Attorney General Dauda Jalo was the first to speak on behalf of the Gambia at the hearing, which began on Wednesday under the chairmanship of Justice Joan Donhue, the current president of the Hague in the Netherlands. At the outset, he said Myanmar had failed to come up with any convincing arguments for reversing the court's unanimous decision. Myanmar's initial objections should therefore be quickly dismissed.
The Gambia has argued that in the wake of the ICJ's order of January 23, 2020, those objections should be rejected again. The reasons given in the initial objection of Myanmar are: 1. Gambia's filing of a lawsuit on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is not acceptable and the court has no jurisdiction. 2. The Gambia has no right to sue. 3. Neither party can seek refuge in the ICJ because Myanmar has not complied with Article 7 of the UN Charter and 4. The lawsuit was probably settled out of court, as Gambia had no dispute with Myanmar at the time.
The Gambia responded in writing in April last year to the allegations, pointing out the pointless futility, which was published on the ICJ website last Monday night. Myanmar's objections are being heard in a hybrid manner, with some participating physically in court and the rest online.
Gambia was represented in court yesterday by Justice and Attorney General Dauda Jalo and Solicitor General Hussein Thomasi. Among the lawyers are US Supreme Court lawyer Paul S. Reichler, University of London professor of international law Philip Sands, Brussels professor Pierre Deja, and New York's Aslam Suleiman.
Dawood Jalo said the Gambia had resorted to the court to stop the Rohingya genocide as a signatory to the genocide, not as a proxy.
Paul Reichler said Myanmar has done nothing to improve the situation in the last two years since the court issued the interim order. Citing a recent report by a UN special rapporteur, she said Myanmar's military has no value for Rohingya lives, especially for Rohingya women and children. Myanmar's initial appeal to the court is aimed at delaying the trial.
Another lawyer, Andrew Lewenstein, said Myanmar wanted to delete Gambia's name as a genocide candidate and write the OIC's name there, challenging the court's jurisdiction to hear the case. Describing Myanmar's initiative as "unprecedented", he said the Gambia government had taken a series of steps to address the issue, adding that Gambia, as a sovereign state, had taken legal action and sought the help of others.
Professor Philip Sands, in his concluding argument for Gambia, said that the appellant in this case was none other than Gambia, established in all respects. The Gambia does not represent anyone. Victims have no right to sue if they are not citizens of any country হলে even if Myanmar demands that a state wipe out an entire population on the basis of religion or ethnic identity, the rest of the world will have nothing to do.
Myanmar will respond to Gambia's remarks by presenting their arguments in the second round on Friday. Gambia will then make its remarks in the second round on 28 February.
In its interim order in 2020, the ICJ rejected Myanmar's objections to the court's jurisdiction in resolving disputes between Gambia and Myanmar in light of the genocide charter. The court also dismissed Myanmar's objection that Gambia had filed a lawsuit as a representative of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), saying that Gambia had sued in its own right and had the right to seek assistance from any other organization, including the OIC.
0 Comments