Rohingya genocide case: All you need to know ahead of ICJ verdict on November 19

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) will deliver its verdict on November 19 on whether Myanmar committed genocide against the Rohingya Muslim minority during its 2017 military crackdown in Rakhine State, in a landmark case that could establish a major precedent in international law.

The court announced on Tuesday that its president, Judge Yuji Iwasawa, would read the judgment at a public sitting at the Peace Palace in The Hague at 10am local time.

The ruling will be final and binding, with no right of appeal. If the court finds Myanmar responsible, it would mark the first time the ICJ has held a state accountable for committing genocide.

The case was brought by The Gambia in November 2019, accusing Myanmar of violating the 1948 Genocide Convention through its military operations against the Rohingya.

According to Middle East Eye (MEE), the outcome could also influence other genocide-related cases before the ICJ, including South Africa's case against Israel over its military operations in Gaza.

The 2017 crackdown forced more than 700,000 Rohingya to flee to Bangladesh, following widespread killings, sexual violence and the destruction of villages. Around 1.2 million Rohingya now live in refugee camps in Cox's Bazar, the world's largest refugee settlement.

Myanmar has denied the genocide allegations, arguing that its military operations were counterterrorism measures launched in response to attacks by the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) on police posts in August 2017.

Background of the case

The legal proceedings followed a 2018 report by the UN Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar, which found sufficient information to infer genocidal intent and recommended that senior military officials be investigated and prosecuted for genocide.

On November 11, 2019, The Gambia filed the case with the backing of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). It was the first time a country not directly affected by the alleged genocide had brought such a case before the ICJ.

The Gambia argued that all states party to the Genocide Convention share a common interest in ensuring its enforcement.

In December 2019, Myanmar's then civilian leader Aung San Suu Kyi appeared before the court and rejected the allegations.

In January 2020, the ICJ ordered Myanmar to take measures to prevent acts of genocide against the Rohingya and preserve evidence related to the alleged crimes.

The court rejected Myanmar's objections to its jurisdiction in July 2022 before holding hearings on the merits of the case from January 12 to 29, 2026. The proceedings included closed-door testimony from Rohingya witnesses.

Eleven countries, including Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, have also intervened in the proceedings.

Sexual violence central to genocide allegations

The Gambia has argued that the scale and pattern of violence against the Rohingya, including mass killings, sexual violence and decades of discriminatory policies, demonstrate genocidal intent.

International human rights lawyer Antonia Mulvey, who investigated sexual violence against the Rohingya for the UN in 2017, told MEE that rape and other forms of sexual violence were central to the case.

She described widespread gang rapes, assaults in front of family members and the targeting of women and girls during military operations in Rakhine State.

Mulvey said survivors had reported being raped in public, held in military camps and subjected to extreme violence. One survivor, who was eight months pregnant, reportedly told investigators that she had been hanged from a tree and raped by nine men, resulting in the death of her unborn child.

The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda ruled in 1998 that rape could constitute an act of genocide. Although the ICJ has accepted this legal principle, it has never held a state responsible for genocide on that basis.

A finding in the Rohingya case could therefore establish an important precedent in recognising sexual violence as part of a state's genocidal conduct.

Why the verdict matters

The November 19 judgment will be only the third time the ICJ has delivered a ruling on the merits of a genocide case.

In 2007, the court found that genocide had occurred in Srebrenica but held Serbia responsible for failing to prevent and punish it. In 2015, it ruled that genocide had not been proven in a case brought by Croatia against Serbia.

A major legal question in the Rohingya case is whether genocidal intent can be established through the pattern of military operations and other actions when there is no direct evidence, such as an explicit order to destroy a particular group.

The Gambia argues that the killings, systematic sexual violence and discriminatory restrictions on Rohingya marriage, childbirth, movement and access to healthcare collectively demonstrate an intention to destroy the community, in whole or in part.

Myanmar, however, maintains that its military was conducting counterterrorism operations against ARSA and that its objective was to drive the Rohingya out of the country rather than destroy them.

According to MEE, legal experts also expect the judgment to clarify how the ICJ assesses evidence from UN human rights investigations and determines state responsibility for genocide.

What Rohingya survivors want

Rohingya survivors are seeking international recognition of the atrocities, the restoration of their land and property, compensation and accountability for those responsible.

They also want citizenship, which they have been denied under Myanmar's 1982 citizenship law.

Mike Becker, an assistant professor of international human rights law at Trinity College Dublin and a former associate legal officer at the ICJ, told MEE that a ruling against Myanmar would establish its obligation to provide reparations to the Rohingya.

The court could also require Myanmar to introduce domestic reforms to guarantee citizenship rights and prevent discrimination, although it may leave the specific question of reparations for a later stage of the proceedings.

What happens after the verdict?

The judgment will be legally binding on Myanmar. If the country fails to comply, The Gambia could refer the matter to the UN Security Council, although the council has never exercised its authority to enforce an ICJ ruling.

Legal experts say enforcement could remain difficult while Myanmar's military leadership remains in power.

The case also carries implications for Myanmar's military chief-turned-president Min Aung Hlaing, under whose command the 2017 operations took place. He seized power in a February 2021 coup and later became president following elections organised by the military authorities.

Separately, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) applied in November 2024 for an arrest warrant against Min Aung Hlaing over the alleged deportation and persecution of the Rohingya. The ICC judges have yet to publicly rule on the request.

In February 2025, an Argentine court also ordered arrest warrants for 25 Myanmar officials, including Min Aung Hlaing and Aung San Suu Kyi, in a case brought under the principle of universal jurisdiction.

The ICJ judgment is also expected to carry wider implications for other pending cases involving allegations of genocide, including Ukraine v Russia, South Africa v Israel, Nicaragua v Germany and the Democratic Republic of the Congo v Rwanda.