Burma’s agent Ko Ko Hlaing emphasized Burma’s recognition of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention & Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, but said the country did not breach any of its obligations under international law. He stated: “A finding of genocide would place an indelible stain on my country and its people. These proceedings are of fundamental importance for my country’s reputation and future.”

He noted that the military operations carried out in northern Rakhine state in 2016 and 2017 were counter-terrorism operations, and were not carried out with genocidal intent. Furthermore, he rejected the claim that Burma denies the existence or rights of the Muslim population in northern Rakhine state. But he added: “Myanmar considers that Bengalis in northern Rakhine State are culturally, ethnically and religiously part of the same group as the population living immediately across the border in Bangladesh.”

Stefan Talmon, an international law professor at the University of Bonn, also spoke on behalf of Burma. Professor Talmon’s argument rested on the high burden and standard of proof for establishing a breach of the Genocide Convention. He argued that the Gambia, which brought the case against Myanmar, must meet the highest standard of proof, “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Talmon additionally questioned the validity of the Gambia’s argument on the grounds that it does not follow precedent established in the Bosnia v Serbia and Croatia v Serbia cases. He asserted that the Gambia’s argument is inductive, as opposed to the deductive approach used in the prior cases.

The ICJ has traditionally set a high bar for establishing genocide. The only time it has found a violation of the Genocide Convention was regarding the Srebrenica genocide during the Bosnian war. However, the court held that Serbia only breached its obligation to prevent genocide but had not directly committed genocide.

The Gambia’s case alleges that Burma’s armed forces have conducted widespread and systemic “clearance operations” against the predominantly Muslim Rohingya population with genocidal intent. Violence in northern Burma has led to over a million Rohingya displaced to in a Bangladeshi refugee camp. The case opened in November 2019, when the Gambia brought proceedings against Burma under to the Genocide Convention. In 2020, Burma was ordered to halt and prevent all genocidal acts against the Rohingya.

The Gambia’s case against Burma is the first instance in which a state not affected by the facts at issue has brought proceedings under the Genocide Convention. The case serves as important precedent for South Africa’s application against Israel, which charges that Israel’s actions against Palestinians amount to genocide.

From JURIST, Jan. 17. Used with permission. Internal liniks added.

See our last reports on the Rohingya, the ICJ case, the parallel ICC investigation, and the Srebrenica genocide.

Note: This report originally used the country’s new rendering of Myanmar. We changed it to Burma in conformity with our style, which we explain here.

Photo: VOA via Jurist

India stated that the treaty would remain in abeyance until Pakistan takes visible action against what it called cross-border terrorism. Pakistan has rejected the allegations, and condemned the move as a breach of international law. Islamabad’s National Security Committee termed the suspension unacceptable, and Pakistan responded by expelling Indian military liaisons, closing its airspace to Indian craft, and stating its intention to raise the issue at international forums including the United Nations and the International Court of Justice.

The Indus treaty allocates the use of six rivers shared by the two countries. Under the pact, India has exclusive rights over the eastern tributaries of the Indus—the Ravi, Beas and Sutlej—while Pakistan controls the western tributaries—the Jhelum and Chenab—as well as the Indus itself. India is permitted limited non-consumptive use of the western rivers in territories it controls but cannot alter their flow. The treaty, under Article VIII, also created a Permanent Indus Commission for joint oversight and dispute resolution.

Despite the turbulent relationship between India and Pakistan, the treaty has survived multiple conflicts. It continued to function even during the wars of 1965, 1971, and the Kargil conflict in 1999. This resilience is one reason why the treaty has often been held up as an example of successful cooperation between two adversarial nuclear neighbors.

The treaty includes no provision for unilateral suspension or termination. In fact, the agreement clearly states that the treaty shall remain in force until modified or terminated by mutual agreement between both parties. Any such suspension, especially in response to a political or military incident, raises serious legal questions. The legal gravity of India’s suspension are made clear by the treaty’s provisions. Article XII states that the treaty “shall continue in force until terminated by a duly ratified treaty concluded for that purpose between the two Governments,” while Annexure F and G state that disputes not resolved by the Permanent Indus Commission must be referred to a Neutral Expert or Court of Arbitration. Bypassing these mechanisms contradicts not only the text of the treaty but also international legal norms on dispute resolution.

From the perspective of customary international law, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides further clarity. Article 26 of the Vienna Convention codifies the principle ofpacta sunt servanda, requiring that every treaty in force must be adhered to in good faith. Article 60, which deals with termination or suspension due to breach, limits such remedies to cases of material violation—typically adjudicated through international forums. Neither process has been followed in this instance.

Following India’s announcement, diplomatic tensions escalated. India, citing national security grounds, implemented restrictions on visas and cross-border access for Pakistani nationals. Pakistan responded by halting trade, closing the Wagah border crossing, and suspending overflight rights. Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar publicly challenged India to provide evidence for its allegations, and described the Indus Treaty as an international legal instrument that cannot be set aside through executive action.

While these measures reflect diplomatic reciprocity, they also reveal how quickly the situation has escalated beyond a legal dispute into a full-blown diplomatic standoff. Pakistan has announced its intention to pursue the matter through international forums, including the UN and the International Court of Justice.

India’s move raises concerns about treaty obligations and compliance with the principles of international law. Unilateral suspension could undermine confidence in trans-boundary water agreements globally. India’s position as an upper riparian in other river basins—such as the Brahmaputra shared with China and Bangladesh—may also come under scrutiny if such actions become precedent.

The implications extend to water security within Pakistan. The western rivers are essential for agriculture, power generation, and public use. Disruption—whether in data sharing, flow predictability, or legal cooperation—introduces risks to resource planning and may intensify domestic inter-provincial tensions over water sharing.

The Indus Waters Treaty was designed to ensure cooperation through clear legal rules, outside mediation, and a shared understanding of water as a common resource. The present situation is one of the most serious challenges the treaty has faced. Since it does not allow for suspension by one side alone, any changes to its status should be made through mutual agreement or legal process.

Furthermore, the treaty’s survival clause under Article IX establishes that in the event of a dispute, parties are obligated to maintain normal implementation of the treaty provisions unless and until a binding resolution is reached. India’s unilateral action could thus be interpreted as a procedural as well as substantive breach, potentially triggering international review depending on how Pakistan frames its case at the ICJ or other legal platforms.

As both sides maintain hardened positions and diplomatic communications remain strained, the role of third-party facilitators, including the World Bank, may prove critical. Whether the treaty can continue to function as a stabilizing force will depend on adherence to legal mechanisms and the willingness of both countries to re-engage through peaceful channels.

—Abu Bakar Khan for JURIST, April 25. Used with permission.

See our last reports on the Pahalgam attack and struggle for the Indus.

Photo: Heartography/Pixabay via Jurist

From The New Humanitarian, April 4

Note: Fluctuations in the price of oil and grain since the start of the Ukraine war in 2022 have contributed to popular privation and unrest worldwide.

Photo: Down To Earth

The Rohingya, having long faced massive ethnically targetted attacks by the military, are now facing such attacks by the ethno-nationalist Arakan Army. In addition to Rohingya youth being press-ganged into the military to fight the rebels, some Rohingya militias are now collaborating with the junta against the Arakan Army. (Rohingya Refugee News, Dhaka Tribune, Tea Circle)

Map: PCL

The request for an advisory opinion from the ICJ was submitted in March 2023, following the unanimous adoption of Resolution 77/276 by the UN General Assembly. The resolution sought the court’s guidance on the obligations of sates to “ensure the protection of the climate system…for present and future generations,” and the legal implications of “acts and omissions [that] have caused significant harm to the climate system.” The second question especially addresses the international community’s legal responsibilities to small island developing States, which are disproportionately threatened by the adverse effects of climate change.

Article 96 of the UN Charter serves as a legal basis for the General Assembly, Security Council and specialized agencies to submit legal questions to the ICJ. Article 65 of the ICJ Statute further establishes the court’s jurisdiction to provide advisory opinions. Although non-binding, they serve as authoritative statements on international law.

The request for an advisory opinion was initially inspired by a grassroots movement in Vanuatu and subsequently advanced by its government. This island state in the South Pacific, in collaboration with nations such as Costa Rica, Sierra Leone, Angola, Germany, the Federated States of Micronesia, Bangladesh and others, played a key role in drafting the resolution. The adverse consequences of climate change are well recognized, yet substantial discrepancies persist in the international community’s approach to mitigating its impacts. Emissions from high-polluting countries like the US, Canada, Russia and China have accelerated climate change and its harmful consequences, disproportionately affecting small island nations, which are particularly vulnerable due to their “geographical circumstances and level of development.” The unanimous agreement of all 193 UNGA member states to refer the request to the ICJ highlights the critical importance of addressing this global issue.

Remarkably, the international community’s participation has been unprecedented, with 91 written submissions, 62 follow-up comments, and 98 states, along with 12 authorized international organizations, set to engage in the oral proceedings.

While the ICJ’s advisory opinion is expected in 2025, it is not the first international judicial body to address states’ legal obligations regarding climate change. Earlier this year, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea issued a groundbreaking advisory opinion, urging states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to prevent marine pollution. This opinion has set a precedent for future climate-related litigation and may influence the ICJ’s forthcoming decision. Additionally, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) is preparing its advisory opinion on climate change, following public hearings in June. The IACHR opinion is expected to contribute further to this evolving area of international law.

From JURIST, Dec. 2. Used with permission.

Photo: ICJ

The application is the first against a high-level Myanmar government official. It is based on evidence from numerous sources, including witness testimonies and authenticated foresnic, photographic and video materials.

Khan expressed his gratitude to the Rohingya community, who have in large part been forced to flee violence in Myanmar, for their support and testimony. “We are grateful to all those who provided testimony and support to my Office, those that have shared their stories, those that have given us information and material,” he said.

“We will continue to focus on this situation in the coming weeks and months as we submit additional applications,” Khan added. “We will be demonstrating, together with all of our partners, that the Rohingya have not been forgotten. That they, like all people around the world, are entitled to the protection of the law.”

The ICC’s move has been welcomed by human rights groups and Rohingya activists, who have long called for accountability for the atrocities committed against them. Sayedul Karim, director of the Rohingya Justice Initiative—the only initiative owned and operated by Rohingya human rights defenders to provide evidence to the ICC, the International Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar, and the International Court of Justice —told JURIST:

Despite the prolonged suffering and trauma experienced by the Rohingya community in the aftermath of conflict, the arrest warrants in the International Criminal Court (ICC) case offers a glimmer of hope to the Rohingya people. The fact that justice has been delayed does not necessarily mean it will be denied. Our tireless efforts to seek justice for our people are helping to rebuild hope and resilience within the Rohingya community.

This latest development in the ICC case serves as a powerful reminder that the Rohingya people have not been forgotten. It demonstrates that evidence matters and that those responsible for atrocities will be held accountable.

The ICC Prosecutor’s application for an arrest warrant for General Min Aung Hlaing is a significant step forward, regenerating hope that justice will ultimately be served to the Rohingya people. This progress shows that perpetrators will not go unpunished, and we look forward to seeing those responsible brought to account for their actions.

Tun Khin, president of the Burmese Rohingya Organisation in the United Kingdom, also commented: “This is a day of celebration not just for Rohingya, but for everyone from Burma.”

The ICC’s judges will now consider the application and determine whether to issue an arrest warrant. If issued, the warrant would mark a significant development in the pursuit of accountability for crimes committed against the Rohingya.

From JURIST, Nov. 27. Used with permission.

Note: Although Myanmar is not an ICC member country, in 2019 the ICC prosecutor opened an investigation into alleged grave crimes against the Rohingya population that were committed, at least in part, in Bangladesh or another ICC member country. (HRW)

See our last reports on the Rohingya and the ICC case.

Photo: VOA via Wikimedia Commons

Photo: Melting Pot Europa

The referral, submitted by Minister of Justice Ewelina Dobrowolska, invokes Articles 13(a) and 14 of the Rome Statute, establishing a legal basis for the ICC’s jurisdiction over the grave violations reported since May 1, 2020. Lithuania asserts that there are reasonable grounds to believe that senior Belarusian political, law enforcement, and military officials have engaged in serious crimes, including deportation, persecution, and other inhumane acts against the civilian population. The referral emphasizes that some of these crimes have also occurred within Lithuanian territory, reinforcing the ICC’s jurisdiction under the principle of territoriality, as delineated in the Rome Statute.

Under Article 13(a), the ICC is authorized to exercise its jurisdiction when a State Party refers a situation to the Prosecutor, thereby enabling the Court to investigate and prosecute core crimes outlined in Article 5. The provision highlights the necessity for an independent investigation into serious allegations of systematic abuses. Furthermore, Article 14 outlines the procedure for a State Party to request an investigation into crimes that appear to fall within the Court’s jurisdiction. Lithuania’s initiative not only seeks accountability for these alleged transgressions but also aims to galvanize the international community’s response to the systemic repression faced by dissenters in Belarus.

Exiled head of the United Transitional Cabinet of Belarus, Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, underscored the severe conditions faced by the Belarusian people under Lukashenko’s regime, noting:

Today, approximately 300,000 Belarusians have been forced to flee, with every thirtieth resident of Belarus now living in exile. But the regime did not stop there—Belarusians abroad continue to face persecution, as the dictator extends his policies beyond our borders, attacking us through intimidation, judicial harassment, and even criminal prosecution in absentia.

The referral marks a historic moment in the ICC’s history as it is the first instance of a State Party referring a situation in a non-state party based on the jurisdictional principle established in the Myanmar/Bangladesh precedent, in which part of the unlawful conduct occurred on the territory of a State Party.

Lithuanian Justice Minister Dobrowolska further emphasized the significance of the action to the ICC, stating:

Lithuania has been the first State to refer to the ICC concerning the situation in Ukraine, and eventually an arrest warrant for Putin has been issued. Now, we make a move requesting the ICC to investigate the situation in Belarus, and we do expect an arrest warrant for Lukashenko.

The ICC’s Chief Prosecutor Office has confirmed the receipt of the referral and will conduct a preliminary examination to evaluate its admissibility and determine if there are sufficient grounds to initiate a full investigation.

From Jurist, Oct. 1. Used with permission.

See our last reports on charges of crimes against humanity in Belarus since the contested elections of 2020.

Map: PCL

One of the most recent attacks occurred Sept. 6, when the Dewanbag Shrine in Narayanganj was set ablaze, leaving four people injured. This attack followed similar incidents, including the destruction of the Ayyanal Shah Shrine in August, and the vandalism of shrines in Sirajganj. At least 45 shrines and temples have been targeted in recent weeks.

Protests have erupted across the country, with thousands of Hindus and followers of Sufi saints taking to the streets to demand greater protection for their religious sites. Home affairs adviser Jahangir Alam Chowdhury stated that law enforcement agencies have ramped up efforts to prevent further attacks. Inspector General of Police Mohammad Mainul Islam told media that he has issued directives for swift action against any group inciting communal violence. He emphasized that any attempts to disrupt social harmony would be met with “zero tolerance.”

Bangladesh has seen a disturbing rise in religious extremism and violence in recent months. The violence has escalated since the recent transition of power from the Awami League government.

From Jurist, Sept. 15. Used with permission.

Photo: Dhaka Tribune

Listen on SoundCloud or via Patreon.

Production by Chris Rywalt

We ask listeners to donate just $1 per weekly podcast via Patreon—or $2 for our Special Offer, or $5 to become a Major Rant Enabler. We now have 68 subscribers. If you appreciate our work, please become Number 69!

Photo: JC Okechukwu via Twitter