As the International Court of Justice (ICJ) prepares to open hearings on the merits of The Gambia v. Myanmar on January 12, human rights advocate Reed Brody has hailed the proceedings as a pivotal moment in international justice, underscoring how a small nation can champion global accountability.
In an op-ed published this week in The Standard Newspaper, Brody, a prominent commissioner with the International Commission of Jurists and longtime counsel for Human Rights Watch, described the upcoming hearings as “far more than a procedural milestone.” He argued that they represent “a profound moment in the evolution of international justice—and a reminder that moral leadership is not the preserve of powerful states, but can come from small nations willing to act with legal courage.”
The case, initiated by The Gambia in November 2019 with backing from the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), accuses Myanmar of violating the 1948 Genocide Convention through its military’s actions against the Rohingya Muslim minority. Brody highlighted The Gambia’s unprecedented step: acting not as a directly affected party but “on behalf of humanity as a whole.”
The atrocities in question stem from Myanmar’s 2016-2017 “clearance operations” in Rakhine State, which involved mass killings, widespread rape, and the destruction of hundreds of Rohingya villages. Over 700,000 Rohingya fled to Bangladesh, and UN investigators found reasonable grounds to believe genocide occurred. Despite geopolitical hurdles, accountability efforts had stalled until The Gambia intervened.
Brody praised former Gambian Attorney General Abubacarr Marie Tambadou—a prosecutor in the Rwandan genocide trials—for framing the case around the Convention’s principle that genocide concerns all humanity, obligating states to prevent and punish it. In January 2020, the ICJ unanimously issued provisional measures, ordering Myanmar to prevent genocidal acts and preserve evidence. This ruling validated The Gambia’s standing, marking the first time the Court recognized a non-injured state’s right to invoke responsibility under the Convention.
Now, after six years of proceedings—including the rejection of Myanmar’s preliminary objections in 2022—the merits phase begins. The three-week hearings, running through January 29, will scrutinize whether Myanmar breached the Convention. Witnesses and experts will be examined, and a judgment could carry significant moral weight, potentially spurring sanctions or further criminal probes.
Brody commended The Gambia’s perseverance under current Attorney General Dawda Jallow, noting it reflects a “national commitment that transcends individual officeholders.” He portrayed the case as integral to The Gambia’s identity: a nation confronting its own past abuses while upholding the global rule of law.
The broader impact is already evident. Brody pointed out that The Gambia established a precedent for non-affected states to sue under the Genocide Convention, directly influencing South Africa’s 2023 case against Israel over Gaza. The ICJ’s forthcoming ruling on genocidal intent in Myanmar is seen as a “dry run” that could shape standards in other proceedings.
In an era of skepticism toward international institutions, Brody concluded, The Gambia v. Myanmar reaffirms their potential when wielded boldly. While immediate relief for Rohingya survivors remains elusive amid ongoing displacement and suffering, the hearings affirm a core tenet: “no state is too small to defend humanity, and no crime is too grave to be named in a court of law.”
As judges convene in The Hague, Brody urged recognition of The Gambia’s role in reshaping international justice. Eleven countries, including Canada, the UK, and Germany, have intervened in support, amplifying the case’s global resonance.
