The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague has entered a critical phase in the landmark case of The Gambia v. Myanmar, concerning allegations of genocide against the Rohingya population. What initially appears as a technical legal proceeding under the 1948 Genocide Convention has, in reality, become a test of international law’s capacity to confront mass atrocities in an era where authoritarian regimes increasingly manipulate legal institutions for their advantage. For Bangladesh, which hosts nearly a million Rohingya refugees, the outcome of these hearings carries direct and profound implications for the future of the displaced population.

Since 2017, when Myanmar’s military escalated its campaign against the Rohingya, over 740,000 Rohingya have fled across the border into Bangladesh. They joined earlier waves of displacement that had already left the community highly vulnerable. UN investigators have documented a systematic and deliberate campaign targeting the Rohingya: killings, mass sexual violence, the burning of villages, and efforts to erase their cultural and religious identity. These atrocities prompted Gambia to file a case against Myanmar at the ICJ, arguing that the military junta violated the Genocide Convention. The hearings, which have formally commenced this month, bring into focus not only whether Myanmar is legally culpable but whether international justice mechanisms can withstand political subversion by regimes accused of mass atrocities.

The proceedings are unprecedented in scale. Eleven states, including Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Canada, and the Netherlands, have intervened formally in support of Gambia’s case. This level of multilateral engagement reflects the severity of the crimes committed against the Rohingya and the broader international consensus on the need for accountability. Yet, the case also exposes structural weaknesses in international law. Courts such as the ICJ were designed to adjudicate disputes between states, not to determine which government legitimately represents a nation. In Myanmar, this ambiguity has been exploited. The military junta, which seized power in a coup in February 2021 and continues to suppress democratic institutions, presents itself as the lawful government before the ICJ, even while perpetrating ongoing violence against its population.

This contradiction raises fundamental questions about legitimacy. Who has the authority to speak for a state accused of genocide when the ruling authority came to power through force, overthrowing elected officials and violating international norms? While the ICJ has so far sidestepped this issue, focusing narrowly on jurisdiction and admissibility, the avoidance is fraught with risk. If courts appear indifferent to how power is exercised in states accused of mass atrocities, their moral authority is compromised. Justice risks becoming procedural rather than substantive, concerned with legal form rather than lived reality.

The Rohingya case highlights a growing trend in international politics: authoritarian regimes are learning to weaponize legal processes to delay justice and evade accountability. From contesting jurisdiction to invoking sovereignty, filing procedural objections, and exploiting diplomatic paralysis, these strategies have become increasingly sophisticated. If the ICJ permits Myanmar’s junta to leverage its legal standing while continuing its internal campaign of violence, it risks sending a dangerous precedent. Legal processes designed to protect human rights could be transformed into shields that protect perpetrators, allowing them to outlast victims and avoid substantive scrutiny.

The situation in Myanmar remains dire. Since the military coup, the conflict has expanded dramatically. Estimates suggest that over three million people have been displaced internally, with entire regions subjected to aerial bombardment and collective punishment. Despite this, the junta continues to assert compliance with international humanitarian law, a claim that stretches credulity given the scope and intensity of ongoing atrocities. For the international legal system, the challenge is stark: can the ICJ ensure accountability in circumstances where the accused state is itself a perpetrator of continuous violence and where traditional notions of representation are contested?

The implications for Bangladesh are immediate and long-term. Nearly 1.2 million Rohingya refugees live in Cox’s Bazar, one of the world’s largest refugee settlements. They remain dependent on humanitarian aid, which has been shrinking due to donor fatigue, geopolitical shifts, and competing crises. Repatriation to Myanmar remains impossible under current conditions. Discriminatory laws, ongoing military operations, and persistent persecution prevent safe and voluntary return. For Bangladesh, the ICJ hearings are not merely an abstract legal process-they represent hope for a future in which refugees might eventually reclaim their homes and rights in Myanmar.

Yet the prospects for the Rohingya extend beyond repatriation. Even a favorable judgment at the ICJ does not automatically translate into safety or justice. Enforcement of ICJ rulings relies heavily on political will. Without coordinated pressure from regional powers, multilateral bodies, and individual states, Myanmar may simply ignore or evade the court’s decisions. For Bangladesh, continued engagement with international partners will be essential to secure protections for Rohingya refugees and to support their long-term welfare, whether in host communities or eventual repatriation initiatives. The country faces a delicate balancing act: providing humanitarian assistance and protection in the short term while advocating for accountability and structural change in Myanmar.

Regionally, the Rohingya case underscores gaps in collective security and human rights enforcement. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has historically adhered to strict norms of noninterference, limiting its response to the Myanmar crisis. Instability in Myanmar, however, spills across borders, exacerbating refugee flows, facilitating transnational crime, and destabilizing neighboring countries. A robust and credible ICJ process could provide a legal framework supporting regional coordination and pressure, offering a potential path toward mitigating these broader security challenges. Conversely, a weak or proceduralist approach risks reinforcing cynicism, eroding confidence in international mechanisms, and leaving both the Rohingya and regional stakeholders vulnerable.

Beyond Southeast Asia, the Rohingya case carries lessons for the global community. Across the world, regimes accused of atrocity crimes are observing and adapting to how international legal processes can be used or circumvented. From the Middle East to Africa, governments accused of human rights violations increasingly use procedural tactics to delay accountability, shield themselves from scrutiny, and present an appearance of legitimacy. The ICJ’s approach in this case will send a signal about whether international courts can adapt to the evolving realities of global power or whether they remain limited by procedural formalism, unable to address the moral and practical challenges posed by modern authoritarianism.

For Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh, the stakes are existential. Legal proceedings at the ICJ represent both a symbol and a potential instrument of justice. They offer hope that the international community will recognize and address the crimes committed against their community. Yet this hope must be matched with tangible action: continued humanitarian support, advocacy for durable solutions, and sustained international pressure on Myanmar. The future of nearly a million displaced Rohingya depends not only on legal outcomes but on the ability of states and institutions to transform judgments into concrete protections, resources, and pathways toward safe return or resettlement.

In the coming weeks, the ICJ hearings will test whether international law can rise to the challenges posed by modern atrocity crimes. The case confronts a fundamental choice: whether law will remain narrowly procedural, treating states as abstract entities, or whether it will adapt to an era in which coups, repression, and systematic mass violence are central features of global politics. For Bangladesh and the Rohingya, the answer is more than academic. It is a matter of survival, justice, and the possibility of reclaiming lives disrupted by systemic persecution.

Ultimately, the Rohingya case is a litmus test for the international legal order. It examines not just the culpability of Myanmar’s military but the capacity of courts and states to ensure that law remains a tool for accountability rather than a shield for impunity. For the Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh, who have endured the worst of humanity, the stakes are nothing less than the possibility of a future marked by safety, dignity, and the hope that justice delayed will not become justice denied. The world is watching.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel

The post Rohingya genocide case at the world court: Justice, legitimacy, and Bangladesh’s role appeared first on BLiTZ.

[Read More]

—–
Source: Weekly Blitz :: Writings