The Plight of the Rohingya: Genocide Allegations and Provisional Measures in The Gambia v Myanmar at the International Court of Justice

Author(s):  
Michael Becker
Author(s):  
Martin Mennecke

Abstract It is a commonplace in the R2P discourse to describe accountability measures as key means to implement the responsibility to protect. In particular, the International Criminal Court is regularly highlighted as a central actor, both in the literature, the annual R2P reports issued by the UN Secretary-General, and the subsequent debates in the UN General Assembly. Conspicuously absent from this conversation is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice (icj). This article examines the potential role of the ‘World Court’, as The Gambia in November 2019 started a new case under the UN Genocide Convention against Myanmar before the icj. Analysing the limitations and prospects and existing icj case-law, the article concludes that the International Court of Justice can make an important and unique contribution to the responsibility to protect.


2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (4) ◽  
pp. 616-693
Author(s):  
Alessandra Spadaro

For the first time, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) are dealing concurrently with the same set of events, which concern the violence to which those in the group that self-identifies as the Rohingya have been subjected in Myanmar, and that has prompted their mass exodus to Bangladesh. Before both courts, proceedings are at a preliminary stage.


2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Swargodeep Sarkar

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres acknowledged Rohingya, “one of, if not the, most discriminated people in the world”. In Myanmar, a country with a Buddhist majority, around a million Rohingya who is the minority having their language and culture, have been persecuted for decades. In the year 2014 census, Myanmar excluded Rohingya by denying basic citizenship. Thousands of Rohingya have fled to neighbouring States after facing persecution orchestrated by Myanmar security forces with the help of local Buddhist mobs. In this background, the Gambia with the help of Organisation of Islamic Cooperation filed the case in the International Court of Justice, alleging that the actions perpetrated by Myanmar violated the provisions of Genocide Convention 1948 to which both States are the parties. Myanmar rightly questioned the standing of Gambia as the interest of Gambia was not threatened or at stake. So, in the absence of a cause of action or rights of the Gambia not affected even remotely, the International Court of Justice should not entertain the case. One of the major issues before the Court whether the Gambia has stood without being affected directly from the violations alleged to have been committed on the Rohingya. The present author will discuss the provisional measures rendered by the ICJ on 23rd January 2020 and the challenges such as jurisdiction, admissibility, urgency or irreparable prejudice condition, faced by the Court with a special focus on the “Plausibility requirement” in provisional measures.


2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-54
Author(s):  
Abdul Ghafur Hamid

On 23rd January 2020, the International Court of Justice indicated provisional measures to protect the Rohingya from the alleged genocidal acts committed in Myanmar. Rejecting the argument made by Myanmar, the World Court decided that The Gambia has standing before the court although it was not directly injured by the alleged wrongful act. The court applied the concept of “obligations erga omnes partes” in the context of its ruling on standing. The court, however, did not elaborate more on the concept and did not touch on its details. Since this case had attracted so much international attention, the concept has become a trending topic for legal discourse. This article, therefore, is an attempt to resolve the issues of whether the concept of obligations erga omnes partes has been established as a rule of customary international law and whether such an obligation may arise from any type of multilateral treaty and any provision in a multilateral treaty. To this end, the article analyses the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the case law of international human rights courts and the work and the valuable commentary of the International Law Commission on Article 48 of the Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally wrongful Act 2001. The article concludes that the concept of obligations erga omnes partes has been established as a rule of customary international law, that it may arise from any type of multilateral treaty and that it is applicable only in relation to the provision of a treaty that is essential to the accomplishment of object and purpose of the treaty.


Author(s):  
Marco Longobardo

Abstract This article explores the legal challenges related to the standing of indirectly injured states before the International Court of Justice in relation to violations of obligations erga omnes and erga omnes partes. After an examination of the emergence of these kinds of obligations, the article addresses the evolution of the approach of the Court in relation to the issue of standing, in light of the works of the International Law Commission on state responsibility. Especially after the 2012 Belgium v. Senegal case, the Court does not hesitate to recognise the standing of indirectly injured states. Yet, some aspects related to standing – such as the requirement of a special interests and the coordination between the reaction of the directly injured state and the indirectly injured ones – are still imprecise. The Court should take the opportunity to elaborate on these issues in the merits phase of The Gambia v. Myanmar case.


Author(s):  
A.A. Simoniya ◽  

The article is devoted to the amazing events of the end of 2019 related to the situation of Myanmar in the international community. This is an unprecedented claim by the Gambia to the International Court of Justice against Myanmar and the decision of Aung San Suu Kyi to personally lead a group of lawyers to attend court sessions in the Hague. The leader of Myanmar denies charges of genocide and says that army units acted against militant separatists in Rakhine state − the Arakan Rohingya salvation Army fighters. Aung San Suu Kyi is convinced that the military operations against the militants were aimed at protecting the sovereignty and security of Myanmar. Special attention is paid to the speech of the leader of Myanmar at the trial.


2020 ◽  
Vol 114 ◽  
pp. 33-37
Author(s):  
Rüdiger Wolfrum

The Order of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) of January 23, 2020 on the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar) might form a preliminary starting point for this brief address. The Order confirms that public international law defines through international treaties, customary international law, and general principles legally binding commitments and rights of states. As a matter of consequence, based upon those norms, judgments, orders, and awards of international courts and tribunals are legally binding on the parties to the dispute in question to the extent the adjudicating body has jurisdiction.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document