Rohingya Refugees Pin Justice Hopes on ICJ Genocide Ruling

The International Court of Justice will deliver its ruling in The Gambia v Myanmar on November 19, and more than one million Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh see the date as their best chance in seven years for international recognition of genocide.

The ICJ, the United Nations' top court, has heard the case since The Gambia filed it, accusing Myanmar of violating the 1948 Genocide Convention through its military crackdown on the Rohingya. The crackdown drove the refugees from Myanmar's Rakhine State in 2017, amid accounts of mass killings, sexual violence and other atrocities. The judgment follows seven years of proceedings.

What does the ruling mean for the Rohingya?

Rohingya leaders split their expectations into two tracks. Some want a genocide finding to secure international recognition of their persecution and hold perpetrators accountable. Others want the ruling to reinforce their claim to Myanmar as their homeland and strengthen their demand for repatriation.

Sayed Ullah, first president of the United Council of Rohingya (UCR), said the community had waited nearly a decade for justice. The announcement of the judgment date raised expectations among refugees, he said.

He acknowledged a hard practical reality. The court has limited means to ensure compliance. Citing past international disputes, he said political obstacles, particularly the veto power of permanent members of the UN Security Council, could block enforcement.

"Despite these challenges, we hope the judgment will increase international influence and attention on the Rohingya issue," Ullah said. "The international community, particularly the Bangladesh government, needs to maintain its focus and work towards a solution that will allow the Rohingya to return to their homeland."

Could the ruling force repatriation?

No, according to the officials and advocates interviewed. They were unanimous on that point.

Mohammad Zubair, chairman of the Arakan Rohingya Society for Peace and Human Rights, hopes the court rules in favour of The Gambia. A genocide finding would fulfil a longstanding demand by securing international recognition that Myanmar committed crimes against the Rohingya, he said. Such recognition could carry significant moral weight for UN member states, encouraging them to stand with the Rohingya and increasing diplomatic pressure on Myanmar.

"We are completely positive about the upcoming ruling," Zubair said. "We have high hopes that the international community, through the ICJ, will ensure justice for our people. We believe those who persecuted and oppressed us will eventually be brought to justice."

But he drew a firm line between the two goals. "Justice is one issue, while repatriation is another," he said.

What does Dhaka expect?

Bangladesh's refugee administration also tempered expectations while welcoming the potential judgment.

Refugee Relief and Repatriation Commissioner Mohammad Mizanur Rahman said a genocide ruling would be significant not only for the Rohingya but for the international community. It would establish that the Rohingya were a persecuted community and that Myanmar's crimes against them had been internationally recognised, he said. The judgment could create moral pressure on UN member states to stand with the Rohingya and increase pressure on Myanmar.

Mizanur also hopes the court addresses citizenship. "If the judgment recognises that the Rohingya have historically lived in Myanmar or are citizens of the country, it would become an important document against Myanmar's long-standing claim that they are outsiders," he said.

He cautioned against reading the ruling as a repatriation trigger. "Repatriation will not happen immediately as a direct consequence of the judgment," Mizanur said. "But it could strengthen the Rohingya's position and create greater international pressure for their return."

What changes on November 19?

The practical consequence is legal and diplomatic, not operational. A genocide finding would give refugees, advocacy groups and sympathetic states a binding judicial anchor for accountability claims, sanctions arguments and citizenship disputes at the UN. Enforcement still runs through the Security Council, where a permanent member's veto can stall compliance. Repatriation talks would gain leverage but no timetable.

The takeaway: the ruling offers recognition and pressure, not return.