The Hague Trials: How the Rohingya Genocide Case in Myanmar is Reshaping the International Legal Order

In a certain year and month, within the marble halls of the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands, a trial that could rewrite the history of international law commenced. Facing the fifteen judges of the United Nations International Court of Justice, Gambia’s Minister of Justice, Dawda Jallow, spoke with a calm yet powerful voice: "This is not a discussion about the esoteric theories of international law. This is about real people, real stories, real human communities—the Rohingya people of Myanmar. They have been selected as the target of destruction."

The lawsuit, titled "The Gambia v. Myanmar for Violation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide," marks the first comprehensive genocide case heard by the International Court of Justice in over a decade. Over ten thousand Rohingya people fled their homes during the Myanmar military's "clearance operations" in 2017, pouring into the Cox's Bazar region of Bangladesh and forming the world's largest and most densely populated refugee camp cluster. Today, approximately one million Rohingya people remain crowded on just a few thousand hectares of land, awaiting a legal judgment that could determine their fate.

Case Context: From Rakhine State to the Palace of Peace

The "Clearance Operation" of the Year

On [date], the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army launched an attack on police outposts in Rakhine State, Myanmar, resulting in the deaths of several security personnel. Using this as justification, the Myanmar military initiated a large-scale military offensive codenamed "Clearance Operations." According to a report by the Fact-Finding Mission authorized by the United Nations Human Rights Council, Myanmar security forces carried out "systematic, organized, and coordinated" acts of violence in the subsequent months.

The report detailed massacres of entire villages, widespread sexual violence, arbitrary detentions, torture, and the burning of villages. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein, bluntly stated at the time that this was "a textbook example of ethnic cleansing." Over ten thousand people fled across the Naf River to Bangladesh, bringing with them harrowing testimonies: women were gang-raped and killed, children were thrown into fires, and mosques were razed to the ground.

Cross-continental litigation in The Gambia

Why would a small West African country sue a Southeast Asian nation across half the globe? Minister Jallow provided the answer in court: "We filed this case out of a sense of responsibility." The Gambia itself had experienced military rule and knew the pain of tyranny all too well. With the support of 57 member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, this Muslim-majority country with a population of just over two million submitted the lawsuit to the International Court of Justice in November 2019.

The legal basis is Article IX of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide: Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application, or fulfillment of the Convention may be submitted to the International Court of Justice. Both The Gambia and Myanmar are parties to this Convention, which provides the jurisdictional foundation for the lawsuit. Myanmar had questioned The Gambia’s standing to bring the case, arguing that it had no direct connection to the dispute, but the International Court of Justice rejected this objection in 2022, clearing the way for the case to proceed to a substantive hearing.

Symbolic Moments in the Courtroom

On the first day of the hearing, a silent yet powerful scene unfolded. Minister Jallow invited over a dozen Rohingya survivors, who had endured great hardship to reach The Hague, to stand up, allowing the judges to see the real faces behind these cases. They rose quietly, without uttering a word, yet speaking volumes. Yusuf Ali, who traveled from a refugee camp in Bangladesh to The Hague, told the Associated Press, "We have nothing that anyone should have."

These survivors will testify during the three-week hearing, but their testimony sessions will be closed to the public and the media to protect sensitivity and privacy. This marks the first time in the history of the International Court of Justice that Rohingya victims have directly presented their experiences to an international tribunal.

Legal Focus: The Challenge of Proving Genocide

The threshold of "specific intent"

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide in Article II as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group." The core legal challenge lies in proving "specific intent"—that is, whether the accused intended to destroy the group.

The legal team for The Gambia is led by renowned international law scholar Philippe Sands, who must convince the judges that Myanmar’s state actions were not merely brutal repression but carried the intent to destroy the Rohingya as a group. Sands stated in court, "When the Court considers all the evidence together, the only reasonable conclusion is that an intent to commit genocide has permeated and guided the numerous state-led actions against the Rohingya in Myanmar."

The chain of evidence includes statements from senior Myanmar military officials, the systematic deprivation of Rohingya citizenship (the 1982 Citizenship Law effectively rendered the Rohingya stateless), restrictions on childbirth, obstruction of humanitarian aid, and patterns of violence demonstrated during the 2017 operations. The United Nations investigation mechanism concluded in 2018 that Myanmar demonstrated "genocidal intent" toward the Rohingya.

Myanmar's defense logic

Myanmar's defense strategy was already evident in the preliminary hearings of the year. At that time, it was not a lawyer who represented Myanmar in court, but the then State Counsellor and Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Aung San Suu Kyi. The former democratic icon told the court that The Gambia's description was a "misleading and incomplete factual picture," and that the actual situation was an "internal armed conflict."

She insisted that the military operations were a legitimate counter-terrorism response to attacks by the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army, aimed at rooting out insurgents. Aung San Suu Kyi warned that the genocide case at the International Court of Justice could reignite the crisis. Now, the former defender herself has become a prisoner—arrested by the military after the coup and sentenced on charges widely regarded as politically motivated.

The current military government spokesperson has not commented on this hearing. Analysis suggests that Myanmar may continue to employ the "counter-terrorism" narrative and question the International Court of Justice's authority to determine facts.

Interim Measures and Subsequent Developments

In the same month, the International Court of Justice ruled on The Gambia's request for provisional measures, unanimously ordering Myanmar to take all measures within its power to prevent genocidal acts against the Rohingya, preserve evidence, and regularly report to the court on its compliance. This ruling is legally binding but lacks an enforcement mechanism.

In 2022, the United States formally announced its determination that the violence perpetrated by Myanmar against the Rohingya constitutes genocide, becoming another country, following Canada, the Netherlands, and others, to make such a determination. A report from the U.S. Department of State pointed out that the Myanmar military "deliberately and systematically targeted Rohingya civilians" with the aim of "destroying the Rohingya community through violence and intimidation."

Geopolitics: Global Repercussions Beyond Myanmar

The precedent effect of the South Africa v. Israel case

Inside the Hague courtroom, the legal experts' attention is not only focused on Myanmar but also on another pending case—South Africa v. Israel for violations of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. These two cases are strikingly similar in their legal structure: both involve one state party representing a group suffering from violence, suing another state party.

International law expert Juliet McIntyre from the University of South Australia pointed out: "The final decision of the court in the Myanmar case will affect the South Africa case. The legal test for genocide is very strict, but judges may potentially broaden the definition." She analyzed that if the International Court of Justice establishes certain evidentiary standards or interpretive principles in the Myanmar case, it will provide direct reference for the Israel case.

Belgium has formally intervened in the case of South Africa v. Israel in [year][month], submitting a declaration of intervention under Article 63 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. As a State Party to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Belgium believes that the Court’s interpretation of key provisions—particularly the definition of genocidal intent—may have legal implications for it. This indicates that state actors are closely monitoring the potential jurisprudential developments arising from these cases.

The complex landscape of multi-track parallel judicial systems.

The International Court of Justice is not the only venue for holding Myanmar accountable. The International Criminal Court, also located in The Hague, Netherlands, is investigating allegations of crimes against humanity against Myanmar's military leader, Min Aung Hlaing. There is a fundamental distinction between the two: the former addresses individual criminal responsibility, while the latter determines state responsibility.

In 2021, Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan requested judges to issue an arrest warrant for Min Aung Hlaing, accusing him of responsibility for crimes committed against the Rohingya people. The request is still under review. Additionally, an Argentine court is also hearing cases against the Myanmar military based on the principle of universal jurisdiction, which holds that certain crimes are so severe that any court has the authority to adjudicate them.

This multi-track approach to judicial accountability reflects the international community's high level of attention to the Myanmar issue, while also exposing the fragmentation of international law enforcement mechanisms. Different courts may reach varying conclusions, thereby undermining the authority of their rulings.

The Silence and Dilemma of ASEAN

The performance of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in the Rohingya crisis has been highly controversial. As a regional organization, ASEAN adheres to the principle of non-interference in internal affairs, resulting in a slow response during the early stages of the crisis. Although efforts were later made to mediate, they failed to prevent violence or facilitate the safe and dignified return of refugees.

Myanmar is a member of ASEAN, which places the organization in a dilemma: it must both maintain regional unity and address the severe humanitarian crisis. ASEAN's policy of "constructive engagement" has shown limited effectiveness, and the Rohingya issue remains a test of the organization's credibility.

Future Prospects: Justice, Return, and Reconciliation

The plight of refugees in a long wait.

In the Kutupalong refugee camp in Cox's Bazar, Bangladesh, Janifa Begum, a 30-year-old mother of two, expressed on the eve of the hearing, "I want to see if our suffering is reflected in the hearing." "We want justice and peace." Her voice represents the sentiments of millions of Rohingya refugees.

The conditions in these refugee camps are dire, with armed groups recruiting children, and girls as young as years old being forced into prostitution. The sudden and severe reduction in foreign aid in year led to the closure of thousands of camp schools, resulting in children starving to death. Yusuf Ali described: "We have nothing that anyone should possess."

The prospects for refugee return remain bleak. Following the military coup in Myanmar, the country has descended into a deeper cycle of violence, with intensified conflicts in Rakhine State. The "verification process" proposed by the military junta has been criticized as a bureaucratic barrier designed to prevent large-scale returns. The Rohingya demand citizenship, freedom of movement, and security guarantees, but these demands are far removed from the official stance of Myanmar.

Possible impacts of the International Court of Justice ruling

The final ruling of the International Court of Justice may take months or even years. Although the court lacks the means to enforce its judgments, a ruling in favor of The Gambia would exert significant political pressure on Myanmar. The ruling could include declaring that Myanmar has violated the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, ordering reparations, and requiring specific measures to prevent future atrocities.

The head of the United Nations Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar, Nicholas Koumjian, told Reuters: "This case could set key precedents for how genocide is defined, how it is proven, and how violations are remedied." These precedents will influence the practice of international human rights law for decades to come.

More significantly, this case may redefine the meaning of "state responsibility" in the context of genocide. If the International Court of Justice holds Myanmar responsible, it will strengthen the legal avenues for State Parties to sue other countries under the Convention, paving the way for intervention in similar situations.

Aung San Suu Kyi's Legacy and the Future of Myanmar

The transformation of Aung San Suu Kyi from a human rights icon to a defender of genocide is the most lamentable footnote in this case. The Nobel Peace Prize laureate personally traveled to The Hague to defend the military, severely damaging her international reputation. Supporters argue that she compromised in the face of realpolitik, while critics believe she betrayed democratic values.

Her fate is closely intertwined with Myanmar's democratic process. Following the coup, the military regained power, plunging the nation into armed resistance. The phased elections held by the military government have been criticized by the United Nations, Western countries, and human rights organizations as neither free nor fair. The future of Myanmar remains fraught with uncertainty, and the resolution of the Rohingya issue appears even more distant.

Tun Khin, the UK president of the Arakan Rohingya National Organisation, said outside the court: "We have been waiting for justice for many years." "What happened to the Rohingya is genocide, a deliberate destruction of our community. We want justice. After justice is served, we hope to return home with all our rights. We demand reparations."

His demands encapsulate the core requirements of the Rohingya people: recognition of crimes, accountability, safe return, rights attainment, and compensation. Whether these demands can be realized depends not only on the rulings of the Hague court but also on the political evolution within Myanmar, regional dynamics, and sustained pressure from the international community.

The hearings at the Peace Palace in The Hague will eventually conclude, and the judges will retire to deliberate. But the story of the Rohingya people is far from over. This lawsuit is not only a reckoning for past atrocities but also a test of whether international law can effectively prevent genocide. Between the ashes of Rakhine State and the tents of Cox's Bazar, between the marble halls of the Peace Palace and the jungle battlefields of Myanmar, humanity's shared conscience is on trial.

The judgments of the International Court of Justice may become mere scraps of paper or levers that change history. When Minister Dauda Jallow stated, "Its words will mean nothing unless they are enforced," he articulated the most fundamental dilemma and hope of international law: law requires power to be enforced, yet power also needs law to constrain it. The fate of the Rohingya people will ultimately test whether our era has truly learned the lessons from the genocides of the twentieth century.