Ko Ko Hlaing self-identifies #Myanmar as a "developing nation", thereby appeasing Western discourse. He also discredited the fact-finding reports of the #UN on the #Rohingya and defended the military's actions as #counterterrorism. He also does NOT mention "this population" by its ethnonym! #racism

Lies already in the opening speech: " #Myanmar gives all people equal rights." No. And OF COURSE a reference to the ongoing sham elections as proof for the country's respect for #democracy. I've been saying for years to not fall for this performance. But nowadays, ALL politics is, is performance.

Ko Ko Hlaing being creative avoiding the ethnonym #Rohingya - this population - these people - Bengalis - these people in Rakhine state But: "... the name Rohingya ..." (so when he quotes, he is able to say the word ...)

Thida Oo, Minister of Legal Affairs of the military regime - and also on the US sanctions list - is giving Ko Ko Hlaing a thumbs up for his opening statement. #TheGambiavsMyanmar #ICJ

Christopher Staker, representing #Myanmar in fronto of the #ICJ begins his statement with emphasizing that the only task of the court is to establish whether the Genocide convention has been violated. He then disputes that what #TheGambia presented earlier, were facts. He begins explaining that ...

..the term "clearance operation" is a military term used in many countries (he cites the UK and the #US) & does not mean to rid a territory of its people. It is a #counterterrorism measure. I can't help but think:with the situation in the US, these comparisons are no longer to an advantage. #Myanmar

If I hear Christopher Staker correctly, he is ALSO avoiding the ethnonym #Rohingya. He talks about "Bengalis" who have decided to stay in Rakhine State. And "Bengalis" LEAVING (what an innocent word) #Myanmar to #Bangladesh. He now talks about #repatriation efforts. Listening to this hurts.

"The #IIMM reports do not deal with events on the ground in 2016-17" Staker doubts the witness statements by #IIMM (only 42 provided to #TheGambia after 7 years of work) out of which only 12 were put into the case). The Gambia "simply has no case"; aka: discrediting the fact-finding reports.

In contrast to public discourse, there is no "believe the victims"-approach when it comes to defense in international law settings (eg #ICJ ). The "facts" of the #UN fact-finding commissions are currently being doubted. "The court can either 'rubberstamp it' or 'reject it', says Staker. #evidence

Accepting "such reports" as "facts" would be an "abnegation of [the court's] judicial function". Staker obviously does not want to see the #evidence given in context: reports and eye-witness accounts were presented alongside reports of int.orgs., medical institutions, etc. #Myanmar #internationallaw

How practical that as of today, the sham elections in #Myanmar have already been decided after the 2nd out of 3 intended steps of voting. The military and the military-run USDP-party have secured the majority and will now pretend to act as "civilian" government. www.irrawaddy.com/news/politic...

Highly interesting argument presented by Stefan Talmon (whom I remember from Uni Tuebingen - we studied with the same international legal scholar, Prof. Graf von Vitzthum. He criticizes that #TheGambia s #indicators of genocidal intent (presented as inductive) amount to consequential #evidence

In contrast to this inductive approach, he then introduces a deductive approach as allegedly adhered to by the #ICJ - he calls this: "The Court's" approach (and says this is the approach taken by the Court in the Croatia-case).

Scholarly article which deals with this distinction (esp rgd. "the only reasonable inference"): "Is the ICJ’s standard of proof for #genocide unattainable?" ... rsilpak.org/2024/is-the-...

Is the ICJ’s standard of proof...

Talmon argues that the rules on the burden of proof are such that genocidal intent is the ONLY reasonable inference to be drawn from the facts in question. As soon as there are OTHER potential intentions present (e.g. ethnic cleansing, hate speech...), the standard of proof has not been met.

Delegate of #Myanmar now mentions @[email protected] & @[email protected] and says their eyewitness accounts are "hearsay descriptions" ... "The court should not give weight to such reports at all." This is outrageous and discredits how we work in the humanities / qual. social sciences. #evidence

So, while #TheGambia has so far concentrated almost exclusively on aspects of content of the case, #Myanmar has so far almost exclusively concentrated on form, particularly what constitutes accepted #evidence in #internationallaw.

Monday, 19/1. #ICJ hearings continue with presentations by #Myanmar - first thing to highlight: while the ethnonyn #Rohingya continues to be denied, the counsel speaks of "the #Bengali community". What is a community? In the post-British empire context, it means a bounded ethno-religious group.

A 'community' in #Bangladesh or #Myanmar cannot equal the entire population of a state. To deny #Rohingya their ethnonym, but to speak of #Bengali as 'community' makes no sense: either these are Bangladeshi of Bangladesh or they are Rohingya of Myanmar. Bengali is a language #WhatsHappeninginMyanmar

"The court-settled case law acknowledges, that the evidential weight of witness statements is diminished significantly if the witness is not disinterested," says #Myanmar. This is why legal reasoning often seems inhumane to many: How can being 'disinterested' in the face of violence be good?

#Myanmar is criticising that so many #IIMM witness statements were provided anonymously. "How can one know if the statements are not contradictory?" asks the counsel. I understand the point and think #TheGambia should clarify why it was necessary to protect anonymity in these cases.

I'm leaving this here without much comment. I think we have enough literature on why witnesses withdraw or change their statements. There are many clues in this withdrawal provided by #Myanmar - I hope the court does not take the argument rgd. "pervasive anonymity" at face value ...

I continue my thread after a 1-week break. All videos of the case #TheGambia vs #Myanmar are available at the #ICJ website. I have summarized the 1st week of the case by highlighting a crucial formal aspect when interpreting the #Genocide Convention: what counts as #evidence and what does not?

After disputing that the material #TheGambia has provided carries any evidential weight, #Myanmar focused on #ARSA (Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army), an Islamist group active in the camps in #Bangladesh, but - at least acc. to #Myanmar - responsible for many of the killings in #Myanmar, too.

On January 20th #Myanmar continued making their case, now focusing on #hatespeech and anti-Rohingya hate propaganda - asking whether it is at all relevant for establishing genocidal intent. "Myanmar says that it is not." Again, the criticism is that TheGambia has a "flawed genocidal intent approach"

Against #TheGambia s approach, which "has no basis in the court's case law", Stefan Talmon ( #Myanmar ) positions the court's "inference from a pattern of conduct approach." Question is: Could #hatespeech be relevant to establish a pattern of conduct? #Myanmar: no. #hatespeech has no role to play.

It is honestly hard to listen to a German legal expert (with whom I share an alma mater, having studied with the same law professor), advocating for #Myanmar and paraphrasing a statement of Min Aung Hlaing as "calling for cooperation" in Rakhine state. What is the worth of a state terrorist's words?

Rgd FB statements: "There is no legal basis to attribute statements by a regional political party, leaders of a fringe nationalistic opposition party, or Buddhist monks to the state of Myanmar ... for a state to be held responsible for #genocide, the state itself must have the intent to destroy..."

"... a protected group in whole or in part as such. This cannot be established simply by attributing to the state the genocidal intent of one or more individuals." In the #Croatia case, the #ICJ held: "the genocidal intent of a state is to be sought in the state's policy..."

"... or is to be established indirectly by inference from a pattern of conduct. It is not to be established by way of attributing the genocidal intent of individuals to the state." Anthropologist here: what / who is "the state" in this view, then?

How can speech acts be "attributable to #Myanmar" (the state), as the agent of Myanmar demands, if not via individuals who do the speaking? How does "the state" speak?

Still catching up with #ICJ hearing #TheGambia vs #Myanmar - on 20 January, 9 judges began to pose questions to the two parties. 1st Q: on the methodology of how #evidence was collected from anonymous witnesses by third parties. 2nd Q (to Myanmar): how many villages destroyed by ARSA/Tatmadaw/Gov.

more Qs. Is The Gambia able to identify the locations where sexual violence has occurred and which measures were taken to investigate these incidents ? To Myanmar: How does each party characterize ARSA? Q to Myanmar: reasons for refusal to cooperate rgd. int. cooperation in prevention of #genocide ?

Watching the last day of #TheGambia presentings its case (January 27, 2026): "There is no quantitative requirement imposed on the actus reus. The 10.000 deaths at least, caused by the Tatmadaw were each a human tragedy, and they were each a genocidal act within the meaning of Art. 2a." #Rohingya

Screenshot of Q 1 of Judge Cleveland of the #ICJ, asking #Myanmar, whether it really thinks that the #FFM material and NGO reports (e.g. by @[email protected] ) would be 'mere hearsay'. This, to me at least, is the key element of the debate: what counts as #evidence in front of the court?

Dr Staker for #Myanmar "The organizations producing these reports lacked the expertise, resources or mandates to produce material suitable for use in judicial proceedings with such a high standard of proof.." Ok for #NGOs, but not for #FFM, right? These are #UN commissions & that is their sole task!

Here is the original #UN "Declaration on Fact-finding by the United Nations in the Field of the Maintenance of International Peace and Security" from 1991. #FFM #evidence digitallibrary.un.org/record/13569...

digitallibrary.un.org/record/135694/...

Basically, #Myanmar doubts that the #FFM for #Myanmar did a decent job. They discredit the work of this #UN organ as well as those of #NGO s working on the issue. In regard to the #IIMM, they then argue that even they could not come up with more than 42 witness statements in 7 years ... #Rohingya

"Where a report of an NGO is cited as evidence of a fact, it cannot simply be assumed that the cited report necessarily supports that fact, much less that it proves that fact" (Dr Staker for #Myanmar

"If there is only one other reasonable alternative inference, then the inference of genocidal intent is not the only reasonable one and, therefore, genocidal intent is not established to the required standard of proof ...The intention to destroy must be established as the “only reasonable inference”