain crimes committed against the Rohingya since November 2019. At the time, ICC judges gave the ICC prosecutor authorization to open an investigation into certain crimes against humanity, notably the forced deportation in 2017 of more than 740,000 Rohingya to Bangladesh, an ICC member state. Although Myanmar is not an ICC member country, ICC judges previously confirmed that the court had jurisdiction because the crime of deportation was completed in an ICC member state. The judges also ruled that the prosecutor can investigate other crimes, including future crimes, if they are within the ICC's jurisdiction and are sufficiently linked to the situation described in the prosecutor's request, which focused on crimes committed during two waves of violence, in 2016 and 2017, in Rakhine State.

In November 2024, the prosecutor requested ICC judges to issue an arrest warrant against Myanmar's former Commander-in-Chief Min Aung Hlaing for his role in the alleged crimes against humanity of deportation and persecution of the Rohingya in 2017. ICC judges have yet to issue a public decision on the arrest warrant request.

Only the UN Security Council can refer all crimes in Myanmar to the ICC for investigation. An ICC referral remains critical to address the full scope of criminality in Rakhine State and across the country, where the military junta has committed escalating abuses. An ICC referral would also give the court jurisdiction to address alleged crimes by ethnic armed groups in Myanmar.

In November 2019, Rohingya and Latin American human rights organizations filed a criminal complaint in Argentina requesting an investigation of Myanmar's top military and civilian leaders for alleged crimes committed in Rakhine State. The case was filed under the principle of universal jurisdiction, which allows states to investigate and prosecute those responsible for grave international crimes, regardless of where they were committed or the nationality of the suspects or their victims. In February 2025, a federal court in Argentina issued arrest warrants against 25 people, including Min Aung Hlaing.

Additional universal jurisdiction claims related to alleged serious crimes committed by the Myanmar military have been filed by civil society organizations in other countries, including Indonesia, Timor Leste, Türkiye, the Philippines, and Denmark. Norwegian authorities opened an investigation against the telecommunications company Telenor on suspicion of having aided and abetted crimes against humanity by the Myanmar military.

1. How does Gambia's case against Myanmar relate to other pending genocide cases at the ICJ?

In addition to Gambia's case against Myanmar, there are four other pending cases before the ICJ regarding alleged violations of the Genocide Convention:

• Ukraine v. Russia: In February 2022, Ukraine filed a case before the ICJ against Russia alleging a dispute relating to the interpretation, application, and fulfillment of the Genocide Convention. Among the claims, Ukraine asked the court find that Russia "has falsely claimed that acts of genocide have occurred in the Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts of Ukraine" to justify military operations against Ukraine. In response to Ukraine's allegations, Russia raised counterclaims, asking the ICJ to find that Ukraine had violated the Genocide Convention.
• South Africa v. Israel: In December 2023, South Africa filed a case alleging that Israel violated the Genocide Convention by committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, and by failing to prevent it, including by not holding senior Israeli officials, and others, accountable for their direct and public incitement to genocide.
• Nicaragua v. Germany: In March 2024, Nicaragua filed a case alleging that Germany violated several international obligations, including some arising from the Genocide Convention, by failing to prevent genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, and "by providing aid, including military equipment, to Israel that would be used in the commission of genocide."
• Democratic Republic of Congo v. Rwanda: In June 2026, the Democratic Republic of Congo filed a case alleging that Rwanda violated several international obligations, including some arising from the Genocide Convention.

Previously, the ICJ addressed alleged violations of the Genocide Convention in two cases brought by Bosnia and Croatia against Serbia, where it developed most of its jurisprudence regarding genocide. How the court applies and interprets its current jurisprudence in Gambia's case against Myanmar will shape ongoing and future proceedings in relation to similar claims.