By Dr. Azeem Ibrahim

The most recent hearings in the Rohingya genocide case at the International Court of Justice did not revolve around disputed facts, contested evidence or competing narratives of violence. Instead, they exposed something far more consequential — a deliberate attempt by Myanmar’s military junta to neutralize genocide accountability through procedural warfare.

This marks a significant evolution in how alleged perpetrators of mass atrocities engage international law. Myanmar’s legal strategy is no longer about rebutting the crime. It is about ensuring the crime is never substantively judged at all.

At the hearings, Myanmar’s counsel focused overwhelmingly on jurisdiction, standing and representation. Arguments centered on whether The Gambia has the legal right to bring the case, whether the current applicants properly represent Myanmar as a state, and whether procedural thresholds have been met. What was striking was not merely what was said, but what was avoided. There was no serious engagement with the underlying allegations of genocide, no sustained discussion of intent, and no attempt to challenge the extensive factual record already acknowledged by UN bodies.

This is not accidental. It reflects a calculated recognition by the junta that it cannot plausibly contest the evidentiary foundations of the case.

The facts are well established. In 2018, the UN Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar concluded there was sufficient evidence to warrant investigation and........

© Eurasia Review