Gambiaj.com – (BANGKOK, Thailand) – A senior academic at Thailand’s Thammasat University says The Gambia’s genocide case against Myanmar at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is legally strong, but any ruling in favor of the Rohingya would face serious political and practical obstacles to enforcement.
Assoc. Prof. Dr. M.L. Pinitbhand Paribatra, of the Department of International Relations at Thammasat University, said Gambia’s arguments before the World Court carry sufficient legal weight to potentially hold Myanmar accountable for atrocities committed against the Rohingya Muslim minority.
The case, filed by The Gambia in 2019, argues that Myanmar subjected the Rohingya to severe violence and systematic human rights violations amounting to genocide.
According to the scholar, the case has been significantly strengthened by support from countries including the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany and France, increasing the likelihood that Myanmar’s military authorities could be found in breach of international law.
Dr. Paribatra noted that a key factor in the court’s determination would be whether it finds evidence of genocidal intent, which would rely heavily on testimony from Rohingya witnesses.
If the ICJ rules against Myanmar, possible remedies could include orders to restore Rohingya citizenship, allow the safe return of refugees, provide compensation, and amend domestic laws that enabled abuses by the military.
However, he stressed that the ICJ has no direct enforcement mechanism. Should Myanmar refuse to comply with any ruling, the matter would be referred to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), since genocide is regarded as one of the gravest violations of international norms.
In practice, enforcement at the UNSC would be severely constrained by the veto power of its five permanent members.
China and Russia, both close allies of Myanmar’s military government, are widely expected to block any resolution that could result in sanctions or the deployment of peacekeeping forces, largely due to their opposition to increased Western influence in the country.
Beyond the ICJ, Dr. Paribatra pointed to the International Criminal Court (ICC) as another avenue for accountability. While the ICJ deals with state responsibility, the ICC can prosecute individuals for crimes against humanity or genocide.
An ICJ ruling against Myanmar would significantly strengthen ongoing and future ICC proceedings, although such cases typically take years to conclude.
He added that a World Court judgment would bolster the ICC prosecutor’s request, filed in late 2024, for arrest warrants against Min Aung Hlaing, the head of Myanmar’s military government, on charges of crimes against humanity. Several global political and military leaders, he noted, are already facing ICC cases.
Even if Myanmar were to agree in principle to the repatriation of Rohingya refugees, the scholar warned that formidable challenges would remain.
More than a decade has passed since Rohingya communities were destroyed and their residents displaced, while other populations have since been resettled in Rakhine State, the Rohingya’s ancestral homeland.
Ongoing conflict between the military and ethnic armed groups—particularly intense in Rakhine—raises serious concerns about security, land ownership, and livelihoods for returnees.
An estimated 800,000 to 900,000 Rohingya, most of whom are currently living in overcrowded camps in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh, would face deep uncertainty over where they could live and whether conditions would be safe.
Resettlement to third countries such as the United States or European states is also limited, amid increasingly restrictive refugee policies in many destination countries.
Dr. Paribatra further argued that a genocide ruling by the ICJ would intensify pressure not only on Thailand but on all members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).
ASEAN’s existing Five-Point Consensus has so far failed to curb violence in Myanmar, and a genocide finding would represent a far more serious regional crisis.
“The question is whether ASEAN will push Thailand to act more forcefully as a neighboring country,” he said. “Trade and investment by ASEAN companies or other foreign firms in a state found guilty of genocide could face export bans or economic sanctions from destination markets such as the European Union, especially if ICJ and ICC rulings cannot be effectively enforced.”
