Once held as a staunch proponent for human rights, Myanmar leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner, Aung San Suu Kyi, now finds herself in the International Court of Justice facing accusations of genocide.

Proceedings against Myanmar brought by The Gambia took place over three days in early December. The country is accused of committing a number of crimes against the Rohingya minority in Rakhine state, including indiscriminate murders, mass rapes, torture, the destruction of villages, and the displacement of roughly 750,000 people—all of which, according to the complainants, are actions that ultimately constitute as genocide.

A decision in the case is now expected 23 January 2020.

BACKGROUND TO THE CASE

Despite the Rohingya minority representing the largest percentage of Muslims in Myanmar, the government fails to recognise their citizenship. Since August 2017, almost 700,000 individuals have fled Rakhine, a northern province of Myanmar, as a result of mass clearance operations undertaken by the armed forces.

During the attacks, entire villages were burned to the ground and violence erupted against civilians, leading many to escape to neighbouring Bangladesh. According to reports, more than 6,700 Rohingya Muslims, including at least 730 children under the age of five, were killed in the first month of the Myanmar led operations. 

The United Nations establishing an Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the situation in Myanmar in September of this year. The Fact-Finding Mission concluded that, “Myanmar is failing in its obligation to prevent genocide, to investigate genocide and to enact effective legislation criminalising and punishing genocide.”

MYANMAR’S ARGUMENTS 

Aung San Suu Kyi denies allegations of genocide and suggests that any crimes committed during the conflict would not reach this threshold. During the three day hearing at the ICJ, she insisted that the military-led clearance operation was in fact a “counterterrorism response to coordinated Rohingya militant attacks against police stations.” She further commented on Myanmar's investigations into the crimes and the prosecution of soldiers who were implicated, suggesting that Myanmar is competent to examine the accusations internally, otherwise, peace processes will be undermined. In her closing remarks to the Court, she noted, “steps that generate suspicion, sow doubts, or create resentment between communities who have just begun to build a fragile foundation of trust could undermine reconciliation.”

The final submission by Myanmar requested that the Court remove the case from their list, or, alternatively, reject the request for provisional measures submitted by The Gambia. 

THE LIKELY OUTCOME IS UNCLEAR

Now, the world lies in wait. After this initial decision, the case could potentially be drawn out for a number of years. In the situation of a ruling against Myanmar, questions may arise as to the enforcement powers of the ICJ. The United States famously withdrew from the ICJ’s jurisdiction in response to the decision in the Nicaragua case, which found the United States had breached customary international law in supporting Contra paramilitary forces. It is unclear whether the ICJ judgment alone and the concomitant reputational damage will be sufficient to address the alleged crimes taking place in Myanmar.

Christie graduated with an LLM in International Law and Security from the University of Glasgow. She focused on areas such as nuclear weapons, cyber security, counter-terrorism, and the international courts system. Most recently, she interned at the International Bar Association undertaking legal research and policy work.

LinkedIn