Myanmar genocide ruling could shape cases far beyond Asia

The case revisits standards set in the ICJ’s 2007 judgment in Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro. The court found that genocide had occurred in Srebrenica in July 1995, but did not attribute the genocidal acts to Serbia. It did find that Serbia had breached its obligations to prevent genocide and punish those responsible. The distinction separates state responsibility before the ICJ from individual criminal responsibility, which the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) considered.

The court also required “fully conclusive” evidence for allegations of exceptional gravity and said it had to be “fully convinced” that they were established. When intent is inferred from a pattern of conduct rather than shown directly, the court held that genocidal intent must be the only reasonable inference. Critics have argued that this sets an exceptionally high bar, especially when evidence is circumstantial. In its 2015 Croatia v Serbia judgment, the ICJ maintained the approach, rejecting both claims after finding neither side had proved the specific intent required for genocide.

In The Gambia v Myanmar, judges will again assess how intent can be established and when state officials’ actions engage state responsibility. Myanmar has argued for continuity with existing case law. The ruling will also be watched in South Africa’s case against Israel, which concerns the same Convention. It will not decide that case, whose facts and procedural stage differ, but its reasoning may be relevant.

Eleven states have intervened under Article 63 of the ICJ Statute: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, France, Germany, Ireland, the Maldives, the Netherlands, Slovenia and the United Kingdom. They are not parties to the dispute, but the court’s interpretation of the Convention will bind them as intervening states. Belgium’s participation underscores that the case’s legal implications reach beyond the region.

Gambia appointed Navi Pillay as its ad hoc judge; Myanmar appointed German international law scholar Claus Kreß. Pillay has served as President of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, an ICC judge and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. She was awarded the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize for efforts to promote peace and international law. Her past work and statements concerning Israel have prompted public comment. An ad hoc judge, however, is not a state representative and has the same duty of independence and impartiality as other ICJ judges.

The court’s independence has wider significance amid political pressure on international institutions. The Trump administration has imposed sanctions on ICC judges and other officials; the ICJ has not faced the same direct measures. Its authority depends on deciding cases according to law and evidence, regardless of political consequences. The Myanmar ruling will matter first to the Rohingya, but it will also test states’ confidence in international adjudication and their willingness to defend it when its consequences are uncomfortable.