The ICJ and the Limits of International Justice For the Rohingya

THE DIPOMAT
By Mohammed Hamim
May 05, 2026

The Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands, the seat of the International Court of Justice. Credit: Depositphotos

International courts can apportion legal responsibility, but cannot guarantee justice, safety, or safe return to Myanmar for more than 1 million Rohingya refugees.

 

The international legal process is moving forward and the Rohingya are one step closer to long-sought justice, but the reality is very different. While the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is deliberating its final judgement in the genocide case against Myanmar, the Rohingya refugees are still living in camps in Bangladesh. There is still no clear path for a safe and dignified return to Myanmar with the restoration of fundamental human rights, justice, and security.

Even though the ICJ proceedings against Myanmar have brought about international attention to the crisis and a degree of accountability for perpetrators of the genocide, the actual lives, safety, and future prospects of the Rohingya people have not improved. A reason for this is that while the ICJ’s final decisions are legally binding and independent of other U.N. organs, their enforcement depends on political will or state compliance.

On November 11, 2019, the Gambia instituted proceedings against Myanmar before the ICJ by alleging violations of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (the Genocide Convention). The court unanimously ordered provisional measures on January 23, 2020, for Myanmar’s government to prevent all genocidal acts against the Rohingya, ensure compliance, preserve evidence, and report every six months. Myanmar attempted to deny the allegations of genocide and sought to have the case dismissed prior to the 2021 military coup. Eleven states have intervened in the case so far. Public hearings on the merits of the case were held from January 12 to 29. The court is deliberating its final decision at present.

The ICJ addresses international legal disputes between states through various procedures and mechanisms. It can determine that the alleged state is responsible for complying with its decision. In doing so, it can not only create international legal pressure on the state but also keep the issue visible globally. Most importantly, the court can document violations, including of human rights, committed by the state. It is worth acknowledging that the ICJ is strong in bringing a legal dispute to the world, recognizing the individuals affected, and instilling a sense of hope in the minds of the victims, including the Rohingya.

While the ICJ rulings are legally binding and do not depend on other U.N. organs to issue final decisions, the court lacks the ability to enforce the decision. The lack of direct enforcement power means that it cannot force a state to fully comply with its decision. This is one of the main limitations of the court, which could cause it to fail to serve long-sought justice for the marginalized. Rather, it tends to rely on voluntary compliance or external diplomatic pressures.

It is very unlikely that Myanmar will voluntarily comply with the ICJ rulings. In this instance, the other party, The Gambia, has the option of going to the U.N. Security Council under Article 94(2) of the U.N. Charter. This point makes it clear that the ICJ is dependent on the discretionary role of the Security Council for the enforcement of its decisions or to decide on the kind of measures to be taken. However, the council’s action depends on politics, interests, and the veto power of its five permanent members.

Among these P5s, China and Russia, in particular, have consistently exercised their veto power on both UN Security Council initiatives to prevent interventions in Myanmar. Nevertheless, this enforcement mechanism has not been formally exercised yet and has very rarely been used in practice.

Another issue is the time problem. Such legal processes take years, while the refugees’ conditions require immediate action. Rohingya in refugee camps in Bangladesh need immediate protection from myriad threats, sufficient humanitarian aid, and sustainable solutions to their protracted crisis. They face limited job opportunities and restrictions on their movement. Some Rohingya youth are even attempting perilous sea journeys with the hope of a better life abroad. Current conditions in Myanmar are still unsafe for both the remaining Rohingya and for the return of the Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh.

As a Rohingya youth, I feel I am trapped in an open-air prison, caged like a wingless bird, and restricted by the barbed-wire fences. International law exists on paper, but enforcement of legally binding decisions depends on state compliance. Legal progress has not changed everyday life for me and a million other Rohingya.

I am inclined to affirm that international law can make the Rohingya crisis, a forgotten crisis, globally visible and create a sense of accountability without real change. It is possible that legal success could exist alongside political failure. This gap could well repeat in other crises. Justice on paper is not the same as justice in reality.

At the same time, I acknowledge that the Rohingya case at the ICJ is still pivotal because it establishes legal responsibility and asserts pressure on Myanmar. However, without enforcement mechanisms, it cannot by itself guarantee justice, safety, rights restoration, or a safe return to Myanmar for the Rohingya in Bangladesh.

Can international law truly protect refugees without enforcement power at a time of polycrisis? Authors

Guest Author
Mohammed Hamim


Mohammed Hamim is a Rohingya poet, writer, and emerging political analyst. He is a rising junior of Philosophy, Politics and Economics (PPE) and one of the founding members of Civic Nexus Network (CNN). 

 

Link : Here