Gambia v. 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.

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. 

The ICJ should explicitly interpret ‘intentionally’ killing members of a group to include dolus directus and dolus eventualis in the case brought by Gambia against Myanmar.

As the ICJ hears Gambia v. Myanmar, the Court should continue to consider “patterns of conduct,” while weighing this evidence with other sources for genocidal intent.

Litigants from Africa and the African diaspora are doing more than “using” courts during emergencies. They are actively shaping doctrine.

As the case moves to the next stage, their voices must be central in the case that Canada and the Netherlands have put before the Court. 

Member States that believe in human rights must take the necessary steps to give the Burmese people a voice at the United Nations.

Five years after the Myanmar military launched its clearance operation targeting the Rohingya in Rakhine State, the wheels of international justice continue slowly to turn. On…

The path forward for Rohingya refugees is complicated, but not impossible. A community leader outlines what's needed: humanitarian aid, international justice, and resettlement…

So far, U.N. bodies have boosted the legitimacy of the Myanmar junta (at the ICJ) or denied the Burmese people the right to be represented at all (at the Human Rights Council).…

The attempted coup one year ago ushered in a new era for Myanmar. Where will it lead?