The International Court of Justice is preparing to deliver a landmark judgment on whether Myanmar violated the Genocide Convention through its persecution of Rohingya Muslims, nearly a decade after military operations forced hundreds of thousands to flee their homeland. The ruling could carry significant implications for international accountability, including ongoing genocide proceedings involving Israel’s actions in Gaza.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the United Nations’ highest judicial body, is scheduled to deliver its long-awaited judgment on 19 November 2026 in a landmark case accusing Myanmar of committing genocide against its predominantly Muslim Rohingya minority.
The decision follows years of legal proceedings concerning Myanmar’s devastating military campaign in Rakhine State, where widespread killings, sexual violence, village destruction and forced displacement drove more than 700,000 Rohingya Muslims across the border into Bangladesh in 2017.
The case, brought by the West African Muslim-majority nation of The Gambia in November 2019, seeks to establish Myanmar’s responsibility under the 1948 Genocide Convention.
For Rohingya survivors, many of whom remain confined to overcrowded refugee camps with little prospect of returning home safely, the judgment represents a long-awaited opportunity for international recognition and accountability.
It could also influence how international courts approach allegations of genocide in other conflicts, particularly South Africa’s ongoing case against Israel over its military campaign in the Gaza Strip.
Why Is Myanmar Accused of Genocide Against Rohingya Muslims?
The Rohingya are a predominantly Muslim ethnic minority whose ancestral communities have lived for generations in Myanmar’s western Rakhine State.
Despite their longstanding presence, successive Myanmar governments have systematically denied many Rohingya citizenship and basic rights, leaving large sections of the population stateless.
Restrictions on movement, education, employment and access to healthcare contributed to decades of institutionalised discrimination.
The persecution escalated dramatically in August 2017, when Myanmar’s military launched what it described as security clearance operations following attacks by Rohingya insurgents.
United Nations investigators and international human rights organisations subsequently documented extensive atrocities committed during the military campaign.
These included mass killings, widespread sexual violence, the burning of Rohingya villages and the forced displacement of entire communities.
More than 700,000 people fled to neighbouring Bangladesh, joining Rohingya refugees already displaced by earlier waves of persecution.
UN investigators concluded that there were reasonable grounds to believe genocidal acts had been committed and called for senior Myanmar military officials to face accountability.
Myanmar has consistently rejected accusations of genocide, maintaining that its military operations were intended to counter insurgent threats.
However, human rights organisations argue that the scale, systematic nature and brutality of the violence cannot be justified as legitimate security operations.
Why Did The Gambia Bring the Case?
In November 2019, The Gambia filed proceedings against Myanmar at the ICJ with the backing of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).
Although geographically distant from Southeast Asia, The Gambia argued that Myanmar had violated its obligations under the Genocide Convention, an international treaty requiring states to prevent and punish genocide.
The case established an important principle: countries do not need to be directly affected by alleged genocidal acts to seek accountability for violations of the convention.
As a party to the treaty, The Gambia argued that it had a legal interest in ensuring that Myanmar complied with obligations owed to the international community.
The proceedings therefore extend beyond a bilateral dispute between two countries.
They concern whether states can be held internationally responsible for failing to prevent genocide, committing genocidal acts or failing to punish those responsible.
The Gambia’s decision to pursue the case also demonstrated the potential for collective diplomatic action by Muslim-majority countries in defending persecuted communities through international legal institutions.
What Has the International Court Already Decided?
The ICJ has already issued several significant decisions during the proceedings.
In January 2020, the court ordered Myanmar to take provisional measures to protect the Rohingya from acts prohibited under the Genocide Convention.
These measures included preventing genocidal acts, ensuring military forces did not commit such acts and preserving evidence relating to the allegations.
The court also required Myanmar to report periodically on its implementation of the measures.
Importantly, the 2020 order did not determine that genocide had occurred. Instead, it recognised that the Rohingya faced a sufficiently serious risk to justify urgent legal protection while the case continued.
In July 2022, the ICJ rejected Myanmar’s preliminary objections and confirmed that the proceedings could move forward.
Public hearings on the substance of the allegations subsequently took place between 12 and 29 January 2026.
During those hearings, lawyers representing The Gambia presented evidence and arguments concerning the military’s treatment of the Rohingya and the alleged intent to destroy the community, in whole or in part.
Myanmar disputed the accusations and defended its actions as security operations against armed insurgents.
The court is now preparing to issue its final judgment on the merits of the case.
What Will the November 19 Judgment Determine?
At the centre of the proceedings is whether Myanmar violated the Genocide Convention through its treatment of Rohingya Muslims.
Under international law, genocide involves certain prohibited acts committed with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.
Such acts may include killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm, or deliberately imposing conditions of life intended to bring about the group’s physical destruction.
Proving genocide requires establishing this specific destructive intent, which is legally distinct from demonstrating that war crimes or crimes against humanity occurred.
The court will consider whether the available evidence establishes Myanmar’s responsibility under the convention.
A finding against Myanmar would represent a major legal victory for Rohingya survivors and could establish important precedents regarding state responsibility for genocide.
However, even a judgment in favour of The Gambia would not automatically result in criminal convictions or the arrest of military commanders.
The ICJ determines the legal responsibility of states, while criminal prosecutions of individuals fall within the jurisdiction of separate courts, including the International Criminal Court (ICC).
The ICJ’s judgment will be final and legally binding on the parties, although enforcing compliance may present substantial political and practical challenges.
Why Could the Ruling Matter for Gaza?
Beyond Myanmar, the case is being closely watched because of its potential implications for other proceedings under the Genocide Convention.
Among the most significant is South Africa’s case against Israel, filed at the ICJ in December 2023 over allegations that Israel’s conduct in Gaza violates the convention.
Israel rejects accusations of genocide, maintaining that its military operations are directed against Hamas.
Although the two cases concern different conflicts, the Rohingya judgment may provide further clarification on how the ICJ evaluates evidence of genocidal intent, the responsibility of states and the legal standards required to establish violations of the convention.
These questions are central to international genocide litigation.
Legal experts have therefore identified the Myanmar proceedings as potentially significant for understanding how the court may approach similar arguments in other cases.
Nevertheless, a decision concerning Myanmar would not predetermine the outcome of South Africa’s case against Israel.
Each case must be assessed independently according to its specific facts, evidence and legal submissions.
For Palestinians and Rohingya Muslims alike, however, the proceedings raise a broader question about whether international legal institutions can deliver meaningful accountability when civilian populations face allegations of systematic persecution and mass atrocities.
Rohingya Muslims Continue to Face an Uncertain Future
Nearly a decade after the mass displacement of 2017, the humanitarian consequences remain severe.
Large numbers of Rohingya refugees continue to live in Bangladesh, particularly in the sprawling camps of Cox’s Bazar.
Many families have spent years in temporary shelters, dependent on humanitarian assistance and facing restrictions on employment, education and freedom of movement.
Children born in the camps have grown up without knowing the villages their parents were forced to abandon.
Meanwhile, continuing armed conflict and instability inside Myanmar have made prospects for safe, voluntary and dignified repatriation increasingly uncertain.
Human rights organisations have warned that accountability for past atrocities must be accompanied by concrete measures to protect Rohingya communities from further persecution.
For survivors, recognition of the crimes committed against their people is important, but justice also requires the restoration of rights, security and the possibility of rebuilding their lives.
The ICJ judgment cannot, by itself, resolve the humanitarian crisis or guarantee the return of displaced families.
Its significance lies in determining whether Myanmar bears international legal responsibility for the allegations at the heart of one of the most devastating episodes of anti-Muslim persecution in recent history.
A Defining Moment for International Accountability
The impending judgment comes at a time when international legal institutions face growing scrutiny over their ability to address mass atrocities and enforce accountability.
For the Rohingya, whose suffering has persisted through decades of discrimination, displacement and violence, the case represents more than an abstract legal dispute.
It concerns recognition of their experiences, the protection of their fundamental rights and the responsibility of states to prevent the destruction of vulnerable communities.
The Gambia’s pursuit of the proceedings has also highlighted the role that Muslim-majority nations can play in using international law to challenge persecution beyond their own borders.
Yet the outcome will also test whether legal findings can translate into meaningful action.
Even if the court determines that Myanmar violated the Genocide Convention, ensuring compliance, protecting survivors and creating conditions for their safe return will require sustained international pressure.
For hundreds of thousands of displaced Rohingya Muslims, the November 19 judgment may mark a historic step towards justice. But the greater challenge will be ensuring that international recognition is followed by accountability, protection and the restoration of rights that have been denied for generations.
