Discussion
Loading...
"... 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