The Hague / Yangon — Myanmar’s military regime is confronting one of the most significant international legal challenges in decades as hearings began in a landmark genocide case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the United Nations’ principal judicial organ. The case, brought by the West African state of The Gambia, accuses Myanmar of violating the 1948 Genocide Convention in its brutal 2017 crackdown on the country’s Rohingya Muslim minority — a campaign that triggered mass displacement, killings, sexual violence and the flight of hundreds of thousands of people into neighbouring Bangladesh.
The proceedings, opened on 12 January 2026, mark the first full genocide case the ICJ has heard in more than a decade and are poised to shape international law on atrocity crimes, state responsibility, and the scope of global justice.
A Case Years in the Making
The legal battle dates back to November 2019, when The Gambia filed the application at the ICJ on behalf of itself and 57 members of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, arguing that Myanmar’s “clearance operations” in Rakhine State amounted to genocide.
According to the case, the Myanmar military — commonly known as the Tatmadaw — engaged in a systematic campaign of violence beginning in 2017 that targeted the Rohingya community with the intent to destroy it “in whole or in part.” Those acts allegedly included mass killings, rape, torture and the burning of entire villages, forcing more than 730,000 Rohingya to flee to Bangladesh, where they joined already established refugee populations.
In January 2020, the ICJ issued provisional measures ordering Myanmar to prevent genocidal acts, preserve evidence, and report on compliance. Myanmar initially contested the court’s jurisdiction but in July 2022 the judges ruled they had competence to hear the case.
Opening Hearings: Accusations, Denials and High Stakes
At the opening of the hearings — scheduled to last approximately three weeks — Dawda Jallow, Gambia’s Justice Minister and Attorney General, told the court that his country brought the case out of moral and legal necessity after reviewing “credible reports of the most brutal and vicious violations imaginable” against the Rohingya. He stressed that the proceedings were not abstract legal arguments but about “real people, real stories, and a real group of human beings.”
Representatives for Myanmar, which remains under military rule following a 2021 coup, have denied the genocide allegations, asserting that the 2017 campaigns were legitimate counter-terrorism operations in response to attacks by Rohingya insurgents. Previous submissions to the court by Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi — who has since been imprisoned in Myanmar on politically charged convictions — rejected the genocide claim as “incomplete and misleading.”
The hearings themselves are partly closed to the public and media to protect the privacy and safety of witnesses and victims who may testify, particularly Rohingya refugees and survivors of atrocities.
The Human Toll: Voices from the Rohingya Community
Outside the courtroom, Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh’s sprawling camps have expressed cautious hope that the ICJ proceedings could deliver long-sought recognition and accountability. Many survivors have recounted horrific experiences of violence, including mass rape, arson and extrajudicial killings, during the 2017 offensive that rapidly depopulated Rohingya villages.
“We are hoping for a positive result that will tell the world that Myanmar committed genocide, and we are the victims of that and we deserve justice,” said Yousuf Ali, a 52-year-old Rohingya refugee who has been living in Cox’s Bazar since the 2017 exodus.
Though often overshadowed by geopolitical tensions, these human stories underscore the profound personal and communal suffering at the heart of the legal arguments now unfolding in The Hague.
Legal Implications and Global Repercussions
Legal scholars and human rights advocates say the Myanmar case could establish critical precedents for how genocide is defined and proven in international law — particularly regarding the requirement of intent to destroy a protected group “in whole or in part”.
The trial’s outcome may also influence other genocide cases pending before the ICJ, including one brought by South Africa against Israel over its military actions in Gaza, as well as broader debates about the role of international justice mechanisms in responding to mass atrocity crimes.
Unlike criminal tribunals, the ICJ does not determine individual criminal responsibility; instead, it adjudicates whether a State has breached its obligations under the Genocide Convention. A ruling against Myanmar could bolster related efforts by the International Criminal Court (ICC), where prosecutors have sought an arrest warrant for Myanmar’s military leader Min Aung Hlaing on crimes against humanity, a request that remains under consideration.
Political and Social Context in Myanmar
Myanmar’s political environment remains deeply unstable. Since the 2021 military coup, the country has grappled with widespread armed resistance, suppression of pro-democracy movements, and deteriorating human rights conditions. Elections held in phases are widely criticised internationally as falling short of democratic norms.
The Rohingya have long faced systemic discrimination in Myanmar — denied citizenship, freedom of movement, access to education and healthcare — rendering them effectively stateless long before the 2017 crisis. This historical backdrop amplifies the significance of the current proceedings at the ICJ.
Regional and International Reactions
Many United Nations Member States and civil society organisations have voiced support for the legal process, viewing it as a necessary step toward accountability. Eleven states submitted written arguments in support of The Gambia’s interpretation of the Genocide Convention during earlier stages of the case.
Human rights advocates caution that even a strong ruling may face enforcement challenges, given Myanmar’s political isolation and the limits of international enforcement mechanisms. Nonetheless, they argue that judicial recognition of State responsibility is a moral and legal imperative that resonates far beyond this single case.
Awaiting a Verdict That May Resonate for Generations
As hearings continue at the ICJ in The Hague, families of victims, legal experts and global audiences alike watch closely. The proceedings are not just about interpreting legal texts — they are about confronting one of the most painful chapters of recent history and determining whether international law can deliver redress for those who endured unimaginable suffering.
The court’s final judgement — potentially months or longer in the making — will carry deep implications for the Rohingya, for Myanmar, and for the future of international justice itself.
