Will the ICJ Deliver Justice for the Rohingya Genocide Claim

In a recent video report, Middle East Eye’s legal editor Sondos Asem interviewed Antonia Mulvey, director of Legal Action Worldwide, to explore the stakes of the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) pending judgment in The Gambia v Myanmar. The discussion traced the origins of the case, the harrowing testimony gathered on the Bangladesh‑Myanmar border in 2017, and the broader implications for international law, including how the ruling could influence South Africa’s case against Israel. The interview foregrounds the human cost of the Rohingya genocide, emphasizing survivors’ demand for accountability and the centrality of sexual violence in the legal arguments.

Why The Gambia’s Case at the ICJ Matters

The Gambia, a small West African nation, lodged a case against Myanmar at the ICJ in 2019, alleging that Myanmar’s military campaign against the Rohingya constitutes genocide. The case is not merely a diplomatic dispute; it represents one of the few avenues for Rohingya survivors to seek redress on the world stage. As Mulvey explained, the case hinges on proving that the atrocities were committed with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the Rohingya as a protected group.

Crucially, the case brings the definition of genocide under intense scrutiny. The Gambia’s legal team has sought to demonstrate that the systematic killing, forced displacement, and especially the widespread sexual violence meet the threshold of genocidal intent. By framing the Rohingya’s suffering within the legal language of the Genocide Convention, the case aims to compel Myanmar to halt its campaign and to provide reparations to survivors.

The interview highlighted that the outcome will set a precedent for how the ICJ interprets the genocide convention, particularly regarding the role of sexual violence. If the court acknowledges rape and other forms of sexual assault as constitutive acts of genocide, it would broaden the legal understanding of the crime and potentially lower the evidentiary burden for future cases.

Testimony from the Bangladesh–Myanmar Border

Mulvey recounted her fieldwork on the Bangladesh–Myanmar border in 2017, where she witnessed the aftermath of the military’s “clearance operations.” She described a landscape littered with abandoned villages, burned homes, and the lingering smell of destruction. Survivors, many of whom had fled on foot, arrived in Bangladesh with little more than the clothes on their backs.

The interview emphasized that the testimonies collected during that period form the backbone of The Gambia’s case. Survivors recounted forced labor, mass killings, and the systematic targeting of Rohingya communities. Mulvey stressed that these accounts were not isolated anecdotes but part of a coordinated pattern that the legal team has meticulously documented.

One survivor’s testimony, quoted in the video, resonated deeply: “I want justice.” This brief yet powerful statement encapsulates the collective yearning of the Rohingya diaspora for recognition of their suffering and for a legal remedy that can deter future atrocities.

Documenting Sexual Violence Against Rohingya Women and Girls

Sexual violence emerged as a central theme in the interview. Mulvey explained that women and girls were subjected to systematic rape, sexual slavery, and other forms of gender‑based violence during the 2017 operations. These crimes were not incidental but were employed as tools of terror to break the community’s cohesion.

The documentation of these crimes involved gathering medical reports, survivor testimonies, and forensic evidence. Mulvey noted that the UN’s own investigation into the Rohingya crisis had recorded thousands of cases of sexual violence, providing a crucial evidentiary foundation for the genocide claim.

By foregrounding sexual violence, The Gambia’s case seeks to demonstrate that the intent to destroy the Rohingya was manifested not only through mass killings but also through the targeted destruction of the group’s reproductive capacity and social fabric. This approach aligns with emerging jurisprudence that recognizes rape as a means of inflicting serious bodily or mental harm, a requisite element of genocide under international law.

The UN Investigation’s Influence on the Legal Strategy

The interview underscored how the United Nations’ fact‑finding mission informed The Gambia’s legal arguments. The UN’s 2018 report, which catalogued evidence of mass killings, village burnings, and sexual violence, provided an authoritative source that the legal team could cite to substantiate claims of genocidal intent.

Mulvey highlighted that the UN’s findings helped to establish a causal link between the Myanmar military’s policies and the systematic nature of the atrocities. This linkage is essential for meeting the ICJ’s stringent standards for proving genocide, which require a clear demonstration that the acts were part of a coordinated plan.

Moreover, the UN investigation’s emphasis on the gendered dimension of the crimes reinforced the argument that sexual violence was not a peripheral aspect but a central component of the genocidal campaign. This framing strengthens the case for recognizing rape as an act of genocide, a point that could have far‑reaching implications for future prosecutions.

Potential Ripple Effects: South Africa v Israel and Beyond

One of the most compelling aspects of the discussion was the potential impact of the Rohingya ruling on other international cases. Mulrey noted that South Africa’s pending case against Israel at the ICJ, which alleges apartheid and crimes against humanity, could draw on the legal reasoning established in The Gambia v Myanmar.

If the ICJ affirms that sexual violence can satisfy the genocide element, it may lower the threshold for proving intent in other contexts where gender‑based crimes are central. South Africa could cite this precedent to argue that Israel’s policies toward Palestinians, including documented cases of sexual violence, meet the criteria for genocide or crimes against humanity.

The interview also touched on the role of other international forums, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) and national courts like Argentina’s, which have opened investigations into Myanmar’s actions. A favorable ruling for the Rohingya could embolden these parallel efforts, creating a coordinated legal pressure that amplifies the demand for accountability.

What Survivors Hope to Achieve from the Ruling

Beyond the legal intricacies, the interview returned repeatedly to the human dimension of the case. Survivors, especially women who have endured sexual violence, seek more than symbolic acknowledgment; they demand concrete measures that can restore dignity and provide material redress.

Mulvey conveyed that survivors hope the ICJ will order Myanmar to cease its operations, allow the safe return of displaced Rohingya, and provide reparations for lost property, trauma, and loss of life. They also seek guarantees that the military will be held accountable, including the prosecution of senior commanders responsible for ordering or facilitating the crimes.

The interview concluded with a poignant reminder that justice, in the eyes of the Rohingya, is inseparable from the possibility of return and the restoration of their community. As the ICJ prepares its judgment, the world watches not only the legal outcome but also the human stories that drive the demand for a lasting solution.

By Fatima Al-Rashid, Staff Writer

This article was produced with AI-assisted research and editorial support. Reporting is based on the source material cited below. Sources: Middle East Eye video report (06 November 2026); Middle East Eye; Global1.News