How legal obstruction threatens Rohingya genocide accountability |
The latest hearings in the Rohingya genocide case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) did not unfold as many observers of international justice might have expected. There were no dramatic confrontations over disputed facts, no sustained legal battle over whether mass atrocities occurred, and no serious attempt to rebut the overwhelming evidence compiled by United Nations bodies. Instead, what emerged was something far more troubling: a calculated effort by Myanmar’s military junta to neutralize genocide accountability not by denying the crime, but by ensuring it is never substantively judged.
This shift marks a dangerous evolution in how alleged perpetrators of mass atrocities engage with international law. Myanmar’s legal strategy is no longer centered on disproving genocide. It is focused on procedural warfare-using jurisdictional objections, representation disputes, and technical arguments to paralyze the judicial process itself. The goal is delay, exhaustion, and ultimately impunity.
For countries like Bangladesh, which hosts nearly one million Rohingya refugees and continues to bear the humanitarian, economic, and environmental consequences of Myanmar’s crimes, this strategy has implications that go far beyond the courtroom in The Hague.
In earlier phases of the Rohingya crisis, Myanmar’s official response followed a familiar pattern: outright denial. The military rejected allegations of ethnic cleansing and genocide, dismissed survivor testimonies, and framed its operations in Rakhine State as legitimate counterterrorism measures. That narrative collapsed under international scrutiny.
In 2018, the UN Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar concluded there was sufficient evidence to investigate and prosecute senior military officials for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. It documented mass killings,........