ICJ to Rule November 19 on Myanmar’s Rohingya Genocide Case

By Grace Kim

On November 19, 2026, the International Court of Justice will deliver its judgment on whether Myanmar violated the Genocide Convention in its treatment of the Rohingya. Judges will read the decision at 10 a.m. local time in The Hague.

The ruling will end a case that has run for seven years. The court posted a press notice on November 3, 2026. The notice set the schedule and listed a live UNWebTV broadcast.

What will the ICJ decide on November 19?

Eleven states have intervened in the proceedings. The formal case name reflects their participation.

The title is Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar: 11 States intervening).

The Gambia, acting on behalf of the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation, says Myanmar breached the Convention during military operations against the Rohingya in Rakhine State.

Takeaway: The judgment will determine whether Myanmar bears international responsibility for genocide.

How did the case reach the merits hearings?

The seven-year case has passed through provisional measures, jurisdiction objections, intervention by states, public hearings on the merits and judicial deliberation before the scheduled judgment.

• November 11, 2019: The Gambia filed the case on behalf of the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation.
• January 2020: The court ordered Myanmar to take measures to prevent genocide against the Rohingya while the case continued.
• 2022: The court rejected Myanmar’s preliminary objections and confirmed its jurisdiction.
• Intervention: Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom filed a joint declaration of intervention. Slovenia followed.
• January 2026: The court held public hearings on the merits. Judges began deliberating at the end of that month.

Takeaway: The court has already decided its authority to hear the case; the November judgment will address the merits.

What position did Myanmar take?

At the January 2026 hearings, Myanmar denied the allegations, said Gambia’s case rested on “unsubstantiated allegations,” and pointed to its commitment to repatriate displaced people from Bangladesh.

That position came before judges began deliberating at the end of January. The court has since worked toward its scheduled judgment.

Takeaway: Myanmar denied the genocide claim while stressing repatriation.

Who is at the center of the case?

The Rohingya are a stateless Muslim minority who have endured decades of discrimination and displacement, and the UN has described them as the world’s most persecuted minority.

More than 700,000 fled to neighboring Bangladesh after a military crackdown in August 2017. The scale of that displacement remains central to the crisis.

Members of the Rohingya community hailed Gambia’s decision to take the case to the UN’s highest court a “historic achievement.”

Takeaway: The people at the center of the case still lack a settled route home.

What will the judgment mean for practitioners?

A finding against Myanmar would establish state responsibility for breaching the Convention, while the court’s judgment would not determine criminal guilt or prosecute any individual.

ICJ judgments are final and cannot be appealed. The ruling will therefore be legally binding.

The court settles disputes between states. It cannot prosecute individuals. This case concerns Myanmar’s responsibility as a state, not the guilt of any named official.

For practitioners, the result will define Myanmar’s responsibility under the Convention and clarify the legal consequence of the alleged conduct in Rakhine State.

Takeaway: The judgment resolves state liability, not personal criminal responsibility.

What remains unresolved for the Rohingya?

The judgment will answer a treaty dispute, but it will not resolve the Rohingya’s continuing displacement or the unresolved prospect of a safe and dignified return.

Most of those who fled in 2017 remain in refugee camps in Bangladesh. A safe and dignified return remains unresolved.

The judgment arrives while the wider Rohingya crisis remains far from settled. The legal proceeding addresses state responsibility without resolving the humanitarian consequences of the conflict and displacement.

Takeaway: A legal answer will not end the humanitarian crisis.