Rohingya Crisis: ICJ Hearings, Australia’s Role & The Myanmar Impasse
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) began hearings in January 2026 concerning allegations of genocide against the Rohingya people of Myanmar, a case brought forth by The Gambia. The proceedings, held at the Peace Palace in The Hague, represent a significant moment for a community that has faced decades of persecution, yet the core challenge remains: achieving meaningful change within Myanmar itself.
The hearings mark the start of the merits phase of the case, following years of preliminary legal arguments. Gambia accuses Myanmar of breaching the Genocide Convention through acts allegedly committed during “clearance operations” carried out by the Myanmar military, known as the Tatmadaw, beginning in 2017. These operations led to the displacement of over 700,000 Rohingya to neighboring Bangladesh, and the deaths of thousands more, according to UN reports.
The case has been lauded by Rohingya advocates as a crucial step towards accountability. Attorney General and Minister of Justice of The Gambia, Dawda Jallow, told the court that his country brought the case “after reviewing credible reports of the most brutal and vicious violations imaginable” committed against the Rohingya, a Muslim minority in Myanmar’s Rakhine province. He emphasized that the case was “about real people, real stories, and a real group of human beings.”
Beyond the courtroom, 2025 saw increased Rohingya representation on the international stage. Rohingya women participated in a UN High-Level Conference, and community-led cultural and advocacy initiatives gained global attention. Australia played a role in this shift, recognizing the Rohingya crisis as a priority within its humanitarian and foreign policy agenda, with a recent commitment of A$370 million over three years. Australia also supported the participation of Rohingya advocate Noor Azizah at the United Nations General Assembly High-Level Leaders Week.
Civil society initiatives, such as the Taro Leaf initiative and the Meeras Pavilion in Sydney, which drew over 35,000 attendees, have moved beyond raising awareness to fostering solidarity and recognizing Rohingya agency and dignity. These efforts reflect a growing understanding that representation is not merely symbolic, but essential for shaping narratives and securing international support.
Despite these gains, the situation on the ground in Myanmar continues to deteriorate. Over the last 18 months, fighting between the Arakan Army and the Myanmar Armed Forces has forced more than 100,000 Rohingya to flee their homes. More than 1.2 million Rohingya remain in camps in Bangladesh, facing indefinite containment and aid dependency. Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) reports a spiraling deterioration in both mental and physical health within the camps, alongside a resurgence of preventable infectious diseases.
Across the region, Rohingya continue to undertake dangerous boat journeys, driven by desperation. Myanmar, under military control since the 2021 coup, has consistently denied allegations of genocide, claiming its operations targeted militant threats. Ko Ko Hlaing, a Myanmar government representative, told the ICJ in January 2026 that the allegations were “unsubstantiated,” asserting that the military’s actions were justified as “clearance operations” against insurgents.
For Australia, Myanmar presents a foreign policy challenge, described by some as a “blind spot.” Even as Australia has condemned the military coup and provided humanitarian assistance, it lacks clear pathways to alter conditions for people inside the country. The current approach relies heavily on ASEAN’s Five-Point Consensus, but after five years, the consensus has not demonstrably improved the situation for civilians in Myanmar.
The challenge, according to observers, is not whether to engage with the Myanmar military, but how to engage around Myanmar in ways that support civilian protection, accountability, and future humanitarian conditions without legitimizing the current regime. There are no easy answers, but a shift towards independent analysis, academic and policy spaces, grassroots diplomacy, and new frameworks for engagement is needed.
Humanitarian organizations acknowledge that aid can alleviate suffering but cannot deliver durable solutions. Without parallel investment in political pathways and civilian protection, humanitarian assistance risks becoming a mechanism for managing the consequences of violence and reinforcing containment policies. The ICJ case, and the broader international response, must confront the question of how to effect change in a state that appears unwilling to change itself.