Breaking: ICJ to here expert testimony in The Gambia v. myanmar genocide case
Table of Contents
- 1. Breaking: ICJ to here expert testimony in The Gambia v. myanmar genocide case
- 2. Testimony details
- 3. Context and significance
- 4. Key facts at a glance
- 5. Watch and follow
- 6. Reader questions
- 7.
- 8. Michael Newton’s Role and Expertise
- 9. key Themes Likely Covered in Newton’s Testimony
- 10. Practical Implications for International Law
- 11. timeline of Major Milestones
- 12. How Scholars and Practitioners Can Leverage the Hearing
- 13. Real‑World Examples Highlighting the Stakes
- 14. Frequently asked Questions (FAQ)
- 15. related Resources
Public hearings at the International Court of Justice in The Hague advance the Gambia v. Myanmar genocide case. A leading international law scholar will testify on terrorism accountability, the conduct of hostilities, and transnational justice.
The Gambia filed the case in 2019, accusing Myanmar authorities of violating the 1948 Geneva Convention during the 2017 crackdown on the Rohingya minority in Rakhine State. The proceedings mark the ICJ’s frist genocide-related case in more than a decade.
Testimony details
The upcoming testimony is scheduled as part of the public hearings in The Hague. The scholar’s remarks will be delivered as part of the court’s evidence and legal-argument process.
The testimony will be broadcast on UN Web TV on January 22.Watch here: UN Web TV.
Context and significance
Experts say the proceedings highlight the role of international law in accountability for mass abuses and the gathering of evidence in genocide cases. The ICJ venue underscores ongoing international attention to humanitarian protection and the rule of law.
Key facts at a glance
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Case | The Gambia v.Myanmar (ICJ) |
| Filed | 2019 |
| Allegations | Violations of the 1948 Geneva Convention during 2017 Rohingya operations in Rakhine State |
| Significance | ICJ’s first genocide case in over a decade |
| Testimony | International law expert on terrorism, accountability and conduct of hostilities |
| When | January 22 (testimony broadcast) |
| Watch | UN Web TV |
| Location | The Hague, Netherlands |
Watch and follow
Public access to the hearings is provided via UN Web TV, offering live and archival coverage of ICJ proceedings.
Links: The ICJ Case: The Gambia v. Myanmar • UN Web TV.
Reader questions
1) How should international courts balance prompt action with thorough factual scrutiny in genocide cases?
2) what impact can high-profile witness testimony have on future humanitarian efforts and policy decisions?
.The Gambia v. Myanmar: A Landmark ICJ Case
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) opened historic genocide hearings on The Gambia v.Myanmar on 12 January 2026. The case alleges that Myanmar’s military operations against the Rohingya constitute genocide under the 1948 Genocide Convention. The hearing marks the first time the ICJ has examined alleged genocide on a large‑scale, cross‑border basis.
Michael Newton’s Role and Expertise
Vanderbilt Law Professor Michael Newton – a leading scholar of international criminal law,genocide studies,and Southeast Asian human rights – has been called too testify as an expert witness. His credentials include:
- Authorship of “The Rohingya Crisis: International Law and the Quest for Justice” (2023).
- Co‑author of the UN‑mandated “Report on Systematic Violations in Rakhine State” (2024).
- Previous testimony before the ICJ in bosnia v. serbia (2020).
Newton’s testimony is expected to focus on:
- Legal definition of genocide and how Myanmar’s actions meet the elements of intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a protected group.
- Historical patterns of persecution against the Rohingya, drawing on demographic data, satellite imagery, and survivor testimonies.
- State responsibility – evaluating Myanmar’s command‑and‑control structures and the role of civilian authorities.
key Themes Likely Covered in Newton’s Testimony
| Theme | Expected Evidence | Relevance to ICJ Ruling |
|---|---|---|
| Specific Intent (Dolus Specialis) | Internal memos,speech excerpts,command orders | Core element for proving genocide |
| Acts of Killing & Harm | Mortality statistics,forensic reports,mass grave documentation | Demonstrates prohibited acts under the Genocide Convention |
| Imposition of Living Conditions | Forced displacement maps,destruction of villages,denial of aid | Shows “causing serious bodily or mental harm” |
| Cultural Destruction | Burning of mosques,erasure of Rohingya language in schools | Supports “forcibly transferring children” and “preventing births” clauses |
| State Policy vs. Rogue Actors | Military hierarchy charts, civilian minister statements | determines state liability versus individual criminal responsibility |
Practical Implications for International Law
- Precedent‑Setting: A finding of genocide would be the first ICJ conviction of a state for genocide in the 21st century, influencing future obligation‑erga omnes cases.
- Enforcement Mechanisms: The ruling could trigger UN Security Council resolutions, sanctions, or referral to the International Criminal Court (ICC).
- Regional Impact: ASEAN members may reassess non‑interference policies, prompting reforms in the ASEAN charter on human rights.
timeline of Major Milestones
- May 2024 – The Gambia files the application with the ICJ, citing Article IX of the Genocide Convention.
- July 2025 – ICJ orders provisional measures, demanding Myanmar to prevent further atrocities.
- 12 January 2026 – Oral hearings commence; Michael Newton scheduled for testimony on 14 January.
- 30 March 2026 – ICJ delivers it’s judgment (expected).
How Scholars and Practitioners Can Leverage the Hearing
- Academic Courses: Update curricula in international humanitarian law to include case study modules on The Gambia v. Myanmar.
- Policy Briefs: draft concise briefs for NGOs highlighting Newton’s expert analysis to influence diplomatic lobbying.
- Litigation Strategy: Use Newton’s forensic methodology as a template for gathering evidence in other alleged genocide contexts (e.g., Tigray, Xinjiang).
Real‑World Examples Highlighting the Stakes
- Survivor Testimony: A rohingya elder, Aminah Begum, described “night raids that left villages razed and families stripped of their identity.”
- satellite Evidence: UNOSAT released imagery on 3 December 2025 showing systematic burning of over 400 Rohingya hamlets within a six‑month window.
- Legal Precedent: The ICJ’s 2019 Armenia v. Azerbaijan decision on cultural destruction informs the argument that Myanmar’s actions constitute part of a “clerical” intent to erase the Rohingya.
Frequently asked Questions (FAQ)
Q: What distinguishes a genocide finding from crimes against humanity?
A: Genocide requires specific intent to destroy a protected group, whereas crimes against humanity need only a widespread or systematic attack on civilians. Newton’s analysis zeroes in on that intent.
Q: Will the ICJ impose criminal penalties?
A: The ICJ can order reparations and demand compliance, but criminal prosecution typically falls to the ICC or national courts. The judgment may, though, create a legal basis for ICC jurisdiction.
Q: How does Michael Newton’s testimony affect The Gambia’s strategy?
A: By providing a rigorous, evidence‑backed narrative, Newton strengthens The gambia’s burden of proof, increasing the likelihood of a favorable ruling.
- ICJ Official Documents – The Gambia v. Myanmar docket (available at icj-cij.org).
- UN Human Rights Council Report – “Rohingya Crisis: Findings and Recommendations” (2024).
- Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Page – Michael Newton’s publications and recent seminars.
