Gambia has also accused Myanmar of continuing to commit genocidal acts and of violating its other obligations under the Convention by failing to prevent and punish genocide. Establishing that genocide has taken place under the Genocide Convention requires demonstrating both the commission of genocidal acts and genocidal intent – namely the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group in whole or in part. The Gambia’s initial filing primarily focused on the first three genocidal acts enumerated in the Convention perpetrated by the Myanmar military and other State actors with the intent to destroy the Rohingya in whole or in part: 1) killing members of the group, including through mass executions of men and boys, the deliberate targeting of children and infants, and the burning down of entire villages, often with women and children trapped inside their homes; 2) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group by committing sexual violence against Rohingya women and girls on a massive scale and subjecting men, women and children to torture and other forms of cruel treatment on the sole basis of their identity as Rohingya; and 3) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part by destroying or otherwise denying access to food, shelter and other essentials of life.xix The Gambia’s case against Myanmar marks the first time that a State without a direct connection to the alleged crime of genocide has brought a case before the ICJ under the Genocide Convention.xx In doing so, the Gambia has emphasised the importance of the legal concepts of erga omnes obligations (owed to the international community as a whole) and erga omnes partes obligations (owed by any State party to all the other States parties to a convention), both of which apply to the crime of genocide.xxi B. Latest developments in the ICJ case From 21-28 February, the ICJ held public hearings on Myanmar’s preliminary objections to the case, namely that the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case and that the Gambia’s Application to the Court is inadmissible. The preliminary objections were submitted by State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi on 20 January 2021 in her capacity as agent for Myanmar, shortly before the military coup.xxii Although the National Unity Government sought to withdraw the objections and represent Myanmar in the case, the Court instead proceeded to hear the preliminary objections with members of the military junta representing the State. Legal scholars have noted that in doing so, ‘the Court risks the accusation of acting inconsistently with the trend towards legitimacy as an operative principle of international law.’xxiii As the principle judicial organ of the UN, the Court’s move is out of step with other organs of the UN system, which have demanded a transfer of authority back to the legitimate elected government. In brief, Myanmar’s legal team made four main arguments during the hearings. Firstly, it argued that the Gambia was not bringing the case in its own right as a State, but rather as a proxy for the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. As only States (and not organisations) can bring a case, it sought to argue that the Application was inadmissible or that the Court lacked jurisdiction. Secondly, it argued that there was no link between the Gambia and the facts of the case, and that the Gambia needed to demonstrate individual legal interest in order to have standing (the right to bring an action) before the Court. Thirdly, it argued that Myanmar’s reservation to Article VIII of the Genocide Convention should be interpreted as referring to the International Court of Justice, and therefore the Gambia cannot validly seise (bring a legal matter before) the Court. Finally, it argued that there was no dispute between the Gambia and Myanmar at the time the Gambia instituted proceedings.xxiv In its provisional measures order, the ICJ determined that: ‘[A]ll the States parties to the Genocide Convention have a common interest to ensure that acts of genocide are prevented and that, if they occur, their authors do not enjoy impunity. That common interest implies that the obligations in question are owed by any State party to all the other States parties to the Convention… It follows that any State party to the Genocide Convention, and not only a specially affected State, may invoke the responsibility of another State party with a view to ascertaining the alleged failure to comply with its obligations erga omnes partes, and to bring that failure to an end.’xxv The Gambia urged the Court to uphold this preliminary finding in its written response to Myanmar’s preliminary objections. During oral proceedings Professor Philippe Sands for the Gambia argued that, 4