Military Junta representing Myanmar at the ICJ
Moreover, the agents of military junta are an unelected and illegal government, who has a long history of atrocities through murder, rape, arson etc.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has recommenced The Gambia v Myanmar case hearing. It has approved the military junta government to represent the case on behalf of Myanmar. The representation has longterm effects and several implications, specially in the context of the Rohingya repatriation. The instance of the ICJ by approving military junta agent at the court clashes with United Nations General Assembly's recognition of the National Unity Government (NUG), elected by the people of Myanmar.
On a different note, NUG had pleaded to withdraw the preliminary objections forwarded by Myanmar's defense lawyers in the first hearing. They were ready to accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ and Gambia as an applicant in this case. Their acceptance would expedite the proceeding. The ICJ lacked clairvoyance and brought complications to the future procedure by approving military junta to represent the case. The ICJ set the fox to look after the geese. After the first hearing, the court asked to prevent genocidal violence against the Rohingyas. The military junta did not comply with the provisional measures forwarded, but the right to movement and other fundamental rights were retained. Allegedly 6,00,000 Rohingyas reside in Rakhine without proper food, medicine, and different fundamental needs. At the same time, approximately 1,30,000 Rohingyas live in open-air detention camps. The military junta administration continuously denies humanitarian assistance to these Rohingyas of Central Rakhine by violating provisional measures.
The ICJ defended this major mistake by saying it has no permanent country representatives. Anybody can represent through the Minister of Foreign Affairs or Ambassador by communicating with Registrar at the ICJ. Article 42 of the ICJ Statute directs that agents shall represent a state through the assistance of counsels or advocates. But the ICJ also says a government must appoint the agent at the court. However, there is no intelligible interpretation of what government would refer to. We can understand government as legally elected or illegal military power for this discussion. According to the previous representations by different states at the ICJ, we might say the government would refer to legal governments. Also, there is no sign of legality in Myanmar's military junta as they have taken over power through illegal force by disrupting democracy.
So, any recognition by the ICJ as a UN organ will validate the demand for international recognition for the military junta in international forums. According to the ICJ, the military junta caused irreparable damage to the Rohingya rights. Their continuous denial of the Rohingya identity has later turned to clearance operations and eventually irreparable damage to Rohingya rights. The military junta is insensitive and xenophobic towards ethnic and minority rights. Specially after the coup killing about 1500 citizens of Myanmar, they turned out to be more ferocious towards other ethnic races of Myanmar. So there remains a question; why the ICJ did not import the UN's idea of 'moral imperative' that the UNGA Credentials Committee exercised while approving Myanmar's NUG-backed ambassador.
Moreover, the agents of military junta are an unelected and illegal government, who has a long history of atrocities through murder, rape, arson etc. Neither the citizens of Myanmar nor the Rohingyas residing at camps want military junta to represent Myanmar. Many Rohingyas and rights activists have requested the ICJ not to approve the military junta as the representative of Myanmar. There are several probable outcomes of this instance of the ICJ. Firstly, the military junta will claim recognition under the UNGA Credential Committee by resonating with the instance of the ICJ. Hence the overthrowing of democracy will be buried under political reality. Secondly, the repatriation of the Rohingyas might become a utopian dream. They will not consent to repatriation to a military-ruled country or their perpetrators. Lastly, in the wake of China and Russia's open support at the UN Security Council, Myanmar's military junta did not pay heed to the implementation of provisional measures ordered by the ICJ. Hence, it would undoubtedly disrupt the repatriation process even if it is ordered to implement.
The writer is a Lecturer in Law, Feni University.