The ICJ and the Limits of International Justice For the Rohingya

International courts can apportion legal responsibility, but cannot guarantee justice, safety, or safe return to Myanmar for more than 1 million Rohingya refugees.

The Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands, the seat of the International Court of Justice.

The international legal process is moving forward and the Rohingya are one step closer to long-sought justice, but the reality is very different. While the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is deliberating its final judgement in the genocide case against Myanmar, the Rohingya refugees are still living in camps in Bangladesh. There is still no clear path for a safe and dignified return to Myanmar with the restoration of fundamental human rights, justice, and security.

Even though the ICJ proceedings against Myanmar have brought about international attention to the crisis and a degree of accountability for perpetrators of the genocide, the actual lives, safety, and future prospects of the Rohingya people have not improved. A reason for this is that while the ICJ’s final decisions are legally binding and independent of other U.N. organs, their enforcement depends on political will or state compliance.

On November 11, 2019, the Gambia instituted proceedings against Myanmar before the ICJ by alleging violations of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (the Genocide Convention). The court unanimously ordered provisional measures on January 23, 2020, for Myanmar’s government to prevent all genocidal acts against the Rohingya, ensure compliance, preserve evidence, and report every six months. Myanmar attempted to deny the allegations of genocide and sought to have the case dismissed prior to the 2021 military coup. Eleven states have intervened in the case so far. Public hearings on the merits of the case were held from January 12 to 29. The court is deliberating its final decision at present.

The ICJ addresses international legal disputes between states through various procedures and mechanisms. It can determine that the alleged state is responsible for complying with its decision. In doing so, it can not only create international legal pressure on the state but also keep the issue visible globally. Most importantly, the court can document violations, including of human rights, committed by the state. It is worth acknowledging that the ICJ is strong in bringing a legal dispute to the world, recognizing the individuals affected, and instilling a sense of hope in the minds of the victims, including the Rohingya.

While the ICJ rulings are legally binding and do not depend on other U.N. organs to issue final decisions, the court lacks the ability to enforce the decision. The lack of direct enforcement power means that it cannot force a state to fully comply with its decision. This is one of the main limitations of the court, which could cause it to fail to........

© The Diplomat