By Omar Bah
On Wednesday, July 3, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) stated that Great Britain, France, Canada, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, and the Maldives have been authorized to intervene in the Myanmar genocide case against Gambia.
The countries requested to intervene in the case at the World Court, as per the International Court of Justice (ICJ). “The seven states involved will have the opportunity to submit their written observations on the subject matter of their interventions. The Court will decide later whether they should be allowed to make observations during the oral proceedings,” the ICJ stated.
In 2017, Gambia, a predominantly Muslim West African country, filed a case against Myanmar at the ICJ, accusing it of committing genocide against the Rohingya, a minority Muslim group in Myanmar. A United Nations fact-finding mission concluded that a 2017 military campaign by Myanmar that drove 730,000 Rohingya into neighboring Bangladesh had included “genocidal acts.”
Myanmar has denied the genocide, rejecting the UN findings as “biased and flawed.” It says its crackdown was aimed at Rohingya rebels who had carried out attacks. The ICJ’s order unanimously accepted the interventions, allowing the states to contribute to the proceedings with their perspectives on interpreting the Genocide Convention’s provisions. The Court declared the Maldives’ intervention under Article 63 of the ICJ Statute admissible, permitting the nation to address the construction of the Genocide Convention’s provisions.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has accepted a joint declaration of intervention under Article 63 that Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK submitted. This order grants these seven states the authority, per Article 86 of the Rules of Court, to submit their written observations on their interventions. The ICJ will decide later whether these states will be permitted to present their observations during the oral proceedings.
The admission of these interventions underscores the increased international interest and participation in the legal interpretations of the Genocide Convention as the Court progresses with this landmark case.
