ICJ hears Rohingya genocide allegations in case expected to set legal precedent
Rebecca Root, IBA Southeast Asia CorrespondentMonday 9 February 2026
Rohingya camp shelters in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh. morshedalamdev/Adobe Stock
The Gambia’s case alleging that Myanmar committed genocide against the Rohingya people began at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in January. It’s a landmark case, one expected to set a precedent for how genocide allegations are handled in the future.
The Gambia, which filed the case in 2019, accuses Myanmar of deliberately seeking to destroy the country’s minority Muslim population, the Rohingya, in whole or in part, through its military’s actions – allegations that Myanmar denies. It’s the first case brought to the ICJ by a third country in defence of another nation or group, and The Gambia is supported by the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation as well as a number of other intervening countries.
Reports say that tens of thousands of Rohingya were killed by the Myanmar military during 2016 and 2017, while many were forced to flee to neighbouring countries such as Bangladesh and Thailand.
Over one million Rohingya now remain in Cox’s Bazar, a network of refugee camps in Bangladesh. The refugees have no prospect of integration into local society and can’t return home, where the military has since taken power in a coup and the country has collapsed into civil war. The reduction in overseas foreign aid by a number of countries in the past year has contributed to the worsening of conditions for the Rohingya, according to the UN Refugee Agency.
‘The case is bigger than Myanmar, it is about whether international law can deliver justice for the world's most vulnerable, and the ICJ has now been given the chance […] and the duty to speak with clarity on this particular issue,’ says Mark Stephens CBE, Co-Chair of the IBA’s Human Rights Institute. ‘It’s going to test the [UN] Genocide Convention’s enforcement mechanisms, especially state responsibility; a domain where jurisprudence is still very much developing.’
The ICJ has the opportunity to sharpen the line between atrocity crimes and genocide, not to dilute it, but to make it workable
Mark Stephens CBE
Co-Chair, IBA’s Human Rights Institute
The ICJ typically decides disputes, such as border conflicts and treaty violations, between countries and last presided over a genocide case in 2015. In that case, it ruled that neither Croatia nor Serbia had proven that genocide was committed by the other party.
At the beginning of 2026, the ICJ began reviewing evidence in the Rohingya case. The legal threshold for genocide requires proof of specific intent – dolus specialis – to destroy a protected group. However, there’s little further information on what that should entail, says Stephens, who’s also a consultant at Howard Kennedy in London. He explains that the process taken in the Rohingya case should clarify what’s considered ample evidence going forward.
The Court has received UN reports, satellite imagery showing the destruction of villages and forensic data, while members of the Rohingya have also shared their testimony in what Tom Andrews, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, has called ‘a reflection of their remarkable courage.’
Myanmar has maintained that its actions don’t constitute genocide. In 2021, Aung San Suu Kyi, who led Myanmar for six years from 2015 until she was imprisoned by the country’s military following its coup, appeared at the ICJ to describe what she characterised as an ‘internal armed conflict’ between the military and the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army.
She further asserted that The Gambia had no legal standing to bring the case to the ICJ given its lack of involvement with either Myanmar or the Rohingya. However, in 2022, ‘the Court rejected Myanmar’s objection that The Gambia lacked standing and held that any state party to the Genocide Convention has standing to sue for alleged violations, even if it is not directly injured by the respondent state,’ says John Balouziyeh, Co-Vice Chair of the IBA Human Rights Law Committee.
That ruling in itself set a precedent as to the type of cases the ICJ would pursue. It will probably ‘spur more states to turn to the ICJ to challenge alleged human rights violations under the Genocide Convention and other treaties grounded in collective obligations, even when they are not injured by respondent states,’ says Balouziyeh, who’s also a partner at Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle in the Netherlands.
The 2022 ruling on standing has already paved the way for South Africa to lodge a case against Israel, alleging that it has committed genocide in Gaza, for example – claims Israel calls ‘baseless.’
Addressing the ICJ in January, a spokesperson for the Myanmar military, Union Minister U Ko Ko Hlaing, called for the Rohingya case to be rejected. The ICJ is expected to deliver a ruling on whether Myanmar’s actions against the Rohingya did breach the Genocide Convention later in 2026. If it finds that Myanmar has done so, then the Court will decide on a series of reparative actions. Maung Thein Myint, a Rohingya refugee living in Cox’s Bazar, says that ‘justice should lead to restored citizenship, protection for Rohingya still in Myanmar and conditions that allow for safe, voluntary and dignified return.’
But regardless of the Court’s ultimate ruling, ‘this case will become the rulebook for others to reach for,’ says Stephens. ‘The ICJ has the opportunity to sharpen the line between atrocity crimes and genocide, not to dilute it but to make it workable […] precision in the law is often what gives protection in life.’