This table compares the two principal international judicial bodies relevant to the Myanmar crisis, highlighting their distinct jurisdictions, functions, and relevance to cases like the Rohingya genocide.
| Feature | International Court of Justice (ICJ) | International Criminal Court (ICC) |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Function | Settles legal disputes between states; gives advisory opinions. | Investigates and prosecutes individuals for international crimes. |
| Parties Involved | States (countries) only. | Individuals (perpetrators of crimes). |
| Jurisdiction | Contentious cases between states (e.g., Genocide Convention interpretation); Advisory opinions. | Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity, War Crimes, Crime of Aggression. |
| Basis of Jurisdiction | UN Charter, ICJ Statute, treaties/conventions (e.g., Genocide Convention). | Rome Statute (1998/2002). |
| Location | The Hague, Netherlands (Peace Palace). | The Hague, Netherlands. |
| Myanmar Relevance | Gambia v. Myanmar case (alleged violation of Genocide Convention by Myanmar state). | Investigation into alleged crimes against humanity (e.g., forced deportation of Rohingya) by individuals. |
| Enforcement | Decisions are binding on states; UN Security Council can enforce. | Arrest warrants, trials, sentences for individuals; no state can shield its citizens. |
💡 Highlighted: Row 6 is particularly important for exam preparation
This table compares the two principal international judicial bodies relevant to the Myanmar crisis, highlighting their distinct jurisdictions, functions, and relevance to cases like the Rohingya genocide.
| Feature | International Court of Justice (ICJ) | International Criminal Court (ICC) |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Function | Settles legal disputes between states; gives advisory opinions. | Investigates and prosecutes individuals for international crimes. |
| Parties Involved | States (countries) only. | Individuals (perpetrators of crimes). |
| Jurisdiction | Contentious cases between states (e.g., Genocide Convention interpretation); Advisory opinions. | Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity, War Crimes, Crime of Aggression. |
| Basis of Jurisdiction | UN Charter, ICJ Statute, treaties/conventions (e.g., Genocide Convention). | Rome Statute (1998/2002). |
| Location | The Hague, Netherlands (Peace Palace). | The Hague, Netherlands. |
| Myanmar Relevance | Gambia v. Myanmar case (alleged violation of Genocide Convention by Myanmar state). | Investigation into alleged crimes against humanity (e.g., forced deportation of Rohingya) by individuals. |
| Enforcement | Decisions are binding on states; UN Security Council can enforce. | Arrest warrants, trials, sentences for individuals; no state can shield its citizens. |
💡 Highlighted: Row 6 is particularly important for exam preparation
This flowchart outlines the simplified procedural steps involved in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) case filed by Gambia against Myanmar, illustrating how international legal mechanisms address alleged genocide.
Request for Provisional Measures (Nov 2019)
ICJ Order on Provisional Measures (Jan 2020): Myanmar must prevent genocidal acts.
Myanmar's Preliminary Objections (Jan 2021): Challenging ICJ's jurisdiction/admissibility.
ICJ Judgment on Preliminary Objections (July 2022): Rejects Myanmar's objections, case proceeds to merits.
Memorials and Counter-Memorials (Ongoing 2023-2025): Written pleadings by both parties on the merits of the case.
Oral Hearings on Merits (Expected 2025/2026): Public hearings where parties present arguments.
This flowchart outlines the simplified procedural steps involved in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) case filed by Gambia against Myanmar, illustrating how international legal mechanisms address alleged genocide.
Request for Provisional Measures (Nov 2019)
ICJ Order on Provisional Measures (Jan 2020): Myanmar must prevent genocidal acts.
Myanmar's Preliminary Objections (Jan 2021): Challenging ICJ's jurisdiction/admissibility.
ICJ Judgment on Preliminary Objections (July 2022): Rejects Myanmar's objections, case proceeds to merits.
Memorials and Counter-Memorials (Ongoing 2023-2025): Written pleadings by both parties on the merits of the case.
Oral Hearings on Merits (Expected 2025/2026): Public hearings where parties present arguments.
The Genocide Convention identifies five specific acts constituting genocide, all requiring 'intent to destroy' a protected group.
These acts include: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm; deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction; imposing measures intended to prevent births; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
The International Criminal Court (ICC), established by the Rome Statute, has jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) hears disputes between states, including those concerning the interpretation and application of the Genocide Convention (e.g., Gambia v. Myanmar).
The principle of universal jurisdiction allows national courts to prosecute individuals for genocide regardless of where the crime was committed or the nationality of the perpetrator.
There is no statute of limitations for the crime of genocide, meaning perpetrators can be prosecuted at any time.
The Rohingya crisis involves widespread allegations of genocide against the Myanmar military, leading to international legal proceedings.
States parties to the Genocide Convention have an obligation to prevent and punish genocide.
This table compares the two principal international judicial bodies relevant to the Myanmar crisis, highlighting their distinct jurisdictions, functions, and relevance to cases like the Rohingya genocide.
| Feature | International Court of Justice (ICJ) | International Criminal Court (ICC) |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Function | Settles legal disputes between states; gives advisory opinions. | Investigates and prosecutes individuals for international crimes. |
| Parties Involved | States (countries) only. | Individuals (perpetrators of crimes). |
| Jurisdiction | Contentious cases between states (e.g., Genocide Convention interpretation); Advisory opinions. | Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity, War Crimes, Crime of Aggression. |
| Basis of Jurisdiction | UN Charter, ICJ Statute, treaties/conventions (e.g., Genocide Convention). | Rome Statute (1998/2002). |
| Location | The Hague, Netherlands (Peace Palace). | The Hague, Netherlands. |
| Myanmar Relevance | Gambia v. Myanmar case (alleged violation of Genocide Convention by Myanmar state). | Investigation into alleged crimes against humanity (e.g., forced deportation of Rohingya) by individuals. |
| Enforcement | Decisions are binding on states; UN Security Council can enforce. | Arrest warrants, trials, sentences for individuals; no state can shield its citizens. |
This flowchart outlines the simplified procedural steps involved in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) case filed by Gambia against Myanmar, illustrating how international legal mechanisms address alleged genocide.
The Genocide Convention identifies five specific acts constituting genocide, all requiring 'intent to destroy' a protected group.
These acts include: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm; deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction; imposing measures intended to prevent births; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
The International Criminal Court (ICC), established by the Rome Statute, has jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) hears disputes between states, including those concerning the interpretation and application of the Genocide Convention (e.g., Gambia v. Myanmar).
The principle of universal jurisdiction allows national courts to prosecute individuals for genocide regardless of where the crime was committed or the nationality of the perpetrator.
There is no statute of limitations for the crime of genocide, meaning perpetrators can be prosecuted at any time.
The Rohingya crisis involves widespread allegations of genocide against the Myanmar military, leading to international legal proceedings.
States parties to the Genocide Convention have an obligation to prevent and punish genocide.
This table compares the two principal international judicial bodies relevant to the Myanmar crisis, highlighting their distinct jurisdictions, functions, and relevance to cases like the Rohingya genocide.
| Feature | International Court of Justice (ICJ) | International Criminal Court (ICC) |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Function | Settles legal disputes between states; gives advisory opinions. | Investigates and prosecutes individuals for international crimes. |
| Parties Involved | States (countries) only. | Individuals (perpetrators of crimes). |
| Jurisdiction | Contentious cases between states (e.g., Genocide Convention interpretation); Advisory opinions. | Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity, War Crimes, Crime of Aggression. |
| Basis of Jurisdiction | UN Charter, ICJ Statute, treaties/conventions (e.g., Genocide Convention). | Rome Statute (1998/2002). |
| Location | The Hague, Netherlands (Peace Palace). | The Hague, Netherlands. |
| Myanmar Relevance | Gambia v. Myanmar case (alleged violation of Genocide Convention by Myanmar state). | Investigation into alleged crimes against humanity (e.g., forced deportation of Rohingya) by individuals. |
| Enforcement | Decisions are binding on states; UN Security Council can enforce. | Arrest warrants, trials, sentences for individuals; no state can shield its citizens. |
This flowchart outlines the simplified procedural steps involved in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) case filed by Gambia against Myanmar, illustrating how international legal mechanisms address alleged genocide.
