International civil and inter‑state cases seeking accountability for atrocities against the Rohingya in Myanmar

The pursuit of justice for the Rohingya genocide in Myanmar continues to deepen, entering a critical phase marked by complex legal innovation and evolving strategies for enforceable accountability. Central to this international effort is The Gambia v. Myanmar case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which has now moved decisively beyond establishing Myanmar’s liability under the 1948 Genocide Convention to grappling with the thorny, yet indispensable, task of prescribing and ensuring effective reparations. This shift reflects a broader transformation in international criminal justice—from symbolic declarations of guilt toward concrete remedies that restore victims’ dignity, deter future atrocities, and foster durable peace.

---

The Gambia v. Myanmar: From Provisional Measures to Enforceable Reparations

Since The Gambia launched its landmark case in 2019, the ICJ has methodically established Myanmar’s breaches of obligations under the Genocide Convention, including the commission and risk of ongoing genocidal acts against the Rohingya minority. The Court’s early rulings, notably its 2020 order on provisional measures, sought to prevent further harm by requiring Myanmar to take immediate protective steps.

Now, the case has entered its remedial phase, where the Court must confront difficult questions about the nature and enforceability of reparations. These reparations encompass:

• Cessation of wrongful acts (e.g., stopping ongoing abuses)
• Guarantees of non-repetition (binding assurances to prevent recurrence)
• Restitution (restoring victims’ rights and status)
• Compensation (monetary reparations for losses and suffering)
• Satisfaction (including formal acknowledgments, apologies, and memorialization)

This phase demands balancing the ICJ’s traditional judicial caution—historically reluctant to prescribe detailed or intrusive remedial measures—with growing international and victim community demands for comprehensive, enforceable orders that yield tangible justice.

---

Persistent Tensions and Legal Challenges

The transition to reparations has exposed several enduring tensions:

• ICJ’s Limited Enforcement Toolbox: Unlike domestic courts or international criminal tribunals, the ICJ lacks direct coercive power. It depends fundamentally on Myanmar’s compliance, international diplomatic pressure, and the political will of UN member states to enforce its decisions.
• Risk of Hollow Victories: Legal scholars warn that judgments without enforceable reparations risk becoming symbolic victories, failing to restore victims or deter future crimes. As one expert observed, “Adjudicating guilt is only the beginning; the true measure of justice is in how victims are restored and future atrocities deterred.”
• Comparative Jurisprudence Offers Guidance: The ICJ’s interim order in the Ukraine v. Russia (2022) case provides instructive precedents. That order combined declaratory relief with stringent requirements for demonstrating a direct connection between acts and genocide and considered asymmetric counter-claims. These procedural and substantive elements may inform the Gambia case’s remedial framework and enforcement strategies.
• Innovative Use of Data and Legal Methodology: The recent introduction of twin corpora of ICJ decisions, as detailed in a new open-access research project, offers a powerful methodological resource for analyzing ICJ jurisprudence systematically. This development enables the extraction of patterns and precedents relevant to remedy framing, enforcement prospects, and crafting legally rigorous reparations orders. These data-driven insights could strengthen the Court’s approach to the Gambia case’s remedy phase by grounding it in empirical legal analysis.

---

Parallel and Complementary Accountability Efforts: Civil Litigation and Domestic Innovations

While the ICJ case addresses state responsibility, accountability efforts have expanded on multiple fronts:

• Civil Litigation Targeting Individuals and Military-Linked Economic Networks:

  • Plaintiffs in various jurisdictions are pursuing tort claims and universal jurisdiction suits against Myanmar military commanders and affiliated companies implicated in the genocide.
  • These cases seek monetary reparations and reputational consequences, aiming to dismantle the economic foundations that sustain military impunity.
  • Despite challenges such as jurisdictional obstacles, evidence scarcity, and enforcement difficulties against a powerful military regime, these lawsuits have brought increased international attention and economic pressure. For example, TRT World’s coverage of a landmark civil suit highlights its role as a vital avenue for victim redress and deterrence.

• Domestic and Legislative Innovations:

  • Countries and institutions are experimenting with specialized war crimes chambers, victim compensation funds, and legislative reforms that go beyond traditional prosecution to encompass reparations and reconciliation.
  • Such initiatives act as laboratories for accountability, offering models that could be adapted for Myanmar or similar conflict contexts.
  • These domestic mechanisms also integrate reparations with political and economic reforms, addressing root causes of impunity and promoting societal healing.

---

Broader Implications: Justice as a Driver of Regional Stability and Economic Confidence

The Rohingya genocide cases underscore the interconnectedness of justice, economic stability, and peace in Southeast Asia:

• Investor and Regional Confidence: Effective reparations and enforcement can signal Myanmar’s commitment to governance reform and the rule of law, potentially encouraging foreign investment and regional economic integration.
• Risks of Impunity: Conversely, persistent failure to hold perpetrators accountable risks ongoing instability, deters investment, and creates negative reputational spillovers affecting neighboring countries.
• The Gambia’s strategic legal challenge—despite being a small state—illustrates how marginalized actors can leverage international law and multilevel justice mechanisms to confront powerful military regimes, as covered by DVB and other media outlets.

---

Looking Ahead: Monitoring Remedies, Enforcement, and Legal Innovation

The coming phase of the Gambia v. Myanmar case and related accountability efforts will be pivotal:

• ICJ Remedial Orders: The Court’s forthcoming decisions will be scrutinized for their scope, legal grounding, and enforceability, especially in light of insights from Ukraine v. Russia and the new twin corpora research tools.
• Civil Litigation Progress: The success of civil suits in obtaining enforceable judgments and uncovering military economic interests will test the practical viability of monetary reparations for victims.
• Domestic Legal Mechanisms: Continued development and refinement of war crimes chambers, victim funds, and legislative reforms will be essential in filling enforcement gaps and innovating reparations frameworks.
• International Political Will: Sustained diplomatic engagement and financial support remain critical to translate judicial victories into real-world justice and reparations delivery for Rohingya survivors.

---

Conclusion: Towards Holistic Justice That Restores and Prevents

The evolving landscape of accountability for the Rohingya genocide marks a significant evolution in international justice—from establishing state liability to securing full reparations that restore victims and prevent future atrocities. The Gambia v. Myanmar case at the ICJ, complemented by strategic civil litigation and domestic innovation, exemplifies a multifaceted approach leveraging diverse legal forums to pursue comprehensive accountability.

However, the ultimate success of these efforts hinges not only on judicial pronouncements but on their effective implementation, enforcement, and integration with broader political and economic reforms. Achieving this will honor the suffering of the Rohingya, contribute to Myanmar’s transformation, and support long-term stability and peace in the region.