Burma/Myanmar

In Gambia v. Myanmar, genocidal intent coexists with other aims, revealed through conduct or official statements, showing how destruction of a group can serve broader goals.

The Gambia has not shifted the burden of proof in the Gambia v. Myanmar ICJ case; rather, Myanmar faces a tactical choice in its response.

The deterioration in human rights in 2025 heightens the risks for defenders going forward, all worsened by donors' deep funding cuts, especially those of the United States.

Myanmar appears to have changed its position in Gambia v. Myanmar, a historic genocide case before the ICJ. This change may prove decisive in the court's pending decision. 

International accountability efforts are not a misguided moral crusade – they are a core instrument of U.S. national power.

Washington must decide: whether it will watch history unfold to its detriment, or help write history to the benefit of both Burma/Myanmar and the United States?

US foreign aid gutting hampers humanitarian response to Myanmar's earthquake toll, leaving gaps filled by China for its strategic gain.

The focus on open source investigation of serious international crimes often comes at the expense of more effective local expertise.

Meta's changes reflect the trend of deregulation, aligning with Zuckerberg's vision of prioritizing free expression over community safety.

Atrocity-prevention systems developed before the spread of new technologies need to more systematically account for their impacts.

The question shifts the focus from the far more critical issues of whether policy goals are clear and realistic and if sanctions can help.

Recognizing the transnational nature of these alleged crimes, the ICC could potentially bridge the artificial divide between Gaza and Israel.